Well said. But, the only problem I have with jury nullification is by whose standards does the jury decide whaen a law should not be followed. The criminal justice system is set up with different standards and burdens. Burden of proof on the State, standard being proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, there are no similar provisions for jury nullification. Let's say that the jury believes the war on marihuana is a waste of time, and as a group they decide not to convict a small time dealer for that reason. Okay, fine. It's a message to the legislature to look at the laws on the books and consider public opinion on the issue. But what happens when you get one juror who thinks that jury nulification means "I get to screw with the system"? Or maybe has some weird philosophical bent against the criminal justice system?
Typically, one juror would result in a hung jury at best. But think of the expenses involved in a hung jury. Not only to the state but also to the defense.
I believe that jury nullification should simply exist openly, with standards put in place that the jury must follow. Perhaps a majority vote on the laws at issue before addressing the issue of guilt or innocence...
