Nullification is working to get the law changed.  That’s a big reason why Prohibition fell: juries simply refused to convict.

It’s not a perfect system.  It’s just the best one we have.  Better a few guilty go free than millions be wrongly imprisoned.

Don’t like the law? Work to get it changed. That’s what ended Prohibition: people decided the cost of trying to enforce a stupid law outweighed its perceived benefit. Voila: a new amendment repealing the stupid one.

Can’t get the law changed but still cannot go along with the will of the people? Then act according to your conscience and be prepared to pay the consequences. Stand up for your principles.

Jury nullification is what we saw in the OJ Simpson trail. Did you really love that?

Jury nullification is what we saw throughout the early part of the century when southern juries refused to convict KKK members for lynching, castrating, or just plain killing Blacks. Worked out real well there, too, didn’t it?

Jury nullification is what we see when an inner city jury refuses to convict a young Black man for theft because, well, you know that store can afford it. Why again was it that commerce left the inner city?

There might indeed be a few cases in which jury nullification is the right thing to do. Most of the time, it pushes the legal system one more rung down the ladder of corruption.

The jackass who got booted off the jury should have been jailed for contempt, in my book. If his jury instructions are anything like the ones I’ve seen, he swore an oath in court to reach a verdict according to the law. Clearly, he was not actually prepared to do that. He was not asked to write the law the way he thought it should read.

John_B’s last blog post..Saudi Arabia and Energy Supply & Demand

Just because they’ve ruled on it doesn’t mean they were right.