Opinion of Jury Nullification

[Bacon King]

I support it but I'm totally fine with the common practice of judges usually not allowing juries to be informed of this right. In general terms the legislative branch makes laws and the judicial branch just interprets them; nullification should be reserved for situations that are inherently unjust/immoral. If judges were to routinely inform juries they can selectively interpret laws then it'd just cause greater discrimination in sentencing than even what already exists

[Bacon King]

Was the OJ murder case jury guilty of jury nullification?

no because there was legitimate reasonable doubt of his guilt. If I was on his jury I probably would have vote not guilty, given what I am aware of

[Bacon King]

Badger: I would argue that a more nuanced view is appropriate.

Nullifiers should obviously be weeded out during voir dire and juries certainly shouldn't be made aware it in court but I don't think it's really possible to prohibit entirely without unconstitutionally interfering with jury proceedings

I like the take on it in US v Moylan:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that "To Kill A Mockingbird" style racist verdicts have less to do with jury nullification and more to do with a systematically biased jury selection that excluded minorities. On the other hand, jury nullification established the freedom of the press in the colonies, prevented the conviction of Northerners violating the Fugitive Slave Act, protected Vietnam War protestors, and other stuff like that.

I think in certain limited circumstances jury nullification should be tolerated because ultimately if the existing law and its enforcement conflicts so strongly with basic morality that twelve random peers of the accused unanimously agree to disregard the law after taking an oath to uphold it then that probably means the law is better off not being enforced in that instance.