More on jury nullification

Here is more wisdom from King of Soup regarding the folly of jury nullification. I like the way this guy thinks.

Jury nullification may be a form of civil disobedience. But I think it's almost always the wrong one.

Consider: the purpose of civil disobedience is to remove in the public mind the justification for a law by showing that ordinary decent people will violate it, not for personal gain or satisfaction, but simply because it is an unjust law. As WhyNot pointed out, the only moral force it has comes from the willing acceptance of punishment for the transgression -- a reassurance that they believe in the rule of law, and a testament to the seriousness of their intent. It's about forcing abuse of authority into the open by making it apply, publicly, to "people like us," no matter which "us" is yours.

Jury nullification, on the other hand, is an expression of contempt not for any unjust law, but for the rule of law itself. The only thing broken is the faith that a jury can be trusted to find, without fear nor favor, according to the facts and the letter of the law. However much one deplores a particular law or loves a particular defendant or hates the way a prosecutor wears her hair, this faith is not the part of the system that needs to be undermined. In fact, it's the part that needs to be preserved, at all costs, if you care about a free society.

Here's a guy who broke the law in furtherance of his own personal satisfaction, if not profit. Jury nullification in his case would not be a repudiation of the law, just of the idea that we're all equal under it, and it would decrease the chances that the law will ever be changed. The pleading on his behalf is hypocritical and shameful.