Jury nullification, part four

Okay, I just have to keep quoting this guy. The arguments he makes against jury nullification are excellent.

An act of civil disobedience against an unjust law involves (a) intentionally breaking the unjust law, preferably in such a way as to make it clear that one derives no personal benefit from it; and (b) accepting punishment, so everyone knows that the lawbreakers are not opposed to the idea of civil society bound by rules and governed by Constitutional institutions, but are merely addressing by the strongest nonviolent means the aberration of a single unjust law.

Jury nullification necessarily revolves around individual cases, making personalities rather than law the issue, and it is always an act aimed not against any unjust law but against the judiciary itself, attacking and undermining the whole idea of jury trials, proving that individual citizens can't be trusted to dispassionately evaluate facts and law in judgment of their peers. Jury nullification can't prove that a law is bad, it can only prove that trial by jury is bad -- because if you can't trust people to understand facts and abide by the law, the rest is just politics and prejudice.

Jury nullification can save individual defendants (usually, I think, to society's detriment), but it can't kill any law or institution except for trial by jury itself. Trial by jury has been the cornerstone of freedom for almost a thousand years. It should not be jeopardized because a really nice guy decided getting high was more important than the stupid drug laws.

Malthus has posited a hypothetical in which an unpopular, archaic and rarely-enforced law is used by a corrupt government to target an otherwise blameless individual. S/he (probably he, I guess, huh?) agrees that such a hypothetical has nothing to do with the case we're discussing (which is refreshing), but suggests that it is an appropriate situation for jury nullification.

I don't know (I'll pause while archivists bookmark those three words). But I still lean toward the idea that a society which permits trial by jury is better for it, and that the only way to maintain the system is for juries to be honest and uphold their end of the bargain to hear the evidence and apply the law to the case before them. Any other course would only hasten such a corrupt society's slide down the slope toward authoritarianism.