Jury nullification, part five

I thought I'd be done quoting this guy, but I was wrong. He's very articulate in what he says and very precise in the way he argues.

The power and the glory of the jury system is not license to ignore the facts and the law, it's the power and responsibility to see that both the state and defendants adhere to them as well. Rejecting unjust laws is an important responsibility, but it belongs to all of us, and it has to be done correctly: it's not a job within the scope of a jury, and the jury can't attempt it without rejecting everything they are supposed to accomplish. If nullification were to become widespread, we'd have a race to see which, anarchy or tyranny or bloodletting, we'd get to first.

It's not a matter of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's about accepting the imperfect to avoid the horrible extremes. If you feel a law is unjust, go protest it. Hell, go break it. And tell everybody you're willing to accept the consequences because your cause is right, and watch a movement grow. But don't destroy the jury system (which usually serves us well even if sometimes the cool people have to go to jail) because you'd rather take loud credit for personally setting one person free than anonymously do your part to preserve the oldest and most important democratic institution there is.