Some people applaud this as a way to stand up for what they consider to be right. Personally, I think it's misguided.
For one thing, jurors often don't have the background or training necessary to understand why certain laws are in place. Now, I'm not saying that there are no dumb laws out there. There certainly are. However, it's all to easy for a juror to dismiss a law as being dumb without understanding its rationale.
Additionally, I'm also concerned that jurors will effectively nullify a law, not because it's unjust, but because of emotional appeals or self-interest. Again, consider the anti-drug laws. One could "protest" these laws through jury nullification out of some principled argument. However, I'd wager that such protests typically occur due to sheer distaste toward the laws rather than out of principled objections.
Finally, is this really an effective way to protest? I think not; quite the contrary; it undermines the entire legal system. I like the way a fella by the name of "King of Soup" put it on one discussion board. In a thread on a marijuana possession case, he said,
Actually, I was thinking of this case as an almost perfect argument against jury nullification, especially if you think the law is unjust. People will not act to change unwise or unjust laws that are enforced only or mostly against others whom they don't know. Letting all the "right kind" of people off the hook doesn't make for a just outcome, it makes everything worse, because now you're applying the same bad law selectively, piling discrimination on top of everything else.
I'll say more about that later.
