No, it doesn't. It's an anomaly of the jury system. It's like this only because mind-reading is impossible. And if mind-reading ever does become possible, juries will become obsolete anyway. Just because a court can't exercise control over something doesn't make it a "right."
The duty, as you say, comes from a higher law.
Precisely. The laws of the United States do not *allow* jury nullification, they are simply unable to prohibit it. That's a far cry from something worthy of being called a "right."
Prior to Independence, many people were charged with violating tax laws, brought before American juries, and acquitted by jurors who despised the tax codes. For this reason, King George sought to avoid having such cases tried by American juries.
The ability of jurors to act as a check against unjust and unpopular laws is a big part of the reason the Constitution explicitly guarantees a right to a jury of one's peers. As mere fact-finders, I don't think they're necessarily any better than judges. Indeed, in some types of cases amateur juries are really not very good at fact-finding.
Suppose, for example, a doctor is accused of negligence for failing to perform some particular test. One expert witness says this test was widely recognized as appropriate for people in the plaintiff's condition; another expert witness testifies that because the test would impose some discomfort and hardship to the patient (not to mention expense) it was generally only considered necessary in patients who show some particular symptom which the patient did not exhibit. Both experts may be able to cite medical journals supporting their position; a jury's decision would likely be affected more by the speaking abilities of the witnesses than the actual merits of the case.
We disagree on the meaning of the words.
Right:
# Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
# In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.
# Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.
Power:
# The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
# A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural: her powers of concentration.
# Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might.
One has the power to rape and murder. The government can bring charges against him for those acts. One has the right as a juror to nullyfy and the right as a citizen to own property. The government cannot bring charges against him for those acts.
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
SAMUEL CHASE (1804): The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.
The reason for having juries is to act a a hedge against the government's power.
How is something beyond the power of the full force of government different from an inalienable right?