The author notes that the OJ jury exercised the long-standing tradition of jury nullification, but neglects to investigate the reasons why the jury acquitted OJ. Apparently jury nullification is a good thing in theory, until somebody actually does it.
The OJ decision was made before the trial when the DA went out to the parking lot one day and assured some community racial leaders that the jury would not be of his peers but from the black areas.
By not filing in Santa Monica he got a setup jury with 2 whites on it.
So why did they, Ben? Was it because the defendant was black and the victims were white? And if so, do you agree with the verdict?
Intelligent juries nullifying bad laws and bad prosecutions are a critical part of a functioning republic. We needed them during the January 6th trials, for example. Well informed juries would be the fastest way to end our current epidemic of judicial tyranny.
But as Lee Kwan Yew pointed out long ago, in a multicultural society juries will simply vote for racial and religious solidarity, rather than any desire to do justice.