[HamiltonJay]

Jury Nullification is serious business, its not meant as "sticking it to the man"... A juror/jury always has the right to NOT convict, regardless of the letter of the law, if they believe the person should not be prosecuted.

The types of things you are mentioning are hardly things that I would consider for Jury Nullification. We may not like taxes but they are part of life....

Personally Jury Nullification I view should be used in cases where a parent kills the person who sexually assaulted their child. They committed murder without question, but no way I would convict a parent for doing what any parent would do.

Finally Jury Nullification is not likely unless you have a highly morally contentious prosecution. The entire Jury must vote not guilty (generally) if only 1 or 2 people vote not guilty, you end up with a hung jury and a new trial is scheduled. This is sort of the check and balance of the Jury Nullification... for it to happen the prosecution must be so morally repugnant that 12 citizens ALL decide, while the defendant may be completely guilty under the letter of the law, they will not convict them.

So, the notion that one lone person is going to "stick it to the man" is pretty much fantasy.

[AppyPappy]

They committed murder without question, but no way I would convict a parent for doing what any parent would do.

It depends on the charge. The parent could have felt threatened by the perp and the perp had proven himself a threat.

[Protagoras]

A juror/jury always has the right to NOT convict, regardless of the letter of the law, if they believe the person should not be prosecuted.

Everything you said after that was extraneous.