If you you want to change the law, then do that through the legislative process. That is the underpinning of this Constitutional Republic we claim to so revere.
Your job as a juror is to determine the facts NOT, I REPEAT, NOT the law. You will get that instruiction from the bench. Any one who tells you otherwise either does not practice law, or should not practice law.
In judging the facts, however, that is your domain entirely. You judge the credibility of the witnesses in every aspect. You judge the credibility and reliability of any extrinsic evidence presented as well. You also get to determine if the state (in a criminal action) or the plaintiff (in a civil action) has met his or her burden of proof. Obviously, those burdens differ, and the court will instruct on the burden at issue.
In all honesty, if you take the position that certain "crimes" are illegitimate because you disagree with them, you should not sit on a jury. You should take the time to thoughtfully express your position to the Court, and then write your legislator, run for office, support a bill, or do whatever you think you must to move new legislation. Jury nullification is not the common man's method of payback for laws it does not like. Jury nullification undermines the very system we hold dear.
I would not say that jury nullification is NEVER proper, but I am hard-pressed to think of a circumstance where it is trully appropriate. Most "jury nullification" verdicts can and are based upon some factual determination, therefore, they ar not really jury nullification.
Jury nullification would be. A man and a woman are robbed, beaten, and the woman is raped and murdered in front of the husband. Husband learns identity of the killer, goes to his house, and kills the man that same week. In Court, the Husband admits his pre-meditaded killing, tells his story, and throws himself on the mercy of the Court. He admits the crime, yet a Jury decides to aquit based on the circumstance. That would be Jury nullification. It would be understandable, but it would not be proper for a country that wants to live by the rule of law.
By that standard, neither was the American Revolution.
Think harder.
One instance where it is practiced all the time is when the jury disagrees with the possible sentence.
Just curious, are you in the legal profession?
In the 1800's, it was a crime to assist a runaway slave, or to hinder efforts by his owner to recapture him. These laws were approved by Congress and state legislatures.
A majority of the people at the time had no problem with the laws
But a minority had a big problem with them. Growing numbers decided to refuse to convict people aiding runaway slaves, to the point where the economics of slavery were affected
If you were on a jury in 1940, would you vote to convict someone for the crime of smuggling German Jews into the US in violation of immigration laws?
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789
Guess you know more than they do.