[supercat]

Look around this thread and you'll find plenty of authority explicitly refuting this.

Certainly the perception of jury nullification went downhill after the establishment of the Constitution, and especially after the Civil War. Opposition of laws imposed by an overseas monarch was seen rather more favorably than opposition of laws passed locally. At the time the Constitution was ratified, however, the ability of juries to act as a check on government was viewed as a good thing.

To be sure, jury nullification has some severe problems:

1. It can undermine laws which are in fact necessary to promote justice.
2. It introduces a substantial element of randomness into the criminal justice system, when consistency is generally necessary for good justice.

It is much better to stop bad legislation via the ballot box than the jury box, but even the jury box is better than the one remaining alternative.

[null and void]

It introduces a substantial element of randomness into the criminal justice system, when consistency is generally necessary for good justice.

That's a laugh.

No one's life liberty or property are safe as long as court is in session.

[Gordongekko909]

It is much better to stop bad legislation via the ballot box than the jury box, but even the jury box is better than the one remaining alternative.

If a jury finds a law unjust and wishes to acquit anyone charged under it, there is really no way to stop them as long as they don't tell anyone what they're doing. But a judge declaring a law void is a pretty serious matter already, and explicitly throwing this power into the nigh-uncheckable province of the jury is just asking for trouble.

And putting additional checks on juries to counter the above problem is asking for even more trouble.