Indeed. We wouldn’t want a society in which people relied on objective facts to plan their behavior.
It is a much better system when people make up the rules as they go.
I think I get your objection now, but it doesn't apply. Jury nullification is absolutely based on the facts, and is not supposed to be arbitrary, nor is the power supposed to be leveraged lightly capriciously. It is supposed to be an act of conscience or protest.
This false distinction didn't always exist. For centuries, juries were considered to be able to decide based on the law and facts of the case. Everything was presented to the jury, thus the jury could decide on the whole of the case with all of the facts, including being able to decide whether the current case is a misapplication of the law, or the application of a bad law.
Then judges started discussing evidence exclusion in chambers, away from the jury. That was reasonable, you don't want to prejudice the jury with evidence that couldn't legally be used against the defendant. That's equivalent to jury tampering by the prosecution. Then the chamber and bench discussions grew to encompass almost everything. Now juries only see and hear exactly what the judge wants them to. The judges literally took away a power of the people and gave it to themselves for their exclusive exercise.
>>Indeed. We wouldn’t want a society in which people relied on objective facts to plan their behavior.
It is a much better system when people make up the rules as they go.<<
If that is what you got out of my posts, you are missing my point. One must not only weigh objective facts, but also determine which are of more importance than others. And each of us has the right (and responsibility) to make that determination for ourselves, when on a jury.