There is no reason to believe, however, that giving juries the authority to ignore the law will achieve more just results. To the contrary, as history has shown, it will accomplish quite the opposite.
She also makes a good point about the courts becoming wildly unpredictable and unjust if nullification becomes common (which is a situation that presently exists). She can learn the facts, if she wants to, but good reasoning skills can be harder to come by. She has within her the capacity to become a first-rate attorney, if she wants to. That last part remains to be seen.
She also makes a good point about the courts becoming wildly unpredictable and unjust if nullification becomes common (which is a situation that presently exists).
As late as the 1950s the Supreme Court wrote that a jury has both the right and the obligation to adjudge both the offense and the law itself; this is the third box which acts as a check on out of control governments (soap box, voting box, jury box, cartridge box).
As I recall, Prohibition (the 18th amendment) was repealed in part because prosecutors decided that prosecuting the suppliers of alcohol was ineffective, so they went after the demand by arresting people who drank alcohol; and juries then refused to convict them.
The only reason that more people are not acquitted of drug offenses is that judges now excuse from jury pools anyone who even knows what “jury nullification” means (which violates the right to a jury of your peers).