[sickoflibs]

RE :”We need to be careful. Nullification of a law does not necessarily mean that a law if wrong or bad. It can simply imply, when an innocent verdict is reached, that the law shouldn’t apply given to the accused.
For instance, if a person were ticketed for running a red light in order to get out of the way of an ambulance, they would indeed be guilty of violating the traffic law. But the law should not apply if the motorist was also yielding to an emergency vehicle by law. There are more examples of this than you might think.”

Thats a personal moral distinction.

Another one for some would be that blacks are arrested for attacking whites at 10 times the rate of the opposite, so obviously the law is racist and unfair.

[Tenacious 1]

Thats a personal moral distinction.

THAT is EXACTLY correct, and is why the framers included it. It is precisely why one is to be tried by a jury of his peers. It was designed so that the citizens could judge their own regarding the criminality of an individual's actions or behavior.

Without a doubt it is a double edged sword, as is historically evident in the south during the 40s and 50s. Our nation was founded on the notion that the consenting governed would maintain the moral foundation and basis of our rule of law.

If not for jury nullification, what need do we have a juries at all. Judges and prosecutors routinely tell juries that we are not judging on whether or not the accused actions were right or wrong, but rather whether or not they "broke this law". And that is wrong.

[Tenacious 1]

Another one for some would be that blacks are arrested for attacking whites at 10 times the rate of the opposite, so obviously the law is racist and unfair.

I missed your point with this comparison. We are talking about verdicts delivered for any individual trial and the justification for jury nullification based on the misuse, misapplied, or bad law as applied by the state.

I am guessing you are trying to introduce the OJ Simpson verdict (or a bad verdict all together based on social justice influence). A jury is presented with some diabolical social injustice as a reason for doubt and therefore a moral verdict is erroneously reached?