[SampleMan]

Strangely, I don't believe in the overt use of nullification, because it undermines an expectation of equal treatment. For example, a juror who hates women shouldn't be able to justifying the decision to nullify a case of assault based on a personal belief that wife beating shouldn't be illegal.

As a matter of ultimate civic protection against the state, a jury trial has inherent merits of nullification, which is easily done without a stated justifiation. A juror will be challenged by the other jurors if they are out of line on their reasoning; but the greater number of jurors acting to nullify, the less argument there is.

[Tenacious 1]

Strangely, I don't believe in the overt use of nullification, because it undermines an expectation of equal treatment. For example, a juror who hates women shouldn't be able to justifying the decision to nullify a case of assault based on a personal belief that wife beating shouldn't be illegal.

As a matter of ultimate civic protection against the state, a jury trial has inherent merits of nullification, which is easily done without a stated justifiation. A juror will be challenged by the other jurors if they are out of line on their reasoning; but the greater number of jurors acting to nullify, the less argument there is.

Great Post. The potential problem should fix itself with 12 jurors having to come to a unanimous verdict. Jury nullification should be a rare occurrence. But with some of our more aggressive and partisan prosecutors, we do see some miscarriage of justice happening, even if the cases don't finally even get to trial.