Replies

One thing for sure, the prisons would be emptied out.

Theoretically this is true. But nullification has not really been abused over the centuries so maybe juries know when a law is agregious or the prosecutor is out to get someone for personal reasons and when the law should be applied as is. Prohibition and slavery were examples of that. I think most people will try to be fair in juries and are honest when asked questions about a case during selection. After all, legislatures pass laws all the time that they know are unconstitutional (like 99.99% of all federal laws) so we need something to fight back with.

Theoretically this is true. But nullification has not really been abused over the centuries so maybe juries know when a law is agregious or the prosecutor is out to get someone for personal reasons and when the law should be applied as is. Prohibition and slavery were examples of that. I think most people will try to be fair in juries and are honest when asked questions about a case during selection. After all, legislatures pass laws all the time that they know are unconstitutional (like 99.99% of all federal laws) so we need something to fight back with.

Nullifications haven't been a problem except in the South for about 60 years after the Civil War. But if some on this thread get their way, juries would be instructed that they could disregard the law for a variety of reasons and the judge would be only a referee. One juror could effectively prevent a conviction. If something less than 100% were permitted to convict, then I would agree. But I would still fire the man!