OK, it seems jury nullification usually refers to acquittal for a defendant charged with a crime the jury believes should not be a crime.
It’s an extension of the term, but I fail to see how this differs in principle from a jury convicting a person when they think the law should have made what he did criminal.
It’s an extension of the term, but I fail to see how this differs in principle from a jury convicting a person when they think the law should have made what he did criminal.
Reasonable question on it's surface, so let's look at nullification in each case.
In the first (a crime the jury believes should not be a crime), the jury believes that the government has perpetrated a tyranny by fiat, and the action is against the government (legislature, unjust law; executive, malicious prosecution, corrupt police investigation; judicial, biased judge) and the jury overrules any or all government entities.
In the second (a jury convicting a person when they think the law should have made what he did criminal), how does the jury get the defendant into court in the first place when a prosecutor will not charge 'em because the state holds they have not violated the law?
Juries, even Grand Juries cannot charge anyone without a prosecutor asking for a charge, so a jury cannot "nullify" a failure to prosecute.
Likewise if a prosecutor charges a serial murdering defendant with over parking because he cannot prove serial murder, the jury cannot return a verdict such as: "On the charge of over parking, we the jury find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree."
The jury only has the power to nullify the government, it may not "nullify" a law (ex post facto or not) or a charge into existence.
That is the job of the mob.