The judge had a legal obligation to explain to that jury that if it was proven the defendants did what they were accused of, then they MUST convict. The idea that a jury is allowed to declare someone”not guilty”, when the burden of proof is met, is ridiculous. Otherwise, we have no protection that proven criminals can be set free, arbitrarily, by a jury, who due to politics want them to go free. (I know. It happens more than we’d like, but that doesn’t make it right).
I disagree. Requiring a jury to convict someone is ridiculous.
Jury nullification is a valid method by which citizens can protest unjust laws. Under the law, the jury is "allowed" to do whatever their conscience tells them to do, even if you and I don't like it.
To have it any other way would pervert our justice system. Our legal system is intentionally biased in favor of the defendant, not the prosecution.
Whether we think these particular people are guilty or not is irrelevant. Having to live with occasional instances where the guilty are not punished as much as I would like them to be is a small price to pay to protect individual rights.
I would not want to live in a country where the justice system was biased in favor of the government/prosecutors.