Thank you, but I think we are in the minority, not only on this board but in general. Most have decided they do not need to make the effort to be impartial and open-minded, as sworn to do. They lie under oath and bring their agenda into the courtroom. I recently served with some jurors like this.
In addition, there are always going to be laws we don't like. Tough. The idea we can live peacefully without laws is called anarchy. No thanks.
Much of what is called "jury nullification" is not anarchy, but is actually represents a jury's successful quashing of governmental lawlessness. If twelve people on a jury would agree that it would be unreasonable to sentence to twenty years in prison a particular person who watered his flowers on an odd-numbered day, those jurors have a duty under the Constitution not to allow the government to impose such a punishment. If legislators passed a statutory 20-year minimum prison term for that crime, the jurors would have an obligation to acquit.
Note that a jury shouldn't acquit merely because he 'dislikes' a law, or even that the sentence resulting from conviction would be harsher than he would favor, but if a jury believes that the sentence resulting from a conviction would be grossly unreasonable, it has a right and duty to prevent it.