Replies

Similarly, sending a jury into deliberations without all the tools they should have at their disposal inhibits their ability to do their job as effectively as they otherwise might.

Indeed.

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

I think if prosecutors and judges were intellectually honest, and truly wanted justice they would have no problem with jury nullification.

IMHO, a guilty verdict rendered by a jury who knowingly had the option of nullifying the case would carry much more moral and philosophical weight. Not only does it mean the prosecutor proved all of the elements of the crime, but the jury of the defendent's peers also gave tacit endorsement to the prosecutor's election to try the case.