Originally Posted by G19G20
In fact, there's an entire legal principle surrounding this question that has been seeing a resurgence, to the chagrin of the justice industry. It's called jury nullification. Jurors have the legal right to decide not only whether a law was broken but whether the law itself should exist.
You are truly a disengenuous weasle in my opinion.
You can't even be honest about what you cite. I knew you were wrong and figure maybe you misread a complicated citation, but actually, there it was, the very second paragraph in your cited source. i guess the dope gives you a short attention span.
Tell you what, I'll higlight the parts you missed to give you a little help.
"A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment
To spell it out for you, it isn't intended to allow 12 randomly selected individuals to decide whether or not a particular law is Constitutional or not. It is intended to protect a defendent in a case where the law is misapplied or doesn't fit the circumstances of the case before it. Now if it happens repeatedly it may affect the standing of the law. I know of no examples of this.
Given that there are people who will agree with the law on a jury and it akes a unanamous jury to conclude nullification, it is not some "undiscovered panacea for legalization" that you pretend it is.