[hax0ron3]

>if a law is unjust, it should be removed

Yeah but by the time a person is actually on trial, trying to change the law that they are facing is probably too late, isn't it? And the system is slow and is dominated by the rich and powerful subset of society, so trying to change the law may not work anyway.

>If you allow juries to decide to give “innocent” verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce something.

To some extent, this will happen one way or another. If I was on a jury, I would not vote to convict someone for breaking a law that I dislike. And a jury is already random in the sense that it's a somewhat random selection of 12 people who may have wildly different levels of intelligence, concern about the law, emotional states, and so on. To some extent, a jury decides randomly in every single trial whether they want to enforce something. The way I see it, informing people about jury nullification just helps to potentially win back some power for what myself and those I care about.

[3a2d29]

> a jury decides randomly in every single trial whether they want to enforce something.

Isn't that jury nullification? That's the exact thing I am saying, shouldn't happen.