Nullification is no more inherently righteous than a butcher knife.
It puts power directly into the hands of the typical American citizen, which is why our legal system is terrified of it. You don't have to be rich or well-connected to sit on a jury. It also effectively limits what can be done using that power to what a "random" (and presumably representative) selection of the community agrees to. That's what a "jury of your peers" was supposed to be all about.
I'd say that nullification makes it possible for people to truly govern themselves and that makes it an inherently righteous system.
It's the righteousness of the people who make up a community that is questionable, but even imperfect people deserve democracy and the right to self-govern.
A more recent one is the OJ trial.
But those are perfect examples of bad jurors.
It's up to you and your peers to be good jurors.
What system do you suggest?
And that's fine. It's certainly better than letting anyone legally pressure jurors. Democracy and freedom are all about compromise. I'm just saying, it's not corruption for judges to prefer jurors who don't ignore the law.
