> When the deck is completely stacked against you, going outside the rules is not "illegal".
Yes it is. Things are "illegal" when they're in the law book, regardless of which law they're breaking and what they're standing up for.
Yes it is. Things are "illegal" when they're in the law book, regardless of which law they're breaking and what they're standing up for.
That's why we have juries of peers, and the ability of a jury to say "this person did the thing, but they shouldn't be punished for it".
Rather it only does it when someone makes the decision that to do so is convenient for maintaining the integrity of the Judicial system; thereby creating the facade that the entire thing isn't rife with capricious singularities like it actually is.
When laws are impossible to consistently enforce (as evidenced by prosecutorial discretion), or juries are not on board with seeing them enforced, it should be a much more blatant signal something is up or off than it is.
In fact, is there even a record of cases of "refused prosecutions"? If not, maybe there should be. Then there's be an objective metric to analyze to see if a law is being abused selectively.
All jury nullification is is a jury finding someone not guilty despite the fact that they think they did actually commit all the elements of the offense. It doesn't prevent the law from being applied in future trials, even in identical situations (nor do other jury verdicts). It's not even typically known whether or not the jury found not guilty because of nullification or because they didn't find the prosecutions case convincing.
Probably oughtta get the Kazakhstani Disney police right on it.