On November 15th David Veksler opined against Jury Nulification on his page decievingly titled as The Case For Jury Nulification. Emphasis mine.

It is a subject I am generally in favor of but do find the intricate pro and con points to be debatable so I have a hard time nailing down a firm belief. So I posted a response on his page but after a few days passing he doesn’t seem to have allowed my response although one concise reply has been allowed through.

Rather than let my note fall through the cracks I will just save it here for reference:

“What should a juror do if he objects to the morality of a law? He should refuse to serve if he believes that the principles of a law are inherently unjust. ”

Just walk away from a law that is unjust so another person is likely to be punished for a non-crime? That would seem to be neglecting your fellow man. By not participating you are passively allowing injustice on a person.

Fortunately it seems history shows us many examples where people did not follow your idea.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Your solution is that a person go spend countless hours and resources trying to undo the law that is in question. It may or may not be fruitful, and while it is a worthy endeavor the resources used could probably serve a better purpose. My chances of making an effective change to any number vague laws is very low but if I am requested to be on a jury then I have a high probability of at least negating the instance I am personally cast into.

If there is no reason to have a handful of normal people involved in the process then why have a jury at all? Their purpose is not to rubber stamp a set of facts. Was she a fugitive slave? YES – then back into slavery she goes, after all the law says so.

Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor, (I might wager that he is knowledgeable in legal matters) disagrees with you. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0

With all of that I will say that if a federal prosecutor/law professor [though not alone] disagrees with other members of the bar then we do not see consistency in the system.
Let’s just say “The jury is still out” 🙂