It seems that juries very often do not care about facts or the truth or that state has done it's job sufficiently. They just want to either punish the person or let them go... Which for me destroys any trust in whole system. And makes anyone who says that it works or is a good thing just lying probably with agenda.
I don't know if you've been on a jury or closely related to a case, but you'd be right to have no faith in the system as is.
Jury nullification (what I originally argued for) can't fix the system but it sure as hell can throw a wrench in the works. The process of a case going to trial can be a nightmare, but ultimately if juries exercise their right and regularly decide a case by what they think should actually be punished in the first place we might just see less resources spent on BS charges that are arguably pushed through just to get the prosecutor a promotion.
On the one hand, courts of law mean justice will (read: should) be served out equally and fairly.
On the other hand, jurors having the final say on how laws are enforced means the people always have the final say as one of several lines of defence against government tyranny.
Law isn't the basis of morality. In the end juries exist exactly for that reason. People should be punished if society at large deems them deserving, not if they broke a law.
