A reader writes:
Since we are on the topic of Cannabis and the fact that our system is highly out of whack with regard to the application of justice here, one of your respondents troubled me: the person that wrote about how they felt it was absurd that they had to convict someone for something almost everyone in the room was guilty of. The absurd part is that they felt that they had to convict.
I think it is a travesty that we don't teach people about one of the primary purposes of a jury system. American democracy is protected by three boxes, the ballot, the jury and the ammo box, in that order. Jury nullification is ALWAYS an option. If you find it absurd to convict someone on the basis that you think the law is unjust or incorrect, it's not just your right, but your duty, to acquit.
Maybe some jury nullifications are a way to pick apart these stupid laws.