Thanks for the link. I haven't read it all because I'm supposed to be working,but it mentions whether juries should be instructed that they have the powr to nullify as a ontroversy. Do they need to be told that they have this power before they can exercise it? I'm reminded of Stanley Milgram(p?)'s experimets; we tend to reflexively defer to authority and confine ourselves to the boxes to which authorities suggest that we confine ourselves.

I think that, in general, people favor strict adherence to law when it suits their ethics but favor appealing to ethics over law when they consider the law unethical. It is a double-edged sword. The wikipedia entry poins out that jury nullification could result in someone being acquitted because the victim is part of an unpopular minority. But I don't hink that the jury, in this case, ws making a conscious decision that uphlding the law as it is written is more important than doing what is ethical. Instead, they seemed to be acting as though they had no choice simply because an authority figure told them that they had no choice. People find it easiest to tell people that they have no choice but to obey, but we have to remember that our choices are not confined by what other people say they are.