I don't think it is accurate to define it as 'mob rule.' Generally, in mob rule, the mob decides who is guilty and punishes them arbitrarily. In jury nullification, the mob decides who is technically guilty but unjustly punished (because the law is bad, because the punishment is too severed, etc..)
I won't lie to a judge or to anyone in court. But I won't ever convict someone if the death penalty is on the line. I expect to be excused, but if not... That isn't 'mob rule.' That's a power granted to me as a juror by the system. Presidents and Congress have grasped far more power than that without explicitly (and sometimes without even implicitly) being granted that power.
Jury nullification is a jury acting on its own accord, without respect to the law.
Overruling unjust punishment is the archetype. The Northern jury nullifying Fugitive Slave Act convictions, for instance. The flip side of that coin is Southern juries nullifying lynching convictions. One can make a value judgement on that not being jury nullification, but it's the same mechanism.
The law grants this power to juries under the premise that they behave objectively. If jury nullification became commonplace, I would expect we'd see calls to join the rest of the world in abolishing popular juries. I think that would be a net loss.
While nullification has mostly been used for ill in the past, at least it's a grassroots democratic process. Why should someone be punished if their peers don't think it should be a crime? That's pretty small d democratic, much more so than elections where your vote barely counts.
Last I checked, juries aren't co-equal with Congress.
> Why should someone be punished if their peers don't think it should be a crime?
If cases become a matter of selecting your sampling bias, the legal system becomes unpredictable. That, in turn, subverts the rule of law--you no longer know if what you're doing is legal based on the law per se.
If jury nullification becomes commonplace, the jury system would need to be revised or thrown out. If you have trouble imagining this, imagine a group you are highly unsympathetic to, now put them in a zip code, now put them on a jury, now write the headlines they rulings would produce.
You can claim declaring laws unconstitutional is kind of an implied power, but it is certainly no where in the text.
Other thinkers have said that legalism is fake and there is really only contests between political factions with a legal gloss to pretend things are fair and objective. If you take that critique seriously, then the courts shouldn't have that power and congress should decide what is constitutional as they are actually elected and represent legitimate authority.
Philosophically, I like this argument. Practically, dear god.
The U.S. system was supposed to balance the stability of monarchy (executive) and aristocracy (judiciary) against the justness of democracy (legislative). Our executive is, by design and decidedly, not monarchic. That removes a "slow thinking" system, leaving the "fast thinking" executive and legislature. We see the results in our political volatility.
Given the last two hundred years, Marbury was right. We needed a dampener, so to speak. People not incentivized by poll numbers.
P.S. Thank you. This has been a fun discussion and distraction.
For example, a jury should feel free to simply dismiss charges brought under the espionage act.
I should also point out that nullification was unfortunately mostly used to acquit lynchers. I'm not sure why precisely that only that particular heinous act inspired enough solidarity to nullify the law as opposed to anything good, so historically nullification has been mostly a bad thing.
The short answer is jury nullification is an unavoidable thing. If matters get bad enough, it will kick in. (Though if things get that bad, they'll be eliminated.) That doesn't mean it should be encouraged.
The moment you let juries start deciding whether the law is just, versus deciding if a law was broken, you remove the veneer of objectivity that has kept our courts somewhat sacred. It also becomes problematic for lawyers to remove jurists for ridiculous political views, as it becomes a First Amendment issue. Currently, that isn't a problem--your political views don't matter. Only your objectivity does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang%E2%80%93bang_control with all of its flaws
Well, 90% of the world is doing just fine without the jury system. What is so great about it anyways?
It's the sole popular check on the judiciary, the unelected branch of government.
The “question” of jury nullification is a fundamental flaw of the jury system. Legalising it invites mob rule. Directly challenging it undermines the prerogative of a jury. So...we just don’t talk about it. If it were to be solved, it would involve the abolition of the jury system. Which nobody wants.