It allows for a scenario where lawyers and/or the judge can instruct the jury to exclusively consider the statutes in question as read and interpreted by the court, facts deemed relevant as determined by the court, and decide only if the facts presented appear to have violated the statutes presented.
This isn't a way that law should work and there's absolutely no reason to have a jury in the first place if it is going to be so mechanistic.
A jury is there to judge the actions of one of their peers. Lawyers are there to present the facts and the arguments for why a person should be considered guilty or innocent. A judge is there to make sure the proper procedure is followed and the trial is fair. That's it.
Jurors aren't bound to listen to only what lawyers tell them to listen to. Jurors are asked to decide whether or not to punish the person in question for the crime they're charged with.
Of course lawyers will try to screen for this view though. They want a predictable jury that will listen to every instruction given to them without question. When juries think critically and decide for themselves a lawyer can't predict which way the trial will go and a carefully constructed series of facts and yes/no questions during testimony may be wasted. Lawyers want a script and assured convictions when they can't get deals before trial, that's the whole game.
> judge can instruct the jury to exclusively consider the statutes in question as read and interpreted by the court, facts deemed relevant as determined by the court, and decide only if the facts presented appear to have violated the statutes presented.
> This isn't a way that law should work and there's absolutely no reason to have a jury in the first place if it is going to be so mechanistic.
> A jury is there to judge the actions of one of their peers. Lawyers are there to present the facts and the arguments for why a person should be considered guilty or innocent.
This isn't how it's supposed to work. Juries are not supposed to "decide if the facts appear to have violated the law". Lawyers are not supposed to "present the facts".
The textbook explanation of how the system is supposed to work is: juries are supposed to decide the facts after considering the evidence presented (either written or live testimony by witnesses), and then, given the facts they have determined, apply the law as instructed by judge (and argued by lawyers), decide the result of the case.
In short, facts are supposed to be decided by juries, and law is interpreted by the judge after hearing legal arguments from the lawyers. I think you kind of got it backwards.
Perhaps what actually happens in courts deviate from the textbook norm (since I don't know where you got your information from), but it's not supposed to happen that way.
I do think juries have a role in using nullification judiciously but it's also important to remember the most prominent and wide spread use of jury nullification in history was during the Jim Crow era when juries routinely refused to convict or charge (in the case of grand juries) lynching cases.
IMO the use of jury nullification really shouldn't depend at all on how it was used in the past though. Plenty of things have been used for terrible causes in the past, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
The history of this is fascinating though as it goes right back to the founding of the US and why our legal system is designed the way that it is. I know one of the founders wrote extensively on this I want to say it was John Adams but then I'm sure Hamilton did as well since the dude never stopped writing.
That is fascinating to me and the opposite of my previous understanding! Do you have any links or experience to provide? Many thanks! :)