Watching This Video Disqualifies You From Jury Duty for Life

I'm aware of jury nullification (thank you cgp gray [1]) but afaik I don't think jury nullification can be equated to "doing nothing rather than doing the insane". Jury nullification have a lot of uncomfortable implications to the legal system and that's one of the reasons it's not shared to potential juries, but implicit asked. The systematic implication can be pararelled to politician's in the long run deciding nonvoters concern can be ignored. Jury nullification comparisons comes with a bit of a blind faith in the other juries (because in this situation you're not replaced, the resting juries just have more votes) are sane. That said I know you're not advocating for nonvoting as a viable long term strategy but just for this one occasion. I'm not faulting that and can understand it. Advocating for it to others is a bit more problematic and the point I'm contending on in a public forum, in case many agrees to that stance. [1] ▶ this video

A similar one that is also rarely attempted AFAIK is Jury Nullification [1] I've heard it suggested to be used to be disqualified for jury selection but have no idea how many people have actually tried to use it. i.e. that ones states to the lawyers during jury selection that they believe in the use of invoking it Here's [2] a video about it. [1] - link [2] - ▶ this video

I am not a lawyer but have an opinion on this question. Our laws are written in a way that in effect demand a trial by peers. Most laws have vague clauses, conditions that can permit a judge to determine a person to be any degree of innocent to guilty. Some call this wiggle-room. Judges can make mistakes and/or can be biased. People must be able to interpret the spirit of the law and the original intent. Adding to this there is the issue of stare decisis that can make laws lean in a particular direction that may not always apply to the situation they were originally formed from. People must be able to determine if case law is applicable. Even a trial by a jury of peers may not be good enough. A jury can still be a small mob of like minded individuals that would group-think in the same potentially biased manor as a judge. In this case the defendant must be able to appeal to higher courts and get different a different set of peers to review the case. As a fun side note even a jury has some potential caveats. Here [1] is one of them. I think it would be interesting to get opinions from judges and lawyers on jury nullification. [1] - ▶ this video [video]

CGP Grey has a video discussing jury nullification, for those interested in a further explanation of the subject: ▶ this video

Feels like a pretty unethical article on an 'ethical' website. They clearly have a bias on the issues of the cases which they didn't even need to mention. CGP Grey did a interesting video on this ▶ this video CGP Grey claim now you know the idea you might not be able to use it. There have been a few arrests of different people advocating for jury nullification (Which I think only applies if you talk to actual jury members, hence why the arrests happen outside of court houses) ie link

I'm sorry, but that's a rather inaccurate view as to the justification for jury nullification. It is not a thing that's directly provided for in the law, it's a confluence of two legal principles: juries can't be held liable for their decisions, and the prohibition against double jeopardy. There's also the problem that that when people are told about nullification, they consider evidence less than they otherwise would. In other words, i'd argue that there are some very good reasons for this setup, as inconsistent and illogical as it sounds. Great video that explains this: ▶ this video