However, this is observed by those opposing the concept, as making certain crimes in the society acceptable, since the perpetrators of such crimes can go unpunished by the laws. Further, the concept of jury nullification appears to contravene the provisions of the law, regarding the roles and jurisdiction of the jurors. Jurors are supposed to identify and determine the facts surrounding a certain case, while determining the case based on such facts, and leaving the interpretation of the laws to the judges.
However, under the concept of jury nullification, jurors perform both the roles of investigating the facts surrounding the case and determining whether the laws applicable to the case are valid. This is because, under the concept of jury nullification, the jurors can disregard the instructions given by the judges, as well as the laws applicable to the case, and instead apply their conscious to determine the case (Shari, 4). Nevertheless, in consideration of the benefits and the problems posed by the concept of jury nullification in the justice system, this discussion seeks to develop a comprehensive argument in favor of the concept of jury nullification.
Most fundamental is the fact that Jury Nullification serves as a substantial and necessary defense against discriminative laws. The Jury system is enshrined within the concept of the public justice system. This works towards ensuring that the judgments offered by the jurors resonate with the public opinion, more than the laws. While the laws adapted by many countries are meant to ensure that justice is done to the aggrieved parties, there are some instances where the legislators enacts certain laws in total disregard of the public opinion or interest, but solely fashioning such laws to suit their interests (Keneally, 944).