A Stitch in Haste

I remain befuddled over the libertarian obsession with jury nullification. If we're not supposed to like concentrating power in a few people, then why are we supposed to like concentrating it in a single lay juror?

Stated differently, a holdout juror is just as likely to obstruct justice as to preserve it (WSJ - $) --

A lone holdout on the jury stood between Merck & Co. and what would have been a crucial second Vioxx-trial victory when the U.S. federal judge overseeing the case abruptly ruled it a mistrial, jurors said.
...
According to one juror, the holdout wasn't swayed by the majority's argument. "Basically the sticking point was the marketing" of Vioxx, this juror said. "There was just folding of the arms and rolling of the eyes and not listening," and saying that "the marketing was inappropriate and that kind of thing," the juror added.

Some of my previous COX-2 posts are here and here and here. My point in this post is merely to highlight that, in my opinion, there is no robust moral distinction between declaring, "I refuse to convict this defendant because I and I alone believe the law to be unjust..." and "I refuse to deny this plaintiff damages because I and I alone believe the law to be unjust..."

I don't think it matters that one involves criminal law and the other involves civil law. I don't think it matters that one involves disregarding the law to help a sympathetic defendant while the other involves disregarding the law to help a sympathetic plaintiff.

The forum for fighting unjust laws is in legislatures and in judges' chambers, not jury rooms.

I see no reason for preferring being at the mercy of a renegade juror than a renegade politician or judge.