OTOH, I definitely think the punishment should be harsh for judges who willfully flout the law, as interpreted by higher courts. If a judge really thinks the higher court is out to lunch, he can recuse himself, as Florida judge Sanders Saul did in Bush v. Gore when the FL Supremes went batty. Or they can issue judgments that beg for reversal, a la “Anyone with his head screwed on straight would find for the plaintiff, but I’m just a lowly trial court judge, bound by precedent to apply the moronic precedent of Smith v. Jones, which really, really, really ought to be overruled if the issue ever reaches the appellate level again, hint hint. So I’m finding for the defendant, even though there’s no good reason why I should have to, dammit.”

Or they can go the route of the Ninth Circuit, which is to take a dumb, existing precedent, and make it even dumber. Some argue that this makes them the most reversed circuit in the country, but others argue that they are the ones reversing the Supremes.

Now the problem I have with some sort of punishment for jury nullification is that it’d tend to have a chilling effect. Say the courts had consistently ruled there is no individual right to arms under the 2nd aendment & some guy is on trial for violating a hypothetical possession law (like another AWB that would cover possession). The jury feels the law is clearly unconstitutional but they also fear the penalty for acquitting the guy. Odds are they wouldn’t stick their neck out if the penalty was too harsh, & with .gov eventually the penalty would be too harsh.

& the judge thing – I understand the desire for uniformity in law, but a 9th ciruit judge is bound to follow precedent that says there’s no individual right to arms. Suffering a penalty for trying to enforce the constitution is not a cool thing (though sometimes unavoidable). Not that I have a better solution, I just don’t think that applying the same standard to jurors as applies to judges is a good idea, as I’m not thrilled with those standards applying to judges int he first place (at least concerning constitutional questions).

Now nullifying laws based simply on like or dislike – I’m not crazy about that concept either. & I dislike most laws so my position would be enhanced if that were the case. But perhaps it’s better to risk the problems of that than to keep building & building upon flawed precedent?

On to your question: I’m not nearly as bothered by the idea of juries nullifying over alleged constitutional violations as I am over the idea of them nullifying laws just because they don’t like them. However, I do think that to the extent we allow juries to “play judge” and rule on the law, we ought to hold them to the same standards as we hold judges when they act in this capacity. If a judge rules to acquit as a matter of law, as in jnov, his ruling can be reviewed on appeal. If he knowingly rules contrary to binding precedent, he can be disciplined for misconduct. I see no reason why juries, if entrusted with the same powers, should not be held to the same standards.