in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

"can you quote a source for your definition of crime or is this: "crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property" just your belifes?" It's a belief with a bit of factual backup, but I did say "I believe". I believe if you have a law that is wrong, then to force the people to it is unjust, and (ironically) unlawful. The definition from Princeton (and the one I usually go with) is "an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act". That is the definition I use. "since the jury do make the decision and not the judge jury nullification is a useless act" If you took jury nullification away from the jury, then you would be taking away their right to truly have the final verdict. If they are not allowed to go against the ruling on something that they find morally wrong or unacceptable, then what is the real point of having a jury? They still have the final verdict, but they are bound by the same problem the judge is bound by. Like I said earlier in the debate, a judge may know a law to be wrong, but he still has to bend to what that law says. The jury is the way out of this and if you take that away, then you are taking away any possible escape from an unjust law. Therefor, it is not a useless act, because it allows the jury, the defendant, and the judge a possible loophole, so to say, out of a wrong law. "the resolution nor any of the sites that I have checked state any limit to how jury nullification can be used." There really is no stated limit, but there is the definition of what is considered to be jury nullification, which is, a decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. So, it isn't going to be considered to be jury nullification if the jury went against the judge's ruling on a murder case because, it wasn't that they disagreed with the law, they disagreed with the ruling. The judge may say that we have fact A, fact B, and fact C proving that Miss Valerie murdered her husband. Perhaps fact A is the motive or something, and the jury doesn't believe it to be a very good motive. Perhaps fact B is that her fingerprints were on the gun that killed Mr. John, but the jury believes that they are just from when she picked the gun up after finding it next to the body. And say that fact C is that Miss Valerie says she was in the shower when it happened, but their wasn't any water on the floor around the body, and the jury finds this to be irrelevant since the shower is far from where the body was, and the carpeting would have soaked it up. They aren't disagreeing on the fact that murder is wrong, they just don't believe she committed an act of murder. Jury nullification is when the jury believes that the person did go against the law, but the jury doesn't believe it to be a law that is right, and the defendant does not deserve to be punished. I suppose there could be a case where someone murdered someone, and the jury believes they did, but, unlike the judge, they don't believe they should be punished. Maybe they believe that their reason for murder was just, and in self-defense, while the judge, for some reason, does not. Or perhaps they believe that the defendant may have been under the influence of an outside pressure, or a type of temporary insanity. Or maybe they see something that the judge has overlooked in the case that proves the defendant not guilty. So, there's not so much a limit, as definition for what is considered to be jury nullification. "and your point about it not being a danger to society, if harm is caused by it then it is a danger to society, and using that scenario that I used then those two people died didnt they?" I've already said that I don't find your scenario to be very logical, nor do I find it a good example of jury nullification at all. Therefor, I don't believe you have really shown me the harm caused by it, which doesn't give me a reason to believe it is a danger to society. "what does keeping the government in check even mean?" Haha. I was thinking that myself earlier on. Both of us have used the term, but neither of us have said what it means. I suppose that it means to keep the government from gaining to much power, becoming oppressive, or growing tyrannical. "jury nullification would be keeping the judge in check, not the government" Like I've said over and over, what really controls the judge is the law, which (if we are talking a law on the federal level) is passed by the government. If you take jury nullification away, and the government has passed an unjust law, then the judge must abide by it, and there is nothing stopping that law. Therefor, the government has power over that judge, and nothing is there to stop that law, allowing the government to get away with any law they can manage to pass. Jury nullification keeps the government in check, because in the most essential way, the judge is representing the government since they have the authority over him or her.