content: This is where jury nullification is supposed to be used.  I want to make the distinction this is incorrect, it's not "supposed to" anything. It isn't mentioned anywhere, it isn't given to you, it's not an endowed right or an unalienable one, it has no stated "purpose" because it has no stated existence, and it never did. It DOES exist, and it CAN be used by anyone on any jury in the USA if they know about it, but the only reason it exists is because it's a logical conclusion of how the system is set up. Calling it a "right" or claiming it's "supposed to" do something makes a horribly incorrect implication that it exists intentionally and that it had intended use, and it doesn't. There are a couple videos on youtube explaining "how" this came to be, effectively, if you want to know more about it, but you're implying something that isn't right here. Just like how process of elimination indirectly gets you to the correct choice out of several, jury nullification arises from logical deduction of system caveats.