Those who cite jury nullification as a justification for a juror convicting a defendant of a crime despite the existence of reasonable doubt either misunderstand or do not appreciate an INDIVIDUAL’s right to due process and a fair trial. The government has no constitutional rights, only an individual does. The government has no “constitutional” right to a fair trial. This is no small distinction; there is a reason why Miranda, the 4th amendment, the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, the right to a fair and impartial jury and yes, the right to have the government prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt exist to protect a defendant, even if they sometimes do act as “roadblocks” to the government’s ability to convict someone who has engaged in conduct that constitutes a crime under the law. Classic nullification also inures to the benefit of the INDIVIDUAL at the expense of the government, it is a form of protest or a sense of meting out justice to perceived government overreach or abuse. That is entirely different than convicting someone where reasonable doubt exists because of disgust with the act that serves as the basis for a criminal charge. That is a gross violation of an individual’s fundamental rights and anathema to the constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants. Laws exist for the purpose of proving an INDIVIDUAL with extra protection beyond Constitutional rights but in no case can the government restrict rights that are afforded Constitution protection. If you approve of depriving constitutional protection from one defendant because her conduct was atrocious, where do you draw the line from case to case? The bottom line is that if you believe in Constitutional protections for any criminal defendant, you cannot and should not approve of any juror voting to convict a defendant if he or she believes there is reasonable doubt of that defendant’s guilt.