There are few absolutes in this world. That doesn’t invalidate general principles.
For example, I believe soldiers should follow orders.
But if a superior orders the soldier to murder a young child out of revenge for another soldier’s death, the soldier should disregard the order.
Am I a liar for having claimed that I believe soldiers should follow orders?
No. The fact that you can posit a very rare scenario to the contrary does not invalidate my basic principle: soldiers should follow orders. It simply means that there are few absolutes in this world.
Similarly, let’s assume you are against torturing people by poking out their eyes. If I could paint you a scenario where you could save millions only by torturing an evil man by poking out his eyes, you’d do it.
That doesn’t mean you’re for it. And it doesn’t render your statement of opposition meaningless.
I am against jury nullification. Some have advanced extreme examples that either would never occur in the real world, or where the moral choice is so clear that it would be obvious, except to those blinding themselves to their own humanity for the sake of consistency.
I would vote to acquit someone charged with the “crimes” of being Jewish, or saving slaves.
That doesn’t mean I support jury nullification.
The jury is an important bulwark against the state.
But if a drug dealer is the scourge of a Compton neighborhood, creating a heightened risk of drive-by shootings from rival drug dealers, as well as a generally lower quality of life, the people of that neighborhood should not be subjected to that drug dealer because some wine-sipping libertarian from the Westside decides that, in his opinion, drug dealing is a victimless crime and he won’t convict even if the evidence is overwhelming.
Let the wine-sipper lobby his Assemblyman, or start an initiative. The jury room is not the place to change the law. Juries are not freestanding Legislatures of 12, and to allow them to act as such is to undermine the Rule of Law.
This is my point.