Long piece. The crux of it: > Pluck 12 random Americans with wildly differing capacities to reason and express themselves verbally. Demand they step away from

Long piece. The crux of it: > Pluck 12 random Americans with wildly differing capacities to reason and express themselves verbally. Demand they step away from their lives for some indeterminate amount of time. Force them to listen to unsettling stories of violence and predation. Isolate them, and make them bicker with each other until they speak as one. Then grant them the power to lock a man in a cage. and > I ended up arriving at the same place. It was the language of the law that hemmed me in. It seemed strict and unyielding. A different jury, a different mix of humans, might have felt less constrained by those words. [...] No matter what the law said, the decision was ours. We had a choice. This is the closest the piece comes to addressing nullification. I wish the writer had spent a little more time on that. For someone who's regretted a decision for 20 years, I'm sure he's spent a lot of time thinking about doing what's right vs following the law.