Q. If you were a victim of a crime, explain why or why you would not want to testify in court.

Q. Jury nullification occurs when the jury returns a verdict of “not guilty” despite evidence that the defendant is legally guilty of the crime for which she or he is charged. In effect, the jury determines that the existing law is immoral or has been wrongfully applied in a particular instance. Jurors may, for instance, refuse to find a defendant guilty of a “mercy killing,” despite overwhelming evidence that the killing violated the expressed purpose of the law. Employing utilitarian, Kantian, or virtue ethical perspectives, on what grounds could we claim that the practice of jury nullification in a given case is morally justified? Morally unjustified?