I hear you. I think that the founders wanted a jury of ones peers to be a check against government excess. In many ways the way courts function is geared toward juries not acting in this role. In most (maybe all I don't really know) it is against the rules of court to even let people know that this is an option the jury has. Often after selection the resulting jury in way represents the person on trials peers. I don't know how to add up the costs vs. the benefits.

My wife served on a jury a few years ago. The guy on trial was charged with a variety of charges which all revolved around his non cooperation with police officers. The jury agreed that the man defiantly committed a crime by resisting arrest and preventing a police officer from executing his duty ect, but they decided that he really only performed one action and multiple charges would constitute double jeopardy. They chose to find him guilty to the charge they found most applicable and found him not guilty to the other charges as those charges were essentially duplicate charges. I wonder how often this kind of jury nullification occurs and we don't hear about it.