You're being a bit disingenuous here. The legal system fears jury nullification because of precedent, and the complete clusterfuck a nullification makes of interpreting common law. Judges and lawyers basically have to ignore everything about that case. The case law, which is considered "discovered", has to be thrown out, because it'll make no sense otherwise. Stare decisis just doesn't make any sense in a nullification situation. This still doesn't mean nullification doesn't have a place. It is a check of the populace on a prosecutor/law enforcement with an agenda, a corrupt judge, or insane legislators/unconscionable laws. Nullification is the most important, and powerful democratic check on the judiciary available.
It's also a really bad idea to bank on getting. As voir dire (jury selection) is basically the prosecution devoting all their resources to make sure that they don't get a jury stacked with enough jurors willing to nullify. A judge might also declare a mistrial if they get a sense a nullification attempt is in the works or likely. A prosecutor may decline to prosecute, or petition for a change of venue if they get a sense the populace would just nullify anyway. Judges will tend to be very cross and threatening at the prospect, and will lecture at length about how bad it would be if you chose that path, etc.... etc.... It is very much the judicial equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the system, and the system hates being confronted with it.
Long story short, it's a populace's nuclear option with all the baggage that entails. It being employed is a signal that so much is wrong, the populace cannot conscionably allow the system to proceed as normal. It's a wake-up call to all three branches. Legislators that the law they passed may be unconscionable, the executive in that the People cannot endorse their execution of the laws as passed, and the judiciary, in that in no way shape or form can this randomly selected jury abide the status quo.
It's also a really bad idea to bank on getting. As voir dire (jury selection) is basically the prosecution devoting all their resources to make sure that they don't get a jury stacked with enough jurors willing to nullify. A judge might also declare a mistrial if they get a sense a nullification attempt is in the works or likely. A prosecutor may decline to prosecute, or petition for a change of venue if they get a sense the populace would just nullify anyway. Judges will tend to be very cross and threatening at the prospect, and will lecture at length about how bad it would be if you chose that path, etc.... etc.... It is very much the judicial equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the system, and the system hates being confronted with it.
Long story short, it's a populace's nuclear option with all the baggage that entails. It being employed is a signal that so much is wrong, the populace cannot conscionably allow the system to proceed as normal. It's a wake-up call to all three branches. Legislators that the law they passed may be unconscionable, the executive in that the People cannot endorse their execution of the laws as passed, and the judiciary, in that in no way shape or form can this randomly selected jury abide the status quo.