An Op/Ed on Reasonableness in the Criminal Justice System

Canada almost gets it:

First, it sends the message to future mercy killers that they are now more likely to receive an acquittal, even if the law remains unchanged, given the amount of sympathy that exists in the general public for Latimer. In fact, one juror even stated that the jury decision would have been different had they known that Latimer would have to spend so much time behind bars. Given the public outrage at the NPB Latimer decision, "the next Latimer" will likely be held to a lower standard of justice-and juries may even allow him to walk free rather than dole out a draconian
mandatory sentence.

This would be a good thing. The jury is there to protect the people against prosecutors and legislators run amok. If this law is so odious to the population that they would not convict, then the law clearly needs to be changed.

Further, the decision sends a problematic message from a different perspective, which is that if Latimer had lied and showed remorse in front of the NRB, he would have almost certainly been granted parole. This is because the system often rewards supplication, rather than impartiality. However, the problem is that remorse can easily be feigned. This idea has practical implications. Most notably, it has the potential to give rise to false convictions, something that legislators, lawyers and judges alike all fear and abhor. Those wrongly accused will feel more compelled to plea bargain (to confess in exchange for a lighter sentence than if convicted following a full trial) and take their chances with a parole board.

But, prosecutors love this because it makes their job easier. Maybe things are different in Canada, however in the US its accepted that innocent people will admit to something to avoid facing a long list of trumped-up charges. Only the rich can afford to get justice, everyone else is forced to cut a deal since the prosecutor will overcharge to force capitulation.

Although this may be more difficult to remedy, the problem of future juries ignoring the law ("jury nullification") when faced with a sympathetic defendant can be avoided if Parliament should change the law to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for murder. Mandatory minimum sentences-advocated by those who purport to be "tough on crime"-may actually have the opposite effect, if juries and judges decide to acquit (or convict of lesser and included offences) when faced with sympathetic accused and strict sentencing regimes.

If this paper recognized the need for change and recognizes that nullification will catalyze the process, why do they not advocate nullification?