I think any time a man sits on a jury in judgement of another man, regardless of the evidence presented, or the severity of the crime, he should move for a nullification.

The reason(s) are simple enough.

The basis for the legal system is that everyone is under the law and the law is applied equally. The proportion of males in prisons suggests that women recieve a lot of preferential treatment under the law to the point you might say laws exist to penalize men, not women. (93.5% of prison population is male, 6.5% is female according to BOP statistics).

Additionally, the prison system is using rape as a punitive measure and the courts, prison system and law makers seem to be ok with it. Being sentenced to 10 years of rape cannot be morally acceptable, it certainly violates the idea that punishment shouldn't be cruel or unusual, and the reverse, if expressed overtly, would cause ample outrage.(Prisons don't keep data on rape, surveys show the occurrence of rape is as high as 21% - self reported - which is troubling since 68 percent of men who are raped, and known to have been raped, deny the rape occurred).

Therefore I don't think men should convict men. The selective prosecution and application of the law (93.5 vs. 6.5% is worse than the 59.4 vs. 37.2% skew of whites vs. black which is almost always correlated with systemic racism) is just as likely to put the man on trial as any action taken in part by the man. It is also apparent that the laws being violated are designed to be violated by men categorically and systemically.