I agree with you there and would go a step further to note that public discourse on anonymous forums is extremely helpful for people to add context and philosophy to the understanding of the third option.
Many people here that are taking to discussing this are the outliers, just by being aware of it, and by being aware of it we can understand its potential use for good or ill and can contextualize the discussion in that frame of reference long before any of us are called to be on a jury, my concern would be those that do not take to discussing law, politics, and philosophy prior to being called to a jury being made aware of the third option with little time to reflect on its implications.
I think some people will browse the discussion and not truly reflect on the contents until possibly months later, while others that are directly engaging in the discussion will reflect currently and posit their views now while also being willing to amend those views should a more appropriate philosophy or fact be made available during the discussion.
Because different people will reflect at different rates this can have a deleterious effect on a trial if one learns of the third option too soon with little ability to reflect on the meaning and implication of a, usually unprofessional (law-career wise, not necessarily in manners), panel of jurors' choices.
It's always important for the jurors to respect the evidence before their own bias and sometimes people don't have the ability to disconnect their emotions from the logic present to be able to do that, but discussions on public forums with participation from many people from a wide array of backgrounds will allow for a more diverse and effective toolset to engage a trial with, ideally leading to a 'more effective' ruling from the jury.
Ultimately it comes down to the wide variance of educational quality that everyone even within the same society can be impacted by, whether it be due to their own individual actions or those of the municipal, state/provincial, or national actions on the education quality and quantity, it requires active discussion and reflection not only of the choice but the ramifications the choice can have beyond the trial itself.
I tend to agree with the scholars that believe the jury is the 'god of the courtroom', but I am also extremely jaded by my personal experiences with various large groups of people and their seeming willingness to ignore reality to 'fit in' or 'feel better'. The number of times people label me as a pessimist when I'm trying to be objectively realistic is startling and seriously concerning.
Ultimately I would hope people would, with ample reflection, direct their attentions to discovering what the 'right' course of action is, as opposed to the 'moral' or 'easy' choices tend to be.
Sorry, you saw the literal sources I provided to the wall street warlords that trudeau is selling canada to and your response is "it's pierres fault"/"you're a conspiracy theorist"?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or did you just opt to not click through a single source before you made your comment?
Pierre wasn't even a name on the CPC ticket during the wetsueten attacks by the RCMP and last I checked it was trudeau's choice to do black face all 5 times and to dress as a nazi all 3 times he did it.
If you don't want to vote then don't vote, but you definitely don't reserve the right to call anyone a conspiracy theorist when you can't even be bothered to look at the information provided to you by a wide variety of journalists, first nations and wall street firms that directly corroborate what I've said.
Not only did the video linked have an easy run down with video footage of the wetsueten attacks and various deleterious impacts of the oil industry, it included all sources in the description specifically to combat sleazy arguments like the one you're presenting.
https://www.yintahaccess.com/