Given the expansion of governmental powers in the 20th and 21st century it is a reasonable concern that the government, the judicial branch specifically, may unknowingly distance itself from the views of the society it was meant to represent. With this in mind there can be a strong argument made for the use of a nullification instruction to the jury. .
Failure to notify a jury of its right to decide verdicts independent of the written law can be seen as a breach on the part of the judicial system. Common people are picked out of their ordinary lives to decide the fate of other individuals sometimes under intense moral pressures. To a simple person their being asked to add to the legal process is because of the unique consciences and principles that he/she would bring to the table, otherwise "Why would they bother me to do it?" To then ask this person to leave behind any personal scruples, the courts may be leading people on as to the real importance of their involvement in the legal system. In addition to this fact, juries are often instructed to decide cases based strictly on the given facts instead of hearing an instruction of their right to nullification. The message received after one takes part in the jury process is that the people are simply being allowed to partake in the legal process instead of taking an active role in shaping law and legislature. The attempt to restrict the people's access to law does not have to be an overt one for it to be seen as a real over-stepping of bounds set by the principles of democracy. .
Aside from the possible constraints that arise from a non-nullification instruction there are some real opportunities for an improved relationship between the people and the law if juries are able to actively participate in the legal process. If a jury is informed of its right to "nullify" a law they could possibly revoke an out-dated law or simply represent the current views of their society.