Okay, then NO. I'm not in favor of jury nullification for many "malum prohibitum" crimes.
Unlawful entry into the United States?
Trafficking in 50 or more pounds of Marijuana?
Trafficking Cocaine or Methamphetamine? (Well, I might not want to convict somebody for "trafficking" for having 29 grams of the stuff, if the State didn't prove he was going to sell it. A rich person might buy that much at a time for personal use or to host a party.)
Forgery and Counterfeiting against the government (no individual or business victim)?
Yeah, I'd convict people for all of the above.
When combined with the statutory requirement for a unanimous verdict, "jury nullification" means 100% of the citizens have to favor a law for it to be enforced. That's not how it should be. If 9 out of 10 people favor the law and find it useful, but 1 person things the law is unnessary and infringes on personal liberty, the law should be enforced and convictions should be had (not a hung jury). Right now we avoid hung juries because of the kind of jury instructions we give them combined with the fact that nobody suggests anything like Jury Nullification. We imply that they have to convict if the State proved what was alleged in the indictment, even though technically the instruction is that they "may" convict. They never "have to" convict, no matter how strong the evidence.