This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment.

I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering).

The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.

How did whether juries are punished become germane? I thought the question at issue was just consistency vs capriciousness of the courts taken as a whole.

This was my intended meaning, thank you!

I wanted to point out that juries can make arbitrary decisions, nullification being a kind of example of this.