When the OJ jury lets him loose, I’m against it.
When a thoughtful group of 12 stands up to government tyranny, I’m for it.
How do we get less of the first and more of the second?
I, too, was flummoxed by the O.J. jury’s decision. But a couple of years later, loads of gangbangers were turned loose because of L.A.P.D.’s falsifying of evidenence—apparently a widespread practice. The jury’s decision was not as irrational as it seemed. I still think they got it wrong, but I now understand their doubts about police honesty.
Partly FR is the answer. If we get on the jury for a bad law, we need to push for nullification. To put it mildly, I would be skeptical in any case of gun law violations or other violations of laws that should never have been passed. That gives us more of the second.
If you had watched the trial, you would know the prosecution did not prove their case. The jury got it right. Yes, it's easy now to say OJ was guilty--everyone knows he was guilty--but if you had been OJ and innocent, you would be very pleased with the result. Seeing that trial gave me a lot more respect for our jury system and juries in general.