[Protagoras]

Juries are not a place for people to go to further their own agenda against the system.

Your opinion is heard, and rejected by me.

[HairOfTheDog]

OK then you tell me, exactly how you can ~without any specific case even in mind~ justify going into a jury with the specific intent to disrupt, and not follow, the law?

You are not King, and this is a society of laws. If you don't like the law, try to change it. But until changed, we are bound by those laws, not 100 million opinions about what the law should be.

[disgustedvet]

Appy Pappy, I must strongly disagree with you.

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice
U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice,
1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice,
U.S. Supreme Court, 1941


Although, I must say that I think it would be wrong for any person to approach jury duty with any preconceived notions as to how they may cast their vote.

TheFrugitive, I might recommend reading a copy of The Citizens Rule Book, from which all the above quotes were taken.

[technochick99]

Juries are not a place for people to go to further their own agenda against the system. Your opinion is heard, and rejected by me.

Why would you reject that opinion? Would I ever stand by the idea of jury nullification? Yes, if it was a truly serious violation of justice and the Constitution. However, I can say right off that there are only one or two issues that I might take exception to.

I wouldn't plan on going in just to 'muck up the works' though. Is that what you support?