That's the way it's supposed to be????
Morally, how is that any different from an activist judge who legislates from the bench, based on HIS conscience?
The only difference is where the individual is sitting, but the result is the same: Ignore the law and make it all about ME! ...MY beliefs of right and wrong. ...MY morals.
Jury nullification is EXACTLY as reprehensible as judicial activism. Both of them ignore the rule of law, replacing it with the rule of ONE, or a FEW.
The proper place for conscience and moral judgment is during the LEGISLATION of the law. Once the law has been created by those elected by the people, NO judge OR JUROR has the right to single-handedly overthrow the will of those voters or their elected representatives.
Nobody has that right. Nobody who loves the Constitution should ever consider doing it.
You sound like a judge, or at least a prosecuting attorney.
It's completely different. Jurors have the obligation to judge both the facts AND the Law. That's been inherent in our Judicial system since it's very inception.
If Jurors were supposed to be robots and simply decide facts we wouldn't need them.
L
Actually, a juror has that right.
Jury nullification is the answer to elected representatives overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and the answer to judges who refuse to enforce those bounds. Even the SCOTUS has acknowledged it.
Otherwise, the jury box wouldn’t be included in the litany “Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge” axiom.
and if the law is Un-Constitutional? you still would vote to convict??? Just becuase the legislature votes for it does not make it constitutinal.
seems like you are giving up a lot of power of teh people and giving it BLINDLY to judges and politicians. YOU have the JURY power to stop conviction of folks for bad laws.
just wait until we get more obama type Un-constitutional laws. you might change your tune.