[Lurker]

Morally, how is that any different from an activist judge who legislates from the bench, based on HIS conscience?

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

[TChris]

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.

You need to read the posts leading up to this.

The issue is jury nullification, which is to say the conscious decision by a jury to disregard the law.

I agree with your description of what a jury is supposed to do, but jury nullification is exactly the same thing as judicial activism. It's blatant disregard for the law in favor of one's personal beliefs.