Not when they decide to nullify the law. That's exactly the point! At that point, they DO effectively create--or destroy--law, by rendering judgment in opposition to the law and the evidence in order to sidestep a law they don't like.
It's exactly what activist judges do: effectively alter the law to fit their own ideas.
Many judges abhor the idea (as do you)that mere citizens are competent to judge whether a law meets the definition of ‘good’ law.
It has nothing to do with what the judges think! Do you believe the Constitution or not? The Constitution establishes how and by whom laws are created. It has nothing to do with whether or not a judge likes it; it's the supreme law of the land!
Does the Constitution come with an asterisk at the end, referring to a footnote that reads, "Except when you don't like the result" ?
Changes to the law should be made in the legislature. Period.
Bad laws? Plenty of them. Fix them in congress!
What ever failures have been made using the legislative process, there is NO evidence that a group of twelve random people will make up something better.
But history is replete with laws passed by those “large, elected legislative bodies” that do not pass muster. Zengler was the first on this continent, but not the last.
But, you seem to miss the point.
Once you accept the principle of jury nullification, you can't pick and choose when and how it will be used.
What if your jury finds private ownership of guns morally reprehensible? What happens when the jury nullifies self-defense laws and convicts you of murder for killing that home intruder?
It all sounds quite noble when the examples you cite deal with historical slavery, but those cases are history. Discussion of them is academic. What matters today is how a jury which could easily be made up entirely of liberal Democrats would use such power.
THAT is something that happens today.
I think the very fabric of our nation depends on the rule of law. Once you open the Pandora's box of ignoring the duly legislated law, for what ever reason and by what ever means, then you erode and attack the very principles that made our country what it is.
It's naked hypocrisy to condemn judges for creating law out of whole cloth, rightly demanding that the will of the people as enacted by elected legislators be held supreme, then applauding juries who accomplish essentially the same evil through different means.
Juries don’t create law. The juries are empowered to judge both facts and law. That is why we have juries, and not just a panel of judges. So your claim that juries create law by destroying it shows just what a massive stretch you need to make in order to claim that jury nullification is somehow ‘unConstitutional’.
No, one cannot pick and choose when jury nullification is used. Tis the beauty of the system. As for cases that aren’t too old for your tastes, I present Heller and Kelo as perfect cases where jury nullification would have been desirable. Heller finally had an almost desirable outcome, and Kelo is a disaster. And very little has been done to correct it, even after public outcry.
You and I will never see eye to eye on this. That much is clear. Enjoy the day.
you say fix bad laws in congress. well that is just fine and dandy. you convict some one beucase you go with the law as written (even though you know it is wrong)ok will you take the time now to lobby that law be changed??? how long will that take??? will that person you just convicted for breaking the un-constitutinal law be rotting in jail while you work out the details with Congress (a bunch of law breaking bastards for the most part)???
some how that does not seem right to allow a citizen rot in jail while Congress gets around to fixing the law.
that is why we have juries, they can immediatly rectifiy a bad law and prevent the jailing of a person that broke no constitutional law. this is the final safety check for bad laws. we all now how many times politicans pass laws that even the judges eventually overturn as being unconsitutional. but in you view would it really be better for a citizen to rot in jail while it is being worked out???
that citizen will never ever get that time back. you are immoral to vote to jail someone over an Un-constitituional law.
I can only pray that one day folks like you will be on the wrong side of a liberal politicans law, and see how you would like it if you had a jury that does not look at the Constitutinal ramification of that bad law. hell rot in jail until Congress fixes it.
bad bad bad.
It is an act of mercy much like a governor's pardon power. Just as a governor's pardon power does not destroy the law, neither does juror nullification destroy the law.
It used to bother me in much the same way it bothers you. Not any longer. I've lived long enough to see and understand the wisdom behind it. A truly free people must have the power of juror nullification.