oh how true, some folks would never convict for a certain crime or other reason (race, religion, etc...) however I say far better 100 guilty go free than one innocent be condemmed to prison. thus i do understand some bad guys might go free, however there is always the re-trail in the case of a hung jury. so there is still a second and even third chance at prosecution, hence the chances of one wacked out juror letting a guilty guy go is slim. however if there is a large percentage of population that refuses to convict certain crimes, you can bet that prosecutors will give up.
as i said, I could never ever in good moral conscience imprison a man for a bad law violation, like a hate crime, or gun violation, or such nanny state BS laws.
If we the jury puplic can prevent sucsesful prosecution fo bad laws, it is our duty to do so as citizens. remeber all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. If i see the government violating them rights, I have a moral obligation to defend that man, and vote not guilty.
just wait until Obamas Hate crime laws come after YOUR free speech, and you find that YOU are on the defense to keep YOU out of jail. YOU will best hope there are several folks on the jury of my mind set, you better hope that, else you is goooooing down sucka.
try placing yourself in defense of a bad law. and remeber we have court that make up bad laws, all this stuff about liberal judges making law, we got news, they do make law (illegally) and they enforce it. even the voters wishes on laws are ignored by some judges. many laws are corrupt, made by corrupt men, it is up to use ,t he people to fight them laws every time, everyway, all the time, ecspecially when on jury duty. if the law is bad, you must not vote guilty, you must not vote to inprison a man if the law he violated is not right, not constitutional, aginst our inalienable Rights. who are you to inprison someone for a bad law violation, anyone who does has failed society, by wrongly depriving a man of his rights.
as i said, I could never ever in good moral conscience imprison a man for a bad law violation, like a hate crime, or gun violation, or such nanny state BS laws.
With this I agree as well as with the point of bad judges making law. California, with their often passed propositions which are ignored by the government and some judges, is a good example.
However, I don't think each juror should be the Supreme Court and decide for themselves whether a law is good or bad. In the cases you cited, where the laws are so bad they are generally opposed, I agree.