But if every juror decides simply not to enforce "unjust" laws, and every juror has his own ideas as to what's "unjust", what kind of mess are we going to be in?
I don't think you've thought this through to its logical conclusion. If laws can't be relied upon to be enforced by the legal system (i.e. the jurors) then it's going to be chaos.
There is PLENTY of room for you to acquit almost any defendant either in finding facts or applying the law as charged to the facts, without going to this extreme a theory. The concept of 'jury nullification' as you propose it means that you will be lying when you take your jury oath, you will set yourself up as the sole legislator and judge as well as jury, and you'll violate the whole concept of the English system.
Other than that, I guess it's o.k.
Even the USSC compelled Pres Clinton to testify in Paula Jones’ civil case even though Pres Clinton felt he was just “too important” at the time to do so because he was President of the US. The USSC told Pres. Clinton that no one is above the law.
I don't think you've thought this through to its logical conclusion. If laws can't be relied upon to be enforced by the legal system (i.e. the jurors) then it's going to be chaos.
I think jurors are responsible enough to decide that for themselves. And the fact of the matter is that they can decide that for themselves, no matter what someone else says.
So, in reality, there's not too much any judge or court or DA or lawyer or whomever can do about it. It's the juror who decides whether to convict or not and it's solely their decision when it comes down to their vote.
As long as they know that... that's fine with me.
Left wingers care more about outcomes while conservatives care more about process. In the end left wingers win
Would you commit evil to take down a greater evil or would you stand firm in your ideals thus allowing greater evil to win
Do you really think that the principle of justice is so murky and mysterious that the difference between "just" and "unjust" law is beyond the ken of average Americans? If so, then give me a break!
Every juror already has the right to return a not-guilty verdict if he feels like it. A judge has no power to order a jury to return a guilty verdict under threat of punishment [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case ], and we're not in much of a "mess" right now, are we?