As a prospective juror, you are told at the beginning of jury selection what the case is about, the laws involved and the charges. Then you are asked specifically if you have any prejudices that would prevent you from being impartial in the specific case.
I should not be surprised at the views expressed here giving a high and mighty interpretation to jury duty. We are becoming a lawless society.
There are some statutes which are sufficiently lawless that I would have to strain a little to imagine circumstances where I could issue a conviction under them. Nonetheless, for almost any statute, I could imagine some combination of circumstances and behaviors where I would judge a conviction to be appropriate. I would not judge any case until the evidence and arguments were presented. At the time the prosecution starts his case, I may harbor significant doubts, but that's part of a juror's job; the prosecutor's job is to endeavor to remove all reasonable doubts. I would be as impartial as a juror's job requires, but no more so.
Again, you presuppose I have knowledge of the law in question and how it will be applied, sufficiently that I can say I would be prejudiced. Does this mean I have to announce my unequivocal belief that the Second Amendment is the law of the land before I can hear a case involving possession of a gun? Or the First Amendment before hearing a case about jury tampering? I don’t think so and any reasoning person can see the absurdity of requiring such statements as possible indications of “prejudice”.
The lawlessness you refer to is not confined to criminals on the street but has crept throughout government. It seems you choose not see that.