No, the juror is to judge facts in regards to the law. He/she is NOT to judge the law. But, then, that's where we disagree.
Still, you admit to the court via the jury selection process that you should be refused as a juror because you don't agree with the law
Yes. If I dont' agree with the law, I can't be impartial, can I?
I may chose to get on the jury to see that honest/equal justice applied and so that an innocent person doesn't become a political prisoner because he or she (the defendant) broke a political agenda law.
And you'd lie to do it, wouldn't you?
You don't "choose" to get on a jury;you're chosen. And if you lie to get on a jury, you have an agenda, and you're not impartial.
Yes. If I dont' agree with the law, I can't be impartial, can I?
In your mind you can only be impartial when you agree with the law. That is not impartial either. At least you made it abundantly clear that you stand with the STATE and stand against the people.
And you'd lie to do it, wouldn't you?
I doubt it. Not that this will matter to a statist like you but nonetheless, when a court process works towards seating a biased jury the court process has initiated force, so to speak. Thus, should a potential juror chose to lie about agreement with the law it is an act of defense on behalf of the defendant.
You don't "choose" to get on a jury;you're chosen. And if you lie to get on a jury, you have an agenda, and you're not impartial.
If it's an agenda the agenda is to ensure that the defendant in fact does get an impartial jury. No doubt you hate that.
You are right about one thing. When it comes to honest/equal justice, I am impartial. So much so that you could be a murderer and have killed my best friend and gotten off Scott-free. As much as I would detest that, as a juror, when you're on trial for another murder and the facts prove your innocence I would vote to acquit.
The fact that the current justice process would never allow me to be a juror in that hypothetical scenario is besides the point of my commitment to honest/equal justice. For if a person is to be found guilty it should only be for a initiatory-of-force crime -- as opposed to breaking a political agenda law -- and then only for the actual initiatory-of-force crime the defendant is charged with.