Not at all. I was arguing with someone who thinks he ought to be able to decide Constitutionality of a law along with the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
I don't agree with that position, which is why I told him to approach jury duty his way, I'll approach it in my way.
Is justice done when a person is convicted under an unjust law? The intent of our courts is to ensure that justice is done. Everyone in the court - the judge, jury, and attorneys - has the overriding concern that justice is done. Sadly, that idea is lost under mounds and mounds of laws, precedent, corrupt judges and prosecutors, lazy or crooked lawyers, and we the people can no longer find justice. The juror doesn't necessarily decide the constitutionality of a law, he decides among all other things he must consider whether the law being applied is just, whether it is right, and whether justice will be done in the particular situation before him.
Not at all. I was arguing with someone who thinks he ought to be able to decide Constitutionality of a law along with the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
Good grief. -- No rational juror would think he is deciding the final 'constitutionality' of a law, and certainly a judge could instuct the jury on that point.
The jury is to decide if the law in question applies to the defendant as charged, in ONLY that case. -- Thus, a defendant that is prevented from presenting a defense that includes his view of how the law applies, is being deprived of a FULL defense. --- His rights are being violated by the court itself.
This is simple common sense. - Which you statists certainly lack. - To the point of denying your own rights, as above.