True enough. But your only response to my questions about the purpose of law, and whether or not you think there can be any such thing as an unjust law was to have me as a putative law-breaker discussing moral and legal philosphy with my fellow inmates. Since we were discussing the evil and unjust ROE decision, and since I had no idea what other law you thought I could disobey to end up in prison discussing moral and legal philosophy with my fellow inmates, I naturally wanted to know how I could disobey that decision and thus end up in that prison.
Incidentally, one of the major reasons we do have juries is to guard against the unjust prosecution of laws, as well as the prosecution of unjust laws.
Cordially,
You originally entered the fray by criticizing me for the manner in which I replied to epow who initiated the discussion regarding unjust laws. My point then, as it is now, is that a person can be prosecuted for the violation of law that she/he/it deems unjust.
My initial challenge to cp's article was using the term murder thus implying that some punishable crime was being committed. [It is amazing how this discussion has evolved beyond that point.]
With regard to your note about jury nullification, I remind you that the actions of the OJ jury certainly did not advance the case of justice.