[MamaTexan]

if as a potential juror you think a law is unjust and you can't enforce it in good conscience, you should recuse yourself from the jury.

Which would give us the rule of MEN, not of LAW...the very opposite of freedom.

Please do not disarm our country of a major weapon against tyranny because you fear the instrument of our defense!

On a side note, I believe jurors should be drawn by lottery instead of being 'selected' by *officers of the Court*. Particularly since the word 'peer' was originally intended to mean people who were acquainted with the defendant.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Which would give us the rule of MEN, not of LAW...the very opposite of freedom."

It seems to me that it is jury nullification - jurors acting contrary to the written law - that would constitute "the rule of men." If there is a duly passed law that I disagree with so strongly that I think its enforcement is unjust or immoral, I would recuse myself and - perhaps - work to get the law changed through the legislative process. To me, that represents the rule of law. But to sit on a jury and and disregard the facts so as to find a person not guilty just because I disagree with the law, seems to me both dishonest (insofar as I am making a false claim about the facts and the law) and a manifestation of "the rule of men."

For example, if a law were passed prohibiting people from attending church, I would support a constitutional challenge to the law and I would recuse myself from any jury attempting to enforce such a law. I would not serve on a jury and declare someone innocent who had in fact attended church.