That was not the intent of the judge's instructions. Judges do have the duty to instruct the jury on what the law is, but often view the domain of the law as theirs alone, reserving judgment of the facts to the jury. But that is simply not the case, as Dougherty points out, all juries have an "unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. This fully comports with the view of John Adams, who I think fairly represents the view of his time: 'It is not only (the juror's) right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court'
Jurors are supposed to be a citizen bulwark against government tyranny. There are sometimes cases where a just law is being applied unjustly, or the law itself is unjust. The Founders believed that any 'law' that violates someone's God-given inalienable rights is void, and should be disregarded. As the saying goes, "An unjust law is no law at all." Besides, judges are not always right on the law. If they were, they would never have any of their decisions overturned.
As an example to consider; had you been a juror at the time, would you have voted to convict and imprison people who violated the fugitive slave laws? I would hope that you wouldn't let the government steer your vote in the juror box any more than you would let the government steer your vote at the ballot box.
Cordially,
Yes! WE get to decide whether the law is right or wrong, Tall Tex, we don't have to vote to uphold a law that we the jury (as the peers of the accused) feel is unfair or unconstitutional. The jury gets to decide the facts and the law, and numerous court opinions have made this very clear.
Of course, the prosecutors and the judges (government employees both) refuse to acknowledge this, because to do so would run the risk that certain "laws" are essentially written out of existence through jury nullification. And since these guys make their money by throwing other folks in jail, it would cut into their business if suddenly jurors got some cajones and started refusing to enforce some bad and unfair laws.
Jury nullification has been going on the black community for years. It's time we white folk started doing it too.
Classic sophistry.
Today that might be true.
140 years ago? Only a fool would dismiss the important role of the obvious cultural and historic context.
Ethical and moral time machines are only a useful tool against the ignorant and the unsophisticated.