Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
I get what you're saying, but something in principal seems wrong there; I know this is an extreme theoretical stretch, but say we were to have an overzealous corrupt power mad government and there was a law passed which called for the execution of anyone who was heard to disagree with whatever current administration was in office. Say the law was very cut and dried on that. Say someone was charged with breaking that law and tried. Say the FACTS confirmed that the person did in fact make statements opposing the current administration. On a jury, as a citizen, you're saying then that every member of that jury would be required to vote guilty? If that example is weak from a legal or realistic perspective, please let your mind wander then and come up with an equally wildly absurd, potentially dangerous but theoretically possible law and apply it here.
The jury is going to vote how it wants. Now, the jury can do one of two things in that situation. Apply the law as it is and sentence the person to death, which btw, in a democracy, they probably voted for. Or, they can see the unrighteousness of the action and vote for acquital even though the defendant is clearly guilty.

In criminal law, once acquitted its over, no double jeopardy. In civil law, theres appeals. That said, I haven't taken crim pro yet so...I don't know if the jury's verdict is the final judgment. Also, if they are given questions to answer: say... did he say the phrase that will get him killed? They can answer no, even if the guy admitted to saying it. Thus, the fact would be found that no, the guy did not say it, therefore he is innocent.

The guy can also appeal his sentence and the appellate court will overturn the unconstitutional law because it is cruel & unusual punishment.