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.
Chris L
The issue with the theoretical law you provided is that it is clearly unconstitutional. However, if the law is constitutional, and crazy, then yes, the Jury should be compelled to provide a determination of guilty.

Take my example above with the perpetually abused wife that shoots her abusing husband while he sleeps. She is guilty of 1st degree murder, and a Jury should be compelled to provide a determination of guilty. If there is enough outrage over such a case, then the legislative branch of the government should pass a law which qualifies this type of "justified homicide" if that is the will of the people.

The beauty of our government is that everyone has a say in what goes on in government, and everyone's vote counts. Look at the last election and the dramatic shift in power, and the dramatic changes taking place. In a jury is not the place to challenge a law. If you want to challenge it, write your representatives/senators.

Matt