The decision is up to the jury, not the bloggers, to decide.

If the jury feels that the case represents an unjust application of a just law, they can acquit.

'nuf said.

Clay S. Conrad

But that wasn't my question — my question was, assuming you got on the jury in the first place, would you vote to convict?

I think the basic morality of the situation is something that should be discussed. Sometimes the law IS an ass, and good people must do the right thing, even if it means showing contempt for bad laws.

If the political environment was such that a law of the nature I discussed would pass, all the torches and pitchforks wouldn't do a hill of beans' worth of good. It's already the law, and the poor guy in the hot seat would be facing death.

In those circumstances, I have to look at the practical as well as the philosophical implications, which means that in certain circumstances, I would indeed "nullify" or whatever if it was the only line of defense against an unjust law (and there are plenty of unjust laws — drug prosecutions, etc. — where action in the electoral arena is more-or-less ineffective, unless you believe that a swell of Libertarian Party candidates will suddenly rush to power and overturn those laws).

It's not as cut-n-dry as you think, I suspect.

PS — I am being called for jury duty and if asked, will certainly admit that I would not vote to convict on a drug charge nor would I vote for the death penalty. However, if they didn't ask, is it my obligation (in your view) to announce to the court that those are my beliefs?

[Kip replies: Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms includes the right to, e.g., execute a police officer who pulls you over for speeding, because you happen to disagree with the speed limit? Isn't that the better analogy to a plenary power of jury nullification?]

However, Kip, let me entertain a hypothetical.

Suppose the State of New York passed a law mandating the death penalty for anyone who criticizes the Democratic Party.

You are selected for a jury to hear the case.

You hear the case, and a Libertarian has very clearly criticized the Democratic Party while in New York State.

Are you saying you would vote to execute the Libertarian, who clearly violated the law, and allow a higher court to "sort things out?"

[Kip replies: We have, in other posts and on other blogs, exhausted the whole "how does a nullifier get on a jury in the first place?" question -- i.e., by lying, and in some circumstances even perjuring oneself, during voir dire. I might torch-and-pitchfork my way to Albany (or to federal court) to fight such a law, but I would not lie my way onto a jury to do so.]

Are you serious?