eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (01/08/85)
> > Can it truly be 'right' to prosecute someone for disobeying a law which > > they never heard of, and which isn't about something which most people > > consider a moral issue? > > Or to put it in the terms I used above, prosecute someone for something > which is ok under the "social consciousness" law. Obviously it's wrong. > We have gone too far along with the notion that law is made by a group > of popularity contest winners in a building in Washington. It isn't-- > good law is *discovered* like the rules of grammar or the laws of physics. Juries not only have the right to determine the facts in a case, they also have the right to determine the law. The origin of this power is rooted in the Common Law. Here is what Justice John Jay said on the subject in 1794: "It may not be amiss, here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this resonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due the opinion of the court. For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision." [State of Georgia v. Brailsford 3 Dall 1] So the answer is for juries to assert that power they have let grow rusty, and declare laws invalid if they decide they are bad. Remember that a sitting jury does not represent the people, they ARE the people. Dani Eder / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder