theotherjonv – Member
If you don’t believe that the ‘crime’ that the defendant is in the dock for is a crime. Then it is your duty – to your own code if nothing else – to push for an acquital. For example; I’d like to think that if it was the 60’s and I was called as a juror to decide on the fate of a chap that had committed the crime of being gay, that I’d try to swing the verdict.
Interesting question and i don’t know the real answer but this is where a clerk of the court would be able to guide you.
To try to answer this(with no authority to actually do so!). From what I could make out from today the jury were asked if they knew the defendant or any of the victims etc (it was an alleged paedophilia case, hence my extreme reluctance to want to be picked, I’d have done it, but I’d have been very uncomfortable about it. A few people raised their hand to get excused once they heard the charges and asked if they could sit on such a case. Which I can understand, I half raised my hand then took it back down, my thoughts were, someone needs to step up)
But after asking about if you knew the victims/accused, they also asked if for any reason you think you would be prejudiced against the case, then to make your feelings known.
From that I take it that prejudice towards existing law would come under that. I guess it has to, juries can only deal in what is law, in the context of a case, and I don’t think it’s a jurors duty to dictate law.
So if you went on a mission against a drug charge for example (a point of view I’d be very sympathetic to) I think you would be in danger of getting charged with perjury. As I say it’s not the juries job to make law, just interpret existing law.
If you want to challenge law, the avenue is open to you there, I guess, but you need to bring a case to the court, not use another to further your point of view.
