They really don’t have a choice, they have to uphold the law as it is written.
They do, indeed. However, the “written law” includes the sixth amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing the accused the right to a jury. The flip side of that guarantee is that the juror is constitutionally empowered to reach a decision.
Constitutional powers supersede legislated law. The juror is not beholden to legislated law. Indeed, if they feel that strictly applying a lower law results in an injustice, they have a constitutionally-imposed duty to reject the short-sighted legislated law.
That question is nonsensical: 1. The jury never has to justify anything; 2. “Murder” is a legislated concept. The jury is not beholden to the legislature, and is free to reject the laws they create.
Where the jury feels that enforcing the legislated law would be an injustice, they are free to rule “not guilty”, even if they believe the accused’s actions violate that law.
They do, indeed. However, the “written law” includes the sixth amendment to the constitution, guaranteeing the accused the right to a jury. The flip side of that guarantee is that the juror is constitutionally empowered to reach a decision.
Constitutional powers supersede legislated law. The juror is not beholden to legislated law. Indeed, if they feel that strictly applying a lower law results in an injustice, they have a constitutionally-imposed duty to reject the short-sighted legislated law.
Right so what part of that would allow them to justify murder?
That question is nonsensical: 1. The jury never has to justify anything; 2. “Murder” is a legislated concept. The jury is not beholden to the legislature, and is free to reject the laws they create.
Where the jury feels that enforcing the legislated law would be an injustice, they are free to rule “not guilty”, even if they believe the accused’s actions violate that law.