Yep. Because it is an awesome idea for no laws to really mean anything whatsoever. It should all be up to what a couple of guys decide.
Yeah, I guess she really was asking for it with that skirt. Guess we all know that no one his color from his neighborhood is worth giving the benefit of the doubt. Guess those legislators and executives and judges don't really mean jack. Law is what I say it is.
Hm, or...nope. Sorry. The law does exist. You don't like it, fine. But no, the courts do not an obligation to validate a juror's insistence that he gets to define the law.
No, not "a couple of guys". A group of citizens selected from the whole of the population of citizens. Of course the law exists. But the law specifically included the right to trial by juries. As others pointed out, why have a bunch of random citizens decide just the facts of a case? The Constitution is very much about breaking up power monopolies. I'd argue it's one of the central points of the Constitution. Specifying who gets what power so no one person or branch gets too much. The Judicial branch has a large degree of independence, as the Supreme Court of the US can only theoretically be overruled by a Constitutional amendment on any issue. So a convenient way of mitigating their absolute power is to balance it with juries.
The right of an independent jury is not to promote racism and misogyny. These things do happen, throughout all branches of government. The law, as you point out, does exist and did enforce racism and misogyny for hundreds of years. I personally believe that most gun control laws are Legalistic forms of racism and misogyny.
Bridge Walker, I'm not honestly trying to pick on you. I know the school of thought to which you subscribe. It's the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community. But the overwhelming opinion of the Legal community is not the same as the law, as you nobly hold in high regard. The law exists, whether the Legal community likes it or not.
Call me insufficiently patriotic, but I always had a high regard for my state's Constitution. I think it is often better framed than the US Constitution.
Freedom of Press and Speech; Libels
Section 7.
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
No doubt, you will argue that only charges of libel are specified that the jury should determine the law and the facts.
Even if you disagree with me, I still do recommend you read a copy of the PA Constitution, it's rather facinating legal work.