Quote Originally Posted by Boethius View Post
I was impressed by the jury and appalled by the homeowners. As I understand it, a jury is supposed to evaluate the testimony in the trial and determine if the defendant broke the law. They are not supposed to determine whether the law is just. The jury determined that the defendant broke the law. She did. Was she justified? Did the circumstances mitigate the heinousness of her crime? Not the jury's job. They did their job correctly. But they also looked farther and saw what they believe to be justice and acted, not as a jury, but as citizens and offered to pay the defendant's fine. What could be more commendable?

The homeowners? Meh. I would like to tell them to "suck a rope" as we used to tell lazy complainers on construction sites.
The jury is absolutely free to weigh in on the justness of laws and whether someone was justified in committing a crime -- that's why nullification exists. That is their job. Same as a judge does not have to accept a jury verdict if he or she thinks they're nuts to have convicted someone. A jury might think they properly followed instructions and believe a defendant to be guilty, and a judge can still say notwithstanding and toss it.

A jury can look at a case brought through the proper channels, with a defendant who did what he or she was accused of, and say, 'yeah, but still, fuck this case.'