In message , F Murtz
writes
Huge wrote:
On 2013-02-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mathew Newton wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 10:32:20 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Naah, I'm with you. I'd refuse to convict for a number of offences
(possession among them) on the grounds I disagree with the law.

Skating on very thin ice there.

Not at all - it is perfectly legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nu...United_Kingdom

The jury is obliged only to deliver their verdict, not the justification.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury merely decide on the
facts of the case. The judge, the law.

You have entirely misunderstood things. The jury are entitled to
acquit on the grounds of nullification.


We have had cases in Australia when the jury have aquitted people on
murder charges even though the person did kill.
The jury probably did not want the accused to be penalised when it
seemed they were justified in commiting the act in the juries eyes (and
most of the general public)
It is for the prosecution and defence to determine whether it is murder
or manslaughter The jury's job is to find guilty or not guilty. It is
then the judges job to pass sentence, taking into account the law and
any extenuating circumstances.
--
bert