Check out this article about “Amendment A” in South Dakota, an initiative that will allow juries to question the laws under which a person has been charged, not just whether or not that person broke the law. It would allow juries to agree that technically, somebody may have broken the law, but if the law is completely asinine, they may still acquit that person. It makes sense for drug possession cases and other “victimless crime” cases, though not necessarily for violent and other such crimes.
Here’s what gets me, though: “Opponents of the amendment, which include most of the establishment bar in South Dakota, say it is antidemocratic in allowing a small group of people to decide the wisdom of a law.” What is the state legislature then? Certainly not a large group of people that decides the wisdom of the law. Sure, they represent the people of the state, but they’re still a small group of people who believe they can tell other people what’s right and what’s wrong for them. And in the case of most drug laws, Utah’s alcohol laws, and many other ridiculous laws that exist around the country, a jury should have the power to decide whether or not the person being tried did anything wrong, not just whether or not they broke a law.
Here are two more articles on the matter.