A lot of people aren’t really interested in serving on criminal juries, but perhaps if more people were aware of this clause as quoted above, which some States have, as so written, for instance, in the Constitution of Maryland; perhaps more citizens would have a stronger desire to be part of judging their peers, for they also are provided with the incumbent power to judge as to whether or not a given law is just or not. The problem that a lot of people can’t seem to get their heads around is that, the legitimacy of whether a given law is constitutional should never just be in the hands of a particular judge, or even with a court of nine Supreme judges; for that therefore means that only the judicial branch may determine what is or is not constitutional, and therefore that makes their judgment superior to the legislative or executive branches or the people, even when that judgment is in error; so demonstrated on numerous cases by Supreme Court decisions being subsequently overturned by another Supreme Court tribunal having adjudicated such at a later date and time. Further to the point, is that the law is often slow to amend itself to the changes of the time; and of which laws so written that had their supposed place, time, and purpose, sometimes, no longer have their legitimacy or have maintained such, at the present time.
What could be fairer than a jury of one’s peers, being permitted to peak behind the curtain, so that they can use their minds and their experiences in the real world, in a manner in which they so determined, firstly as to whether the law as written and interpreted is within the legitimacy of a particular case, and thereby appropriately and fairly being utilized. After all, this country is a body politic, so created for the general welfare of, for, and by the people. The reason that criminal cases are judged in front of a jury of one’s peers, is because the people are meant to render their informed judgment as to not only the facts and exigencies of a particular case, but also as to whether the law in that case is reasonable and of good purpose.
To be a jury means to be collectively a judge of something of import, which is something that should be taken seriously; for we owe that as an important responsibility to our fellow denizens. To therefore have a jury only to decide exclusively as to the given guilt of a person, but not to have a say upon the law itself, seems to be a disservice to the person so being tried. Those that make up a given society, consist of all of the people, which includes the rich, the middle class, and the poor, well-educated to poorly educated; of which, these people have each have had different life experiences; whereas those that write the law, and are the typical arbiters of the law, are more often from a different milieu with a different mindset, then the people, as a whole. So then, as the Constitution of Maryland has written, the people shall be the judges of the law, for it is imperative that for this to be truly a government, of, for, and by the people that such should fairly reflect the whole community, rather than a subset, so of.