“Jurors have found, again and again, and at critical moments, according to what is their sense of the rational and just. If their sense of justice has gone one way, and the case another, they have found “against the evidence,” ... the English common law rests upon a bargain between the Law and the people: The jury box is where the people come into the court: The judge watches them and the people watch back. A jury is the place where the bargain is struck. The jury attends in judgment, not only upon the accused, but also upon the justice and the humanity of the Law.”

Juries should indeed be sitting in judgement of the system itself, not just the defendant.

The conclusion is accurate enough and deserves 5 stars as a stand alone concept. It is the preface that is totally inaccurate and sets up a scenario for tyranny's complete mental (and otherwise) take over. The English, as well as the total Common Law draw upon for the American jurisprudence was where the office we call judge was an executive position (not a judicial one). Such office was only there to ensure order and procedure. The only judges (judicial officers) were the jury. The common law was / is NOT a bargain between the law (statutes of men - legal positivism) and the people; the Common Law procedurally, is an administrative tool of Natural Law (Carlton references such above). Further, there is necessarily no intercourse between the executive judge and the judicial judges. The correct term is, the judicial judges determine fact and law and then, the executive judge, enforces the judiciary's decision. Much more could be said and explained here but this is probably not the correct forum for that.

The defendent has broken a law; however, there could be a good reason for his breaking that law. Trial by one's peers is the best way to go as J Carlton mentions above.

Great distinctions drawn, Mike. I like, "The jury attends in judgment, not only upon the accused, but also upon the justice and the humanity of the Law."