This ruling OBVIOUSLY forces parents to go out and immediately buy all the super violent video games for their children and allow them to play those games unsupervised. Parents now have no rights regarding the raising of their children and must allow them to become serial murderers and talk in movie theaters.
And just in case it wasn't OBVIOUS, I'm being sarcastic.
I'll concede that many of his activities were "crackpottish" to coin a phrase. On further thought, I'll agree with Mike's statement that he appears to be a *bit* (emphasis mine) of a crackpot. Not all of his behavior is that of a crackpot however in my opinion. The going limp when being placed under arrest is arguably a form of non-violent civil disobedience. The other stuff, yeah, I'd probably think he was being nutty if I saw it.
I'm somewhat familiar with Julian's activities because of certain political leanings I have. That's as much disclosure as I feel I need to reveal at this time...
Now, calling him a crackpot is a bit unfair in my opinion. He's participating in civil disobedience. The police come to arrest him, he does not aid them in his capture but neither does he actively resist. Of course not actively assisting is construed as resisting but that's another issue. Anyway, calling him a crackpot it seems rational to call Gandhi a crackpot as well.
If I recall correctly, some (maybe most, I dunno) of the framers of the Constitution took issue with a Bill of Rights because they didn't feel that rights needed to be codified because they were not granted by the government, but by God (or nature or the Flying Spaghetti monster if you prefer). The 10th Amendment came from this to essentially state there are many other rights that we didn't talk about here, you still have those too.
It seems like there is a vein running through many of the comments that Jury Nullification runs the risk of nullifying murder laws. While I think this *is* technically a risk, it seems very improbably that a jury of 12 rational human beings would think that laws prohibiting taking the life of another human being are unjust and must be nullified. Same with rape or any other natural crime that possesses a clear victim upon whom harm has been committed.
Who knows though. I might be able to conceive of a few situation where this could happen involving certain radical sets of people, but what is the probability that 12 of these people would get on the same jury? Probably low?
From what I understand, FIJA seems to be working to help prevent convictions for crimes that are victimless and therefore unjust. Thinks like prohibition of alcohol and drugs. There goals may be more general than that, but that seems to be the basic direction.
Are rights granted by the Constitution or are they codified by the Constitution? This is not intended to be a rhetorical question. I have my opinion and that is rights are granted by natural law, not by a piece of paper. It just so happens that the Constitution mostly agrees with what I see as natural law.
In the following sentences I will be making sweeping generalities to illustrate a point.
This seems to be exactly why FIJA hands out these pamphlets. People tend to be programmed to follow authority and instructions, regardless of how egregious those instructions may be (see the wiki on the Milgram Experiment). If the jurors are told by the authority in the room (The guy wearing the costume behind the big desk) that they have to decide based on the law, then they will do that.
Jury Nullification isn't explicitly stated as a right anywhere that I'm aware of but neither is is prohibited. This seems apparent from the citation provided by an earlier poster. Do you have the right to breathe? (I know it's a straw man, but it seems illustrative)