Don't give juries final say

Mark Faux wants juries to be the deciding power in the courts and says when a judge usurps a jury, the judge should be replaced (Readers' Forum, Jan. 1). I think he has overlooked an obvious hazard to that approach. Let's suppose Mr. Faux wants to do something. He does everything he can to know the law before he acts. Confident he is not only in full compliance with the law, but fully protected by it, he proceeds.

But someone else doesn't like what Mr. Faux is doing and hauls him into court. A jury hears the case and rules against him because it doesn't like what he's doing either, even though he was fully compliant with the law.

My question for Mr. Faux is, would he want the judge to intervene and grant him judgment not withstanding the jury verdict because he made certain he knew what the law was and was fully compliant with it before he acted? Or would he prefer to allow a randomly selected group of citizens sitting as a jury to tell him what they think the law ought to be as they order his property taken or that he be led away in chains?

R. Spencer Robinson

Sandy