According to the folks of the Fully Informed Jury Association ( http://www.fija.org/ ) A jury should have broadened powers. My question for dicussion is this:

Should juries not only decide innocent or guilt of parties, but also decide if laws are constitutional or not constitutional? FIJA says yes. What do you say?

We have a judiciary branch for this...

The jury system is not about whether a law is right or wrong. A prosecutor will often tell the jury that it is not up to them to decide a case based on whether they agree with a particular law.

Of course, the judiciary abuses its interpretation duties already. Giving similar powers to a bunch of schmoes off the street: not a good idea.

From the FIJA Website:

A QUICK QUIZ FOR PROSPECTIVE JURORS

This amounts to vigilantism, where any ONE juror can circumvent justice (since a unanimous jury decision is required in criminal cases...)