I understand what you are saying. Here is my contention. It is the court's duty to enforce the law. As such, it is not the jury's duty to reinterpret the law in every proceeding. If the law is not clear, a judgment cannot be rendered. And the issue should be sent to the legislators for clarification.
The law is fairly clear though.
Probable cause that a felony has been committed - arrest is authorized.
Witness a misdemeanor - arrest is authorized.
You could argue that it isn't clear what constitutes probable cause, but that's been argued for as long as we've had a judicial system. Right along with when it's okay to use deadly force. A reasonable person must believe that he/she is in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death. Both are clear standards with room for jury interpretation.
Both are good points.
The ever evolving reasonable person and probable cause can be sources of contention and manipulation by lawyers.
... and judges.
Yes. And jurors are idiots, usually insiders. Typically, the guy who can't figure out how to get out of jury duty or the guy who wants to be on the jury.
They won't let you teach "the law" to the jury, so the system is stacked with them as the "legsl experts" and never allowed to be painted as corrupt.
(post is archived)