FIJA, of course, is the Fully Informed Jury Association, and the “informed” part of the name alludes to a juror’s right quâ human being, to nullify unjust laws by returning “not guilty” verdicts in spite of the law as a matter of moral principle.

Some people argue that a juror’s responsibility is to determine matters of fact, reserving determinations on matter of law to the judges or magistrates. I respectfully disagree: perhaps the single most important fact in any trial is whether the law is just on moral principles. Any usurper or criminal gang can write laws, and hire goons to enforce them, but so long as they wish to maintain the pretense of “justice” by making accomplices of their victims, those victims need to excercise their moral obligations towards their brethren.

It is absurd to say that [juries] have no moral responsibility for the use that may be made of their verdict by the government, when they have reason to suppose it will be used for purposes of injustice.

—Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

When telling the truth leads inevitably to the commission of an injustice, the only moral option is to lie.

—No Third Solution archives, Jury Nullification: The Only Moral Option

Others argue that nullification and FIJA is a waste of time, because it doesn’t really win. OK, so it isn’t perfect. But if more people practiced it, and practiced it consistently, any number of unjust laws would either be exposed for the tyranny that they are, or rendered practically impotent by the people. The effects of widespread nullification would be numerous acts of non-violent civil disobedience, the likes of which would make La Boetie proud, as citizens refusing to assist any longer in their own oppression cast off the yokes and chains of bondage.

FIJA activism represents possibly the only opportunity for citizens to fight the government on its own turf: as a juror, you may have to be a slave, but you don’t need to participate in the perpetuation of your own bondage. Better still, you may help the pendulum of public opinion swing in favor of nullification and against tyranny.

What can you do?

If this message resonates at all with you, share the links mentioned above, and look for more resources on the topic.

Understand the principled approach to nullifying unjust laws and explain these positions to people when the opportunity presents itself.  Let them know that it’s natural to feel remorseful (an admission of wrongdoing) when you sentence a non-violent “criminal” offender to prison. If they beg you about civic duty, inform them that your civic duty is to remain vigilantly intolerant of injustice.

Graham Dugas sums it up nicely:

…I have often wondered how someone’s conscience could be bothered if they told a policeman or a judge a “half-truth” but they are not bothered by voting to convict their fellow man of some evil law and subjecting him to draconian punishment for it. If I am going to err, let it be on the side of my fellow man.

John of Blagnet offers some additional advice in the comments, which I’ve subsequently added to this post:

If you’re conscripted for jury duty and you want to serve (for the reasons discussed in this post: to protect your fellow man from predatory law), don’t openly advertise to the prosecutor or judge that you support jury nullification, because that is grounds for immediate dismissal. They don’t want anyone who thinks for themselves or who might consider contradicting what the State decrees.

Most importantly, let them know that they don’t have to participate in such a mockery of justice; that they are perfectly within their rights (afforded by what little freedom remains in this country) to abide morality rather than “law”.