For the question to be settled by the jury is not whether the accused person knew the particular penalty attached to his act, (for at common law no one knew what penalty a jury would attach to an offence,) but whether he knew that his act was intrinsically criminal.
Spooner argues that the jury's role is to determine the intrinsic criminality of an act rather than the specific penalties associated with it.
Share
More from Lysander Spooner
And nobody is bound to take the least notice of them, unless it be to trample them under foot, as usurpations.
Any restriction upon the exercise of this right is a restriction upon his rightful power of providing for, and accomplishing, his own well-being.
But there is no reason why a judge should have the power of punishing, for contempt, any more than for any other offence.
The answer is, that they are as reliable for that purpose as are the majority; they are as much presumed to have associated, and are as likely to have associated, for that object, as are the majority; and they have as much interest in such…