As a moral proposition, it is perfectly self-evident that, unless juries have all the legal rights that have been claimed for them in the preceding chapters,--that is, the rights of judging what the law is, whether the law be a just one, what evidence is admissible, what weight the evidence is entitled to, whether an act were done with a criminal intent, and the right also to _limit_ the sentence, free of all dictation from any quarter,--they have no _moral_ right to sit in the trial at all, and cannot do so without making themselves accomplices in any injustice that they may have reason to believe may result from their verdict. It is absurd to say that they 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. It is, for instance, manifestly absurd to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for the enforcement of an unjust law, when they consent to render a verdict of _guilty_ for the transgression of it; which verdict they know, or have good reason to believe, will be used by the government as a justification for inflicting a penalty. It is absurd, also, to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for a punishment inflicted upon a man _against law_, when, at the dictation of a judge as to what the law is, they have consented to render a verdict against their own opinions of the law. It is absurd, too, to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for the conviction and punishment of an innocent man, when they consent to render a verdict against him on the strength of evidence, or laws of evidence, dictated to them by the court, if any evidence or laws of evidence have been excluded, which _they_ (the jurors) think ought to have been admitted in his defence. It is absurd to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for rendering a verdict of "_guilty_" against a man, for an act which he did not know to be a crime, and in the commission of which, therefore, he could have had no criminal intent, in obedience to the instructions of courts that "ignorance of the law (that is, of crime) excuses no one." It is absurd, also, to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for any cruel or unreasonable _sentence_ that may be inflicted even upon a _guilty_ man, when they consent to render a verdict which they have reason to believe will be used by the government as a justification for the infliction of such sentence. The consequence is, that jurors must have the whole case in their hands, and judge of law, evidence, and sentence, or they incur the moral responsibility of accomplices in any injustice which they have reason to believe will be done by the government on the authority of their verdict.