You weren't by any chance on the O.J. Simpson jury were you?  You  present an argument for "jury nullification", suggesting that juries are not tasked with studying the evidence and testimony regarding the alleged crimes.  Instead, you describe their task as determining whether the laws are "just."  

Laws are created. ,modified and, at times,  nullified by legislatures and appellate Courts.  You're, of course, welcome to support jury nullification, but it's hardly the duty of juries to engage in the practice. 

" Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding." from wikipedia....

Were jury nullification actually a feature of  juries' responsibilities, it would destroy the integrity of our legal system.  Do you think that's a good idea?