Imagine a criminal case of drug possession, tax evasion, or prostitution -- meaning, where the law is wrong because the outlawed activity doesn't violate rights. Should a rational juror refuse to find the defendant guilty? Would that be morally obligatory or merely acceptable? Does the juror endorse the violation of rights inherent in the law by voting to convict? Basically, shouldn't the juror use his own independent mind not merely to judge the evidence, but also to judge the morality of the law?