Well, you took so long at it that you've lost the thread and my point.
Someone said: I'll vote "not guilty" to any drug crime.
You said:
> still many people charged with drug crimes are actually
> dangerous and violent criminals.
So I said:
> Er, if they are actually a dangerous and violent criminal, they ought
> to have been charged with an actually dangerous and violent crime?
> Or
> are you saying you'd convict on an undangerous and unviolent crime
> just
> to get them off the streets?
So yes of course, if they are charged with a violent crime, and the government makes its case, off they go. We're all with you.
But that's not what we're talking about here, nor is it what I think you were getting at above. So let me make it clear this time: I think you sare saying that if you were on a jury for a non-violent drug-only trial, you'd consider voting not guilty On Principle ... UNLESS ... in your estimation that person was an (unindicted!) "actually dangerous and violent criminal" ...
That is: despite being given one question to answer, you'd rather answer two; you'd be your own little Grand Jury.
Am I characterizing your position correctly?
/jordan