As for YOU, “It’s that the attempts to prove that God does not exist (eg. the logical Problem of Evil) cannot be demonstrated to be sound arguments.”

Maybe. But after the arguments are done we step back and say: “hmm, the existence of (a benevolent all-powerful) God cannot be disproved. But it does look spectacularly unlikely. So we conclude that technical agnosticism, but to-all-intense-and-purposes in practical life, atheism, is the best stance to take.”

If we’re being honest.

Cheers!

True.

re:”Not to decide whether the accused acted immorally, or whether the accused is well-intentioned, or whether the accused is a nice person.”

False. A jury may convict or acquit for any reason and is answerable to no one.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution”
– Thomas Jefferson (1789)

“It is not only…[the juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
– John Adams, 1771

“There has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the power and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what is the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their power, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and find all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”
– Lysander Spooner, 1852

etc.

Why 5 years?

etc.

p.s. Why is it Joe Bloggs with the cocaine, and you on the jury, eh? Waverleys, c.2004. It could all have been so different…