There is a big difference between this and failure to abide by or adhere to the law. If you want to use court decisions to buttress your case show me one where a court, in any jurisdiction, has ruled that it's permissible to ignore valid legislation simply because you disagree with it and violation is a 'victimless' offense.
I thought you were done, but ok.
Jury nullification. The right to a "jury of your peers" penned by the founders of our Constitution was intended as a check against ever-encroaching government regulation. A jury can find that, yes, a defendant violated a specific code or statute, but still find him not guilty (acquittal) as a form of protest. When enough juries nullify enough verdicts, it sends a strong message to government (the legislators) that the specific laws are unneeded.
Unfortunately, while SCOTUS has absolutely affirmed a jurors right to nullify ANY verdict without the threat of repercussion by the judicial system, judges routinely deny a jury's right to know about nullification, and instruct jurors that if they find the defendant has broken the law, the MUST find them guilty. People outside the courthouse steps distributing pamphlets regarding nullification have been arrested (though ultimately charges dismissed) for 'jury tampering'.
So, when a jury decides to vote 'not guilty', and acquits a defendant despite there being overwhelming evidence they did break the law, does it draw attention as a nullification? Or, does it just go down as a loss for the prosecution? Thus, it is difficult to determine how many times 'guilty' individuals were acquitted because the jury felt the law as unjust or unfair. One thing is certain - when a DA or prosecutor consistently begins to lose cases that should be slam-dunks, they stop prosecuting them.
Look, I'm not debating the need for policing. Clearly there are people who put everyone at risk, and cause crashes. Those people should be prosecuted for the harm they cause - not harm the
might cause. Driving while on the cell phone
may cause distracted driving, which
may cause a crash. Yet, we create laws to prevent people from using the phone while driving.
Studies show that there is no larger distraction for a driver than screaming kids in the back seat. If that is the case, why not make that illegal? Why not make changing the A/C or radio illegal? Or shut down all drive-thrus... Or [fill in the blank]
Citing statistics that 30% of crash fatalities 'involved' speeding is a red-herring. So what. A drunk driving the wrong way on the interstate may also be speeding, but when he crashes, it likely had nothing to do with the crash. Using that logic, we could also say that 100% of fatal car crashes involved cars. Speed may be involved, but not be the cause. Again, punish those that crash, that are reckless, that cause other drivers to have to take evasive action to avoid an accident. But going after people who
might cause an accident borders on Minority Report pre-crime.
Very simple libertarian principle. If it causes harm to others, prosecute. If there is no victim, there is no crime. But that wouldn't be good for the status quo, or the fact that American prisons have more prisoners than the rest of the world's countries COMBINED.
