Jeff Berwick of the Dollar Vigilante has this post informing of his new adventure in promoting jury nullification.
The Washington Post recently did a story on Jim Babb’s efforts to place jury nullification billboards up in the Washington, D.C. area, and the Washington Times recently had an editorial promoting jury nullification, and here is a discussion I recently posted on jury nullification including Ron Paul among the panel.
And in this article a year ago I promoted jury nullification as well as states nullifying federal criminality, and I promoted police and judge nullification as well. Police and judges who nullify unjust laws, that is, not enforce unjust laws, are heroes. Those who do enforce such laws are not heroes; they are co-conspirators and aiders and abettors in the crimes the State inflicts against innocent people for no good reason.
Laws which punish victimless “crimes” are really laws which punish innocent people for disobeying government bureaucrats, and that’s it. They have nothing to do with morality, protecting the public from aggressors, or protecting the persons and property of the people.
But I wanted to address here the new endeavor by Berwick to promote jury nullification. Yes, there are certain circumstances in which a jury member can effectively convince the other members of the jury to say the State’s victim on trial is “not guilty” of any actual crime or harm done to any actual person or property, regardless of the State’s victim having either disobeyed government bureaucrats’ orders or unwittingly violated any of the thousands of laws on the books whose sole purpose is for the State’s dishonest revenue collection and power grabbing.
In fact, the jury should go further than just nullifying unjust laws. The jury further needs to advise the government court that the real criminals in that case are the “law enforcement officers” who actually caused so much disruption to the life of their victim in their acts of abduction and unjust involuntary detention. And I would say that that should also apply to a State’s victim who is on trial for murder in the killing of a “LEO” in which such officers broke into the innocent victim’s home, and assaulted or otherwise threatened him and his family, for no good reason. Here, the real criminals are the officials, the armed authorities who were attempting to enforce unjust laws and/or government red-tape violations. These State agents’ innocent victims, many of whom have been murdered, assaulted, raped, robbed, and tasered by the Sate perpetrators, have a right to defend themselves, their families and their homes. That is just another reason why the early Americans wrote the 2nd Amendment into the very severely flawed U.S. Constitution.
But then, as I think about all those suggestions, reality sets in. After all, the other one who is involved with Berwick in the new jury nullification endeavor, Ben Swann, does emphasize “reality checks.” So, in today’s society, what really is the chance that government police and judges, and juries as well, will be open to nullifying unjust laws? Some people might answer: Not. Gonna. Happen.
I know, I know. There has been progress made in several areas of the country, such as in New Hampshire. Some jury nullification is happening. Yay! And there are states which have moved to nullify federal gun laws, ObamaCare, and NDAA. More good stuff.
But we have to face reality. When you are sitting on a jury, and you know that the one on trial for drug-related “offenses” is obviously innocent because he hasn’t harmed anyone, you really need to be careful in determining if it is in your best interest to push the other members of the jury to nullify. That is, it would probably be good to add that idea to the discussion in the jury room. But, if none of them are open to it, you can still vote “not guilty” because you have reasonable doubt. However, pushing people who are hell-bent on defending the State may not be a good idea in all circumstances.
That is because our society is now one in which many people worship the State and blindly and unthinkingly obey whatever the State says, regardless how irrational it is. America has become an “If You See Something, Say Something” society now. Especially when the government has been encouraging people to turn in their neighbors to the government for the slightest reason. What that does is make people who lack meaning in their lives feel important.
So, in the jury room when you are considering saying that the State’s current victim on trial has not harmed anyone even though he bought, sold, possessed or consumed certain drugs the State says is a no-no, really make sure that the other jury members won’t turn you in as a “drug-promoter,” or that they won’t alert the prosecutors about you in which case they may very well want to investigate you and your background. Just be careful, that’s all.
And it isn’t just drug cases. There are other cases in which the “If You See Something, Say Something” sheeple would ruin the life of another human being if they thought they would get good points from the almighty government. Other kinds of cases could include gambling, prostitution, pornography, etc. Or gun-related red-tape intrusions. Or even traffic violations, such as red-light camera tickets. Or war-on-terror related anti-liberty rules that are being bent and twisted by prosecutors to put dissenters and government-critics in jail to silence them.
And worse, what if the case in which you are a jury member was something very personally important to that prosecutor? Government prosecutors now have a lot of power, as do local police departments. We know that there are now prosecution quotas, arrest quotas, and other various ways in which these government employees are primarily concerned with furthering their careers by walking all over innocent victims of the State, certainly far more than they are concerned with something boring, like “justice” and due process.
So, law and order in America is not so much. The law is not real, as it is now mostly government bureaucrat orders to obey, or else.
After all, just look at what happened to Andrew Wordes. And Tom Ball. And the Hendersons. And look at what’s happening now to Adam Kokesh. And Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, as well.
This recent column by Paul Craig Roberts is yet another harsh reminder of the police state we now have in the USSA.
While currently it is not realistic to hope for judges and police to not enforce unjust laws which call certain behaviors “crimes,” acts in which their is no victim, it may be a good idea to try to communicate to actual local “law enforcement officers” and judges some of the ideas of natural law and freedom, and that something isn’t a crime if there is no victim. Perhaps people can send them articles or books by Murray Rothbard, Judge Andrew Napolitano etc., I don’t know. Or perhaps that isn’t a good idea.
Is there any way to get local cops and prosecutors and judges to step back and see how they are ruining innocent lives in the name of criminally enforcing Orwellian rules that shouldn’t exist in a free society?
I’m sure you can see from the tone of this post how fearful of the State some people are now.
But when on a jury, be careful and get to know the people with whom you are making the decision, that’s my main point. In any event, Jeff Berwick’s new jury nullification thing certainly is a good concept to consider and educate others on those ideas, no doubt about it.