So I wrote an answer out in full to the body of your text but it mostly pointed out you misconstruing or representing my argument, taking it outside of pre-detailed parameters or using part of my argument out of context to challenge it when the subsequent line already address’ this. However your last bit was on point so I slimmed my argument pre-that down to this paragraph and then addressed only that bit (the rest was basically all straw man, though I fully accept that this may well have been due to me misrepresenting my argument. The only points I will still make are that jury nullification is something they are told is not within their powers prior to the case and if prosecution makes a case for it it is grounds for a mistrial and that the Freedom Index I used is one of those in highest regard currently and does not regard economic freedom as a significant factor for freedom, the Fraser Institute Freedom Index). Oh and that I never said that common law or following the law would stop a dictatorship, rather that following all laws prevents a dictatorship from being possible in the UK because between our common law and a few old statutes a number of liberties and systems are required that cannot be altered without first breaking laws, these prevent such action. (They could of course break these first [and thus not be operating in my system] but even if they did that would nullify the application of my argument as it would be the laws of a government that doesn’t represent the people and so they would have no contract with these laws). It is not demonstrable when you quote a single line out of context, but read the whole lot and that is what I said.
Actually this is pretty close (and the only part of our argument so far that I feel has been conducive to good disccussion [including my contribution]), but missing the underlying reason.
I stated that it harms the law for good reason. Your premiss for me is correct but for the purpose that society is governed successfully by having a stable law and the knowledge that if something is criminal you do not do it. The law isn’t a real thing it is a concept. De value the law by making it flexible in some categories and you make it less substantial. To the edges of society this is problematic.
I understand your claim but feel it lacks attention to three areas. One in Britain we are mostly common law, that means that most of these laws are based upon the public verdict that the law is just anyway. Two the law in Britain can be opposed by other means. You ask what about those who have to go without in the mean time if a law is unjust, but what about the victims created if a law is just and in the mean time many freely break it because they feel it is unjust? Three it leaves account for which laws should be broken in the hands of people who need these laws to exist to stop them performing these acts. If we could trust them to get it right we wouldn’t have the laws.
Now let us say that only ‘victimless’ crimes can be broken in this way
Just a few to consider. Some are ‘victimless’ and some are those which the perpetrators usually regard as victimless:-
1.Crimes with no victim unless it goes wrong. I.e. is speeding criminal if you don’t have an accident? What about drink driving? How do you establish this category as illegal when the majority of times there is no victim and actually the majority seem to break this law?
2.Cannabis smoking at home? And by that logic Cannabis selling? Whether you agree or not the figures for the general public in the UK swing from 70% in favour of legalisation or lower sentences to 70% in favour of increasing sentencing (and an even higher percentage of magistrates). By your rules many people would break this law believing it to be unjust and then be made criminals for doing it.
3.Piracy. Most here believe it is victimless but the major corporations, judiciary, government (and according to the mainstream British media) the people disagree.
4.Heroine taking? it is victimless in that the victim is yourself and you volunteer, it is not in that it often leads to crimes to support the habit.
5.Heroine sales. If taking is victimless…
6. Crimes that are not victimless but which those that perpetrate them often see as victimless. e.g defrauding a)the government or b)insurance companies or c) those who are reimbursed by insurance companies so they lose no money
7. Crimes of dehumanisation. Crimes like rape, slavery, racial abuse and spousal abuse typically happen on the grounds that “they aren’t equal to me”. The perpetrators often see the ‘victims’ as lesser beings and so do not see them as victims but at best as being deserving and normally seeing themselves as being just and enforcing justice.
The time is nearly out and given the course of the comments prior to where I started responding, I will not respond further to you but leave it open for your rebuttal and close. I do not expect I have changed your opinion any but it has been enlightening and while I do not feel myself turned towards the alternate system I am investigating with a magistrate friend any allowances makable/ tested in the British system. While I do not see it as a functional system for law where in a world where law is necessary in the first place I am trying to develop a system of law (theoretically) that allows for that but does not endorse those with differing morals from testing laws that should not be broken.
.
