Rule of Law

Here's a recent article in the WSJ which has reinforced my big-government paranoia.  The subject is 'Mens Rea,' a term I had not known before, but it has to do with innocence because of ignorance.  In the Doctrine and Covenants 131:6, it reads, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance."  

Apparently, this principle applies in courts of law, which is a scary thing because there are so many laws, that one statistic shows that the average person breaks three laws a day, not including traffic violations.  Seems that our politicians pass a lot of new laws, without ever repealing old ones.  

I have never worried about getting in trouble with the law, because I have never been aware of breaking any laws.  But the examples in the articles were of men who weren't doing anything obviously bad--one freed a whale that was stuck in his net!  I'm worried now.  

There were two bits of practical advice left in the "comments" section.  One was how to react when approached by a policeman, the other was something to consider if you're ever on a jury.


"The emasculation of the Mens Rea protections requires that when law enforcement asks you a question, with few exceptions, the only response you give is your name. After that you invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege.

One other question you might give respond to is if the officer asks whether you think answering his questions will incriminate you. The answer is "I do not know. There are so many laws that impose criminal sanctions for conduct the ordinary person does not know is unlawful that answering any question may incriminate."

Simlarly, if the officer asks "May I come in?" the answer is "no." You never know what they may see or may claim to have seen in your house that is, unknown to you, evidence of a crime.

In short, you do not and can not know whether you have anything to hide." 



"Do you know how many laws are on the books? Not even the judges and lawyers know them all. They know the most common ones and they can look laws up to figure out what can be applied to a particular case, but there are so many and they are often written in legal jargon that the average person can not understand, that it is impossible to know if there is some law somewhere that you might be breaking. Many of the laws are also "rubber band" laws that can be stretched to fit the situation at the prosecutor's discretion. I have seen that happen. Many laws, such as the "honest services" law (now declared unconstitutionally vague and limited to certain circumstances) are so vague that even if you know about the law, you may not know to which acts it can be applied. It all depends on whether a prosecutor who wants another notch on his belt wants to try to stretch it and make it fit the case at hand. 
 

This is why I have come to believe in jury nullification, whereby a juror who believes that a law is being used in an unjust manner, whether because the law was vague or obscure or being misapplied in some way, "nullifies" the law and votes "not guilty". The jurors have more power than most people know. It saddens me when I read of cases where the defendant was convicted and a juror says afterward that they "had" to vote guilty because that was what the law said (and the judge often instructs them that they have to follow the law - which is not true) though they thought it was unjust to do so. They did not have to vote guilty. I wish more people understood that principle."

Update (9/28):  Just saw this article about a couple in Idaho.  More of the same!