This is a very interesting decision and one that, I would think, would be used as precedent for many areas of society.
John Cheek cheekily did not pay his taxes for years and the US Supreme Court affirmed his views based on the principle that even if one wilfully commits a crime, they cannot be charged with that crime if they are ignorant of the full-scope of the laws. And more importantly, it doesn't matter how irrational that ignorance is.
In other words, if you truly believe that you are not violating the existing laws then you are not wilful and therefore not guilty of a crime.
This defence cannot be used to protest against existing laws, but it can be used (in the US) as a defence if you feel the existing laws have some other interpretation other than the one you are being accused of. Because then you are not wilfully breaking the law.
I think it's a fascinating test of the laws of the land. And it's one that could be used in a variety of defences where people are unaware of the full scope of the law and therefore are ignorant of what exact laws they are breaking. And the beauty of it is that the rationality of your argument has nothing to do with it.
It's the way that justice should work. Good decision in my book.
No comments:
Post a Comment