Hacker News Reader

Comment by vezzy-fnord | Hacker News Reader

That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple.

Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification.

As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy.

The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy.

View on HN

Yes, but jury nullification will only happen once there is a trial. He must be prosecuted under the law he broke and found innocent.

The point is the GP's highly simplistic conception of law and the judicial system does not pan out in practice. Also the "shaky path to anarchy" is such a pathetic jab that one is strongly tempted to yell astroturfer.

Maybe it seems simplistic, but frankly that is how the world goes round. A person breaks a law and is held accountable. The article suggests Governor Chafee's reaction that, despite the breaking of a major law, Snowden should just come home free, unconditionally, is somehow the correct approach. That, to me, seems both overly simplistic and unrealistic. Clinton properly acknowledges that a law was broken and you can't just casually dismiss that. That seems much more responsible to me. Now, if a president were to later pardon Snowden, that is also allowable by law.

It seems you revolve around the idea of law being a divine ordinance. That's fine, but also a fringe view. Laws have relevance insofar as the ones subject to it have a consensus, and if there is sufficient interest in the law being enforced. In addition, laws often are dismissed or punitive actions significantly diminished depending on intent, circumstances (political, social or on a case-by-case basis) and perceived justice, the ultimate expression of the latter being nullification which in the U.S. has a notable history. As such, the trite legalism that suggests "the law is the law" as if commanded by a deity and that it must unequivocally be applied to its maximal extent, is the irresponsible and simplistic view.

Is your fnord the same user as the other fnord? In any case, feel free to provide further insight here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10405154

I'm not the same commentator as fnordfnordfnord. As for your linked question, it's heavily verging on RTFM territory, so I'll let you do that.

It is simplistic. People break laws all the time and aren't held accountable. Cases in point, the many people involved in illegal spying, torture, banking fraud, etc. Your post simply does not reconcile with reality.

"Now, if a president were to later pardon Snowden, that is also allowable by law."

If the President were today to pardon Snowden, that is also allowable by law.

Convince Snowden that he will get a fair trial and see if he'll return and face it.

I think you'll have quite a task convincing anyone though that Snowden would get a fair trial. If you can't guarantee a fair trial, then you can't expect people to submit to one.

> Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification.

More importantly here in particular, it's called a presidential pardon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com