In a story titled: “Wi-Fi freeloader faces jail for checking email” CNN reports about a man in Michigan that is facing a felony 5 years in jail and a $10,000 fine for piggybacking on a Wi-Fi connection offered for free by a coffee shop.
While it can be argued that the act was wrong it should be plainly evident that the law does not adequately address the current state of technology. Furthermore, the proposed punishment far outweighs the potential harm that might result.
It is precisely this type of situation in which Jury Nullification finds its primary application. Jury nullification is the doctrine that holds that jurors have a de facto responsibility to judge not only the facts of a given case but also the proper applicability of the law in a given case. While lawyers and judges find the concept abhorrent and will seldom confirm this power of the jury, there is clear precedence both in case law and in historical accounts to support its use.
To the average citizen it is apparent that this law is bad law in which the punishment far exceeds a crime. All that is required is for a sufficient number of jurors to say “NO”. Quite simply no matter what the judge the prosecutor or anyone else may desire or believe to be true the ultimate responsibility in this case should lie in the hands of a juror who is willing to stand his ground and say NO.
It could also be quite successfully argued that the prosecutor in this case is a fool along the lines of Mike Nifong the infamous prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case. It should be a primary ethical responsibility of a conscientious prosecutor to decline to prosecute a clearly bad law. This is much along the lines of the military code that holds that a soldier does not have to obey an illegal command. Neither should a prosecutor blindly prosecute a clearly bad law simply because the legislature has failed to address the laws failings. A prosecutor stated on CNN that they were anticipating this case while dreading it at the same time.  This clearly indicates that the prosecutor knows this is bad law.
It is the opinion of the Angry Citizen© that individuals and business entities who utilize WiFi networking bear the primary responsibility for securing their networks. This is much like the concept that if you leave a $20 bill lying on the ground in front of your house you won’t get far in claiming theft if someone picks it up. The technology is readily available to enable both WiFi security and relatively simple commerce. If a business owner offers a free service and this service freely continues beyond the border of their establishment it should be available to anyone who wishes to avail themselves of it.
So lets hope a Michigan jury will nullify this Law soundly. I would be very happy to see all the jurors stand and state NO loudly and clearly when asked for a verdict.
A few Links:
Fully Informed Jury Association http://www.fija.org/
Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/lessons/nullification/definitions.html
And a Quote:
- “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge
[both the facts and law].”
- John Jay First Chief Justice of the United States