SECTION ONE ANALYZES THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT WOULD BE RATIONAL TO INTRODUCE A LAW THAT IS MADE TO BE BROKEN, AND MORE EXPLICITLY DELINEATES WHAT IT MEANS TO SAY THAT A LAW IS MADE TO BE BROKEN. THE SECOND SECTION PRESENTS TWO HYPOTHETICAL LAWS THAT ARE, IT IS ARGUED, RATIONALLY MADE TO BE BROKEN. IN SECTION THREE, OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNING LAWS TO ACCOMMODATE NONCOMPLIANCE ARE CONSIDERED. SECTION FOUR THEN EXAMINES AN EXISTING LAW -- OBLIGATING JURORS TO FOLLOW THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW -- THAT IS ARGUABLY MADE TO BE BROKEN, AND COMPARES THIS LAW WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL LAWS OFFERED IN SECTION TWO. THE FINAL SECTION GENERALIZES ABOUT THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT MIGHT BE FRUITFUL TO PURSUE THE STRATEGY OF MAKING ALLOWANCE FOR EXPECTABLE NONCOMPLIANCE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)...KAP