Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
The judge interrupted several times in the first few sentences, telling Olax that references to Genocide were inadmissible. Court security were then ordered to remove Olax to the cells, and the judge summed up the case and sent the jury away to deliberate without the defendant present.
Unusually, Olax was not even returned to the court to hear the verdict.
“Israel is committing genocide” is not relevant to a charge of criminal damage. English law does not recognise “I was protesting something grievously wrong” as a general defence, and nor should it - so trying to lead the jury to be sympathetic because they agree with your message instead of finding according to the law would indeed be unjust.
Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.
would indeed be unjust
It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.
The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example. Why do you think they always want their industries deregulated, E.g when it comes to safety regulations.
Doesn’t get much better under communism either since party elites are allowed to do anything they want and enrich themselves in the process.
But it is our best effort. I don’t think even an abstract concept of justice is served by taking into account political motivation for your actions unless you apply the principle blindly. Do you think someone spraying right-wing slogans like “deport all migrants” or “traitors” or just “fuck you” on RNLI buildings should be off the hook because they think there’s an existential threat to the country from a trickle of refugees? Do you think they should be allowed to bring up those beliefs in court?
Besides assigning consequences to bad actions, justice must in the first instance be fair. I see no fair way to privilege motivations that I sympathise with (anti-Israeli-genocide) but not ones that I find detestable (anti-immigrant).
To determine facts. For them to be able to do that, they need to not be subjected to irrelevant emotional arguments.
Throughout these comments I’ve been asking what people think if the slogan had instead been “deport all immigrants” - do you have a view on whether a jury should hear a defendant’s motivation for spraying something like that?
That’s a little bit misleading, they’re supposed to determine the facts based on the evidence, then provide a verdict.
When giving a verdict they can take into account the severity of the penalty and the circumstances of the crime.
I think a jury should hear the motivation for the defendant’s actions: as a counterexample consider a defendant on trial for breaking their parole (under freedom of movement), but who did so to rescue people from a burning building. A jury would have to hear the motivation to take this into account.
But there are limits for good reason: if they broke parole in order to volunteer at a food bank or give blood, these are not valid motivations in the eyes of the law. Emergencies are, by common agreement, different than most other circumstances.
That determination can be made by the judge so that the jury doesn’t hear emotional arguments about how important the work at the food bank is and potentially be swayed. It’s the same as the judge deciding what evidence is admissible - we don’t show the jury absolutely everything because some is likely to lead them to return a verdict we know, through experience and careful consideration, to be incorrect.
You, too, are welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook about why we have juries. I replied originally because the article was bad and because people don’t seem to consider why you might keep stuff from a jury. Having done that, if people still disagree, they are welcome to criticise the English legal system and its ordinary justifications without getting me to copy and paste them.
Ok. I don’t, that sounds like it would lead to a lot of bad outcomes as well as giving an opportunity for terrible people to grandstand and waste time.
There’s nothing in the spirit of the law that is supposed to allow people to air their grievances in court, so no. What I’m against is adding that to the spirit of the law.
And the reason is because I think there’s no fair way to do it that doesn’t open the way for awful people to abuse it. And what I definitely am for is fairness.
The entire concept of the law is for people to air their grievances in court, instead of airing out each other’s skulls. Do you think motivation is irrelevant to crime?
They’re welcome to say that. I’ll stick with my own beliefs and those of the judge in this case though, after a brief read of some of that long paper. You’re welcome to make the case, though.
Hmmm yes much legal system, very justice.
“Israel is committing genocide” is not relevant to a charge of criminal damage. English law does not recognise “I was protesting something grievously wrong” as a general defence, and nor should it - so trying to lead the jury to be sympathetic because they agree with your message instead of finding according to the law would indeed be unjust.
Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.
It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.
Law in capitalist countries is not an effort towards justice, it is an effort towards protecting private property and the rights of capitalists.
The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example. Why do you think they always want their industries deregulated, E.g when it comes to safety regulations.
Doesn’t get much better under communism either since party elites are allowed to do anything they want and enrich themselves in the process.
But it is our best effort. I don’t think even an abstract concept of justice is served by taking into account political motivation for your actions unless you apply the principle blindly. Do you think someone spraying right-wing slogans like “deport all migrants” or “traitors” or just “fuck you” on RNLI buildings should be off the hook because they think there’s an existential threat to the country from a trickle of refugees? Do you think they should be allowed to bring up those beliefs in court?
Besides assigning consequences to bad actions, justice must in the first instance be fair. I see no fair way to privilege motivations that I sympathise with (anti-Israeli-genocide) but not ones that I find detestable (anti-immigrant).
If this is y’alls best effort y’all kinda suck at this ngl
Wow, incisive argument.
Why even have a jury?
To determine facts. For them to be able to do that, they need to not be subjected to irrelevant emotional arguments.
Throughout these comments I’ve been asking what people think if the slogan had instead been “deport all immigrants” - do you have a view on whether a jury should hear a defendant’s motivation for spraying something like that?
That’s a little bit misleading, they’re supposed to determine the facts based on the evidence, then provide a verdict.
When giving a verdict they can take into account the severity of the penalty and the circumstances of the crime.
I think a jury should hear the motivation for the defendant’s actions: as a counterexample consider a defendant on trial for breaking their parole (under freedom of movement), but who did so to rescue people from a burning building. A jury would have to hear the motivation to take this into account.
But there are limits for good reason: if they broke parole in order to volunteer at a food bank or give blood, these are not valid motivations in the eyes of the law. Emergencies are, by common agreement, different than most other circumstances.
That determination can be made by the judge so that the jury doesn’t hear emotional arguments about how important the work at the food bank is and potentially be swayed. It’s the same as the judge deciding what evidence is admissible - we don’t show the jury absolutely everything because some is likely to lead them to return a verdict we know, through experience and careful consideration, to be incorrect.
Disagree. Juries are there to determine justice, not facts, as much as our legal system would like you to believe otherwise.
Why would you need a jury to determine facts?
I don’t have the inclination to quote standard legal theory at you, it’s not like I’m on crackpot territory here
It’s a valid question. If this were about fact finding, a judge should be more capable than random people.
You, too, are welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook about why we have juries. I replied originally because the article was bad and because people don’t seem to consider why you might keep stuff from a jury. Having done that, if people still disagree, they are welcome to criticise the English legal system and its ordinary justifications without getting me to copy and paste them.
There is a reason most developed countries do not make use of random people to determine a verdict.
Go read a book. Or Wikipedia.
Yes they should.
Ok. I don’t, that sounds like it would lead to a lot of bad outcomes as well as giving an opportunity for terrible people to grandstand and waste time.
More of a strict letter of the law than a spirit of the law kinda guy, eh?
There’s nothing in the spirit of the law that is supposed to allow people to air their grievances in court, so no. What I’m against is adding that to the spirit of the law.
And the reason is because I think there’s no fair way to do it that doesn’t open the way for awful people to abuse it. And what I definitely am for is fairness.
The entire concept of the law is for people to air their grievances in court, instead of airing out each other’s skulls. Do you think motivation is irrelevant to crime?
Ah ok, so it’s easy - just allow all good things in the courtroom but ban the bad ones. I wish I’d thought of that. I must be a fucking moron I guess.
It seemed pretty easy for the jury.
What do you think when a jury makes a decision you disagree with?
Actually, you don’t want an honest discussion so that’s a question for you to ask yourself; I won’t be reading your reply.
University of Birmingham disagrees: https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/45/2/329/8078322?login=false they say that it should be a legal defence.
They’re welcome to say that. I’ll stick with my own beliefs and those of the judge in this case though, after a brief read of some of that long paper. You’re welcome to make the case, though.
I’m sorry. You’re beliefs don’t matter. Only facts.
Like the fact that the article linked does not represent the law in the UK at the moment?