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.
“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.
EDIT: if you’re going to add yet another biting and insightful one-line reply, include with it an explanation in your own words of why a judge can exclude evidence in a trial, and whether you disagree that that’s a good thing or if not, why this differs.
This is the value of jury trials, the people get a chance to decide what is just. What’s the point in having a justice system that results in outcomes the vast majority would consider unjust.
That’s part of their job. Anything that’s more prejudicial than probative, anything that isn’t relevant to the charges, anything that has no verifiable source, that all gets tossed if the judge is doing their job. And that’s not an exhaustive list.
Yeah which is a good thing for fairness, and then the fact the jury decided based on more than what was allowed alone was also a representation of a public desire for real justice
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.
The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example
This only limits certain actions, not killing in general. There are ways that capitalists legally kill people all the time, like by enforcing car-centric infrastructure or with climate change or by refusing necessary healthcare in privatized healthcare systems or by evicting tenants.
Yes, but under libertarianism that would all be legal. So I’m not sure life without laws would be all that much better than life with laws. Would give even more power to the elites.
I’m just saying that the legal system is not here to protect the working class against capitalists, it’s there to (1) protect capitalists from the working class, (2) moderate conflicts between capitalists. This means that some particularly gruesome activities are moderated to prevent outright revolts, but less visible killings are permitted.
If we want to make a legal system that actually protects the working class, the first thing it needs to do is prohibit private property over means of production to prevent unlimited capital accumulation.
Those laws are always temporary under capitalism, just look at the deregulation happening now in the US. Meanwhile China has gradually been improving its worker protections for almost a century, with almost no setbacks.
And speaking of China, if you are a senior party member of the CPC and you use it to enrich yourself, you get executed. As usual, accusations of communist misdeeds by capitalists are just confessions.
No, I have no examples of a successful transition from to communism because it can’t really happen at scale with humans in charge. The “vanguard” will never relinquish control. Why would they? Someone else would take the role anyway.
Okay, can YOU name a single large scale communist country that did away with the vanguard?
Depends on what you mean by AI. No, I don’t think LLMs will ever be sentient. I also just know that under human leadership it’s impossible for true equality to exist. Those in power will always want more.
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).
Everything is relevant when you’re deciding the guilt or innocence of a man being pressed under the boot of the state.
Fuck the law, when it is unjust and immoral we must fight to change it or, in this case, at least realize it and use jury nullification as it was intended.
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.
The Jury is law and the Jury decided Olax Outis did nothing wrong. Maybe the judge shouldn’t have disrespected the Jury? Maybe they decided that, given the context, it was more important that voices against genocide not be silenced?
I’m done doing your homework. The fact is is that the Jury acquitted Olax Outis unanimously. If you think that was a mistake, well, you weren’t on the 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.
The impartiality of juries only extends to what happens within the courtroom, they must not be swayed by anything that happens outside it. Everything else is fair game, including testimony.
Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience, which has been a principal of law for over 300 years. Your experience and consideration doesn’t get to decide for the jury what their decision must be.
I don’t think you’re really engaging with this… do you think there should be no limits on what evidence and testimony is admitted, just because it’s inside the court? Why even have the judge in there?
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.
If you can’t justify it, I’m obviously not going to change my mind. I’ve read many books and done my own thinking. I’m sure it’s a huge surprise that someone could have thought about something and come to a different conclusion than you
Look mate. We clearly have differing opinions. Maybe you don’t want to convince me of yours, which is fine, but if that’s the case, there’s not much point replying. If you do, linking me to other ways facts can be determined in legal contexts doesn’t do anything to achieve that, does it? I do already know about judge-led trials, in case that wasn’t obvious, and their existence doesn’t support your opinion from what little of it you’ve shared.
I’ve had about five billion replies on this, mostly more one liners that show no thought. Try and do better.
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?
The prosecution is airing its grievances, not the defence. And motivation matters in some circumstances but this this isn’t one of them. Unless you want to implement a fair principle for everyone, which I think would do more harm than good.
“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.
EDIT: if you’re going to add yet another biting and insightful one-line reply, include with it an explanation in your own words of why a judge can exclude evidence in a trial, and whether you disagree that that’s a good thing or if not, why this differs.
This is the value of jury trials, the people get a chance to decide what is just. What’s the point in having a justice system that results in outcomes the vast majority would consider unjust.
Why is the judge able to exclude evidence?
That’s part of their job. Anything that’s more prejudicial than probative, anything that isn’t relevant to the charges, anything that has no verifiable source, that all gets tossed if the judge is doing their job. And that’s not an exhaustive list.
Yeah which is a good thing for fairness, and then the fact the jury decided based on more than what was allowed alone was also a representation of a public desire for real justice
I think everyone played their roles
And so the judge decided in this case that the defendants motivations were similarly not relevant.
No fucking clue, they shouldnt be
I encourage you to look it up :)
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.
This only limits certain actions, not killing in general. There are ways that capitalists legally kill people all the time, like by enforcing car-centric infrastructure or with climate change or by refusing necessary healthcare in privatized healthcare systems or by evicting tenants.
Yes, but under libertarianism that would all be legal. So I’m not sure life without laws would be all that much better than life with laws. Would give even more power to the elites.
I’m just saying that the legal system is not here to protect the working class against capitalists, it’s there to (1) protect capitalists from the working class, (2) moderate conflicts between capitalists. This means that some particularly gruesome activities are moderated to prevent outright revolts, but less visible killings are permitted.
If we want to make a legal system that actually protects the working class, the first thing it needs to do is prohibit private property over means of production to prevent unlimited capital accumulation.
Who went to jail for PFOA’s?
Who went to jail after the 2008 debacle that almost crashed the world economy?
Laws in capitalistic countries protect capital. You are a fool for not understanding this.
Safety regulations are there to protect capital as well because without healthy safe workers you will not be able to run your business.
Ask yourself why safety is routed through HR in your company.
Those laws are always temporary under capitalism, just look at the deregulation happening now in the US. Meanwhile China has gradually been improving its worker protections for almost a century, with almost no setbacks.
And speaking of China, if you are a senior party member of the CPC and you use it to enrich yourself, you get executed. As usual, accusations of communist misdeeds by capitalists are just confessions.
Surely you have examples of a successful transition from socialism to communism and then it’s failure, then?
Are you stalking me now?
No, I have no examples of a successful transition from to communism because it can’t really happen at scale with humans in charge. The “vanguard” will never relinquish control. Why would they? Someone else would take the role anyway.
Maybe one day we’ll have real AGI to handle it.
So you’ve got no examples of what happens under capitalism happening under communism, yet seem very sure about it being an inevitable outcome.
Oh God you’re an AI enthusiast?
Okay, can YOU name a single large scale communist country that did away with the vanguard?
Depends on what you mean by AI. No, I don’t think LLMs will ever be sentient. I also just know that under human leadership it’s impossible for true equality to exist. Those in power will always want more.
No, because communism is classless, moneyless, and stateless.
Words have definitions, lol.
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.
Everything is relevant when you’re deciding the guilt or innocence of a man being pressed under the boot of the state.
Fuck the law, when it is unjust and immoral we must fight to change it or, in this case, at least realize it and use jury nullification as it was intended.
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?
The Jury is law and the Jury decided Olax Outis did nothing wrong. Maybe the judge shouldn’t have disrespected the Jury? Maybe they decided that, given the context, it was more important that voices against genocide not be silenced?
Nope.
Happy to discuss this, but first read a book on how the law actually works, so that you can talk about how you think it should change coherently.
I’m done doing your homework. The fact is is that the Jury acquitted Olax Outis unanimously. If you think that was a mistake, well, you weren’t on the Jury.
Your understanding of legal theory seems to have come from a Tumblr post, so I wouldn’t accept any homework you did on my behalf.
There is room for disagreement and reasoned debate but you don’t understand enough to engage in it. Bye.
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.
The impartiality of juries only extends to what happens within the courtroom, they must not be swayed by anything that happens outside it. Everything else is fair game, including testimony.
Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience, which has been a principal of law for over 300 years. Your experience and consideration doesn’t get to decide for the jury what their decision must be.
I don’t think you’re really engaging with this… do you think there should be no limits on what evidence and testimony is admitted, just because it’s inside the court? Why even have the judge in there?
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.
Juries shouldn’t only decide on what the law says and the facts, but also on their sense of justice applied to a specific case.
No, I won’t justify my answer. Go read a book
If you can’t justify it, I’m obviously not going to change my mind. I’ve read many books and done my own thinking. I’m sure it’s a huge surprise that someone could have thought about something and come to a different conclusion than you
There is a reason most developed countries do not make use of random people to determine a verdict.
Go read a book. Or Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact#Judges
Look mate. We clearly have differing opinions. Maybe you don’t want to convince me of yours, which is fine, but if that’s the case, there’s not much point replying. If you do, linking me to other ways facts can be determined in legal contexts doesn’t do anything to achieve that, does it? I do already know about judge-led trials, in case that wasn’t obvious, and their existence doesn’t support your opinion from what little of it you’ve shared.
I’ve had about five billion replies on this, mostly more one liners that show no thought. Try and do better.
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.
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?
The prosecution is airing its grievances, not the defence. And motivation matters in some circumstances but this this isn’t one of them. Unless you want to implement a fair principle for everyone, which I think would do more harm than good.
Legalist morality is for dogs of the state, think for yourself, Javert.
Idiot.
Lmao