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.
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
You’re welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook. I’m not going to do your work for you. Tired of explaining and justifying my position and I’ll imply others are ignorant instead
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.
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
You’re welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook. I’m not going to do your work for you. Tired of explaining and justifying my position and I’ll imply others are ignorant instead
He sent me to Wikipedia, I did his work for him, and then he said he wanted to be convinced some more. 😜
You’re not listening:
Piss off if you’re not going to read what I write.
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.
That turned into an opinion pretty quick
Was that you trying? I don’t know which answer is worse. Bye.
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.
Legalist morality is for dogs of the state, think for yourself, Javert.
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.
Motivation absolutely matters in all circumstances.
Uhuh. Well, you’re very confident, yet I’m for some reason unconvinced by your detailed argument…