Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

magicseadog t1_jaya57d wrote

Reply to comment by Hot-Ad-6967 in Insulate Britain protesters jailed for seven weeks for mentioning climate change in defence by Mighty_L_LORT

I guess you don't understand how laws and courts work? Judges can't let people off because they are sympathetic with their cause. They adjudicate on the law. These people are not even helping to fight climate change. Climate change needs work and ingenuity to solve.

If these people wanted to do something they would go study and then help, rather than inconvienncing those of us who are working on solutions and destroying art.

−18

vlsdo t1_jayd5oz wrote

Nobody said anything about letting people off. But surely mentioning the motivation for their crime is relevant to the case and should be admitted in court. Otherwise why even have courts in the first place? Why not just dispatch justice Judge Dredd style, where the judge decides on his own the guilt and punishment for any action?

11

KingRobotPrince t1_jaz07i4 wrote

>But surely mentioning the motivation for their crime is relevant to the case and should be admitted in court.

It's their defence. So they would be saying that the fact that they did something because of climate change should have some effect on their guilt or sentencing.

Most decisions made in court have an effect on subsequent cases, so accepting it might set a precedent for these kinds of ideological beliefs to be accepted in court.

It's fairly obvious why fighting climate change isn't allowed in someone's defence.

0

ZharethZhen t1_jayhssi wrote

I mean, that's just wrong. Judges can and do let people off when they are sympathetic to them.

10

GetlostMaps t1_jayxoqu wrote

Maybe in shithole countries..

1

ZharethZhen t1_jb4b1kg wrote

Yeah, like all of them. Seriously, just google how rapists are often treated by the judges, like the Rapist Brock Turner.

0

Hot-Ad-6967 t1_jaye4v1 wrote

You are correct. I did not suggest that they should be let off. The judge is preventing them from explaining their motivations in court. It is already known what motivates them, so why prevent them from explaining their motivation?

7

KingRobotPrince t1_jaz15ja wrote

>You are correct. I did not suggest that they should be let off. The judge is preventing them from explaining their motivations in court.

But he is doing that because he believes that the defendants will use their motivation to influence the jury to let them off. (Which appears to be what happened.)

1

Hot-Ad-6967 t1_jaz5f89 wrote

The jury probably already knew this. In this case, climate change is well known, and there are a number of climate change protests going on, so this is not a rocket science for the jury to determine why this is happening. From the jury's perspective, the judge prevents them from explaining their motivations and are afraid of the grim reality. Is that influencing the jury in any way?

4

KingRobotPrince t1_jazaalj wrote

Sure, they obviously know what is going on, but the court doesn't want the defendants putting on a lecture on how bad climate change is and how we need to act now or they had no choice but to do what they did.

There is no "not guilty based on climate change". And nor should there be.

−1

Hot-Ad-6967 t1_jazbe14 wrote

The judge is personality martyring them and may cause other people to follow them.

2

KingRobotPrince t1_jazgwgr wrote

I don't think so. He's punishing them for not following his directions.

If it becomes a trend for these kinds of protesters to lecture in the courtroom to try and sway the jury, there are going to be consequences.

2

Hot-Ad-6967 t1_jazhke0 wrote

Yes, the followers will want to emulate them. They want that to happen, and the judge is providing them with what they desire. It is a dangerous political tactic.

4