Irate_Alligate1 t1_jayg8y4 wrote
The judge told them not to mention their defence and they did... that's a dumb judge that needs to be retired. You can't tell people to not mention the thing their defence hinges on.
Law_Student t1_jayskqz wrote
This is one of those situations where the way the law works doesn't always make sense to someone who isn't immersed in it.
The critical issue here is that "I broke the law to bring attention to climate change" isn't a legally recognized defense. It was the judge's job here to exclude it as an irrelevant attempt to influence the jury with emotion rather than a legal or factual argument. That's because the way the system is set up, the jury is supposed to consider only the narrow issue of whether the accused committed all the elements of the crime or not.
The law is set up the way it is; it doesn't care why someone did something in a case like this, only whether or not they did it. The judge's job is to follow the law. The judge had no choice but to exclude.
You might think that's wrong, and reasonable people can argue that point. But that's a question for the legislature. The judge doesn't have the freedom to make that call without exceeding their authority.
craybest t1_jazy613 wrote
How can motivation not be important in every case? This is the dumbest thing I've read. (I don't mean your opinion, but how the law works)
Law_Student t1_jb0g0vb wrote
I think it's about trying to ensure that the law is applied evenly, without prejudice. Most criminals will probably have some rationalization for why they did something. If we get into judging their guilt based on such things, that could open the door to the law only applying to some people at some times, and as a society we want everyone to be subject to the law equally. So instead we take into account the entirety of the circumstances when deciding how much punishment is deserved and necessary, but someone is still guilty if they committed the act.
craybest t1_jb0g4rn wrote
And the entirety of the circumstances should obviously also include their intent and reasoning. It's absolutely nonsense it isn't.
Law_Student t1_jb0hn3q wrote
It will come up in sentencing. The judge is allowed to take it into account then. The jury can't, though, when deciding on guilt.
In this particular case the defendants essentially committed a crime against the court when they were ordered not to bring up the reason in the "are you guilty or not?" phase of the trial, and then did it anyway.
craybest t1_jb0ic6u wrote
Why shouldn't the jury know the intent of the person though? What's wrong about considering all sides in that part if the process?
Law_Student t1_jb0kk0l wrote
I suppose I can make two arguments on behalf of the way things are done.
First, the jury's role is to establish whether or not the defendant is guilty of the criminal act as defined by the statute. Did the defendant commit the crime, yes or no? Someone's reasons, in a case like this, don't really change whether they did the crime or not. They're superfluous to the limited question at hand.
Sentencing is the part where we worry about how much someone deserves to be punished for committing the crime, so mitigating factors are relevant there.
Second, it might be dangerous to the justice system's impartiality and effectiveness to allow a jury to consider other factors when they come to a decision about guilt. The laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone. If juries start carving out unpredictable exceptions based on how sympathetic they feel a particular defendant is, then the application of justice might become very unequal. For example, young black men stereotyped as hoodlums might be treated much more harshly than young, attractive white women who have different, more positive stereotypes. (Indeed, that sort of bias is already a problem even with the current system.)
Fanwhip t1_jb0ye9i wrote
Look at anti abortionists.
"our god says they are evil so we destroyed the thing bringing evil here"
Anyone who shares the same religion would/should go "they didn't do anything wrong"
The crime was "firebombing a building and destroying property of the owner"
Not "Was the religion's beliefs so strong they had the right to destroy a building and shouldn't be held accountable"
If we allowed the argument " I did what i thought needed to be done" and that was all that was needed to be guilty/not guilty. I cant imagine the amount of folks that could or would be set free.
"My body said it was natural to take what i want from them"
"I didnt like them any my brain said i should get rid of them"
"I wanted it so i made them give it to me"
None of those should be a viable defense to committing a crime.
TeamRandom27 t1_jazhpcr wrote
But if it doesn't matter why someone did something why does the separation between murder and manslaughter exist if the difference is the intend?
vascop_ t1_jazx67o wrote
They literally typed "in a case like this". Motivation is important in some cases but not in all. It doesn't matter what your motivation is for example if you stop paying your taxes.
TeamRandom27 t1_jazxgxi wrote
But the thing is that in many cases there are factors that change how long/if someone gets sentenced etc. I just don't really see how this would be different?
vascop_ t1_jazxwrx wrote
Motive can be inculpatory, exculpatory or meaningless depending on the case. I'm not sure how to repeat the same thing in different words. Maybe you'd like motive to always be considered, but that isn't how most countries practice law. This is particularly relevant for menial cases, most traffic offenses, etc. You cannot start going through red lights because you want to minimize your driving time to stop climate change for example.
TeamRandom27 t1_jb03nds wrote
I totally see what you mean but I don't really understand why it's taken into consideration for some examples and in other you aren't even allowed to mention it but I probably just don't know enough about it
mrp3anut t1_jb2et8r wrote
Ill try my hand at explaining why motive matters sometimes and not other times.
Up this chain someone mentioned murder vs manslaughter. The difference between these crimes isn’t based on “why” someone did it. The difference is based on what level of “did you do this on purpose”. The various degrees of murder aren’t different based on the specifics of your justification. In the case of manslaughter the crime is usually “you were doing some generally stupid or bad thing that wasn’t murder and by bad luck you killed somebody “. Generally the “bad” behaviour in a manslaughter case did not have the goal of killing someone. That is very different than someone who planned out the murder of another person. If you plan out a murder because you hate that person for their race, believe murdering people will reduce climate change, or just dislike that person etc doesn’t have any bearing on the question of “ was this crime done on purpose rather than bad luck while doing some far milder bad thing”
SellDonutsAtMyDoor t1_jb03hz4 wrote
Which is, in itself, an admission that the law is fundamentally intended to be ignorant or indifferent of morality in most instances, and that only high-prorile charges are afforded the consideration of moral judgement.
mrp3anut t1_jb5q3t1 wrote
Its more that “i did it because X” is only a defense when X is something society has written in as a justified reason to break that law. In the case of murder society has predetermined that self defense is a legitimate reason to kill someone and thus it can used as a defense. Killing someone because they are a climate denial activist, they are on the other side of the abortion debate, or any other reason that you personally believe to be a good enough is not a legit defense.
The law needs to be applied as equally as possible and not be subject to the whims of a given judge or jury. Obviously we aren’t perfect at accomplishing this but to purposefully undermine that foundation is a very dangerous thing. It took society a long time to progress to the point that our legal systems are set up to strive for fairness rather than punish whoever the local powers doesn’t like while letting others off because they “did it for the greater good”. Would you support the idea that the state could highlight that these two “did it for climate change” if the jury was likely yo be climate change deniers and thus more likely to find the women guilty due to their political dislike of climate change activists?
mrp3anut t1_jb56fvm wrote
It isn’t different but the time for arguing why you did it in hopes of a lighter sentence is during sentencing not when the jury is deciding if you did it or not.
Law_Student t1_jb0dd8m wrote
Some crimes do have intent requirements. First degree murder must be willful, deliberate, and premeditated, for example. So if you trip and accidentally stab someone with a knife you're holding and they die, that's not murder because it doesn't fit any of the intent requirements, and testimony about intent would be relevant.
But even with intent crimes, the ultimate reason for the intent isn't usually relevant. It's more about "did you mean to do X". The law won't punish someone for an involuntary action or an accident, only if someone chose to do something is punishment justified. But the reason for the choice rarely matters. If you intentionally walk into the road when the crosswalk sign is red then you're jaywalking and it doesn't really matter why. That sort of thing.
Voluntary manslaughter is a rare exception that gives an imperfect defense to murder for certain kinds of provocation, so we actually do need to examine the why there.
mrp3anut t1_jb5nb7x wrote
Murder vs manslaughter is not a good comparison to this scenario. The difference between murder and manslaughter is a difference in “did you do this on purpose” not a difference in your personal justification for why you did the thing.
zanderkerbal t1_jb3hvl2 wrote
I understand how dangerous a precedent this would be when applied to any of the many terrible political reasons people do things for, but frankly, the way climate change is going, I think we're at the point where if people don't start exceeding their authority very fast the legal system is going to become a suicide pact.
WasteAd9692 t1_jb9msyi wrote
Well, that sounds like a very broken legal system to me.
The right to free speech should have higher priority than procedural concerns.
Law_Student t1_jbbgsof wrote
Such a rule would make courts places where everybody shouted at everybody else and nothing got done. One of the first things people discovered about courts is that the procedure is required in order for the whole process to proceed in a way that gives everybody a chance to speak and be heard. Courts heavily regulate speech to make everything work.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments