did you read what I posted from trial ... if you think their personal conviction outweighs the criminal damage ?
seemed carte-blanche for a gullible woke jury - in the face of common opinion.
which does somewhat summarize the tree escapade - social media has taken over - innate vandalism yes, but not a capital offense.
The Judge did his job.
The prosecution and the defence put forward their cases.
The Judge clarified for the jury what was required for a guilty verdict and what was required for a not guilty verdict if the jury used went with the very specific defence as laid down by the defendants.
This isn't "work", it isn't the judge instructing the jury to give a verdict (the judge cannot, something that was settled centuries ago when a judge held a jury in jail to try and force them to give a guilty verdict), this is the judge advising a random (not "woke") group of 12 normal people, most of whom probably have only ever experienced legal stuff with regards to buying/selling a house or dealing with a will, what a potentially complicated bit of law meant in terms the jury could understand.
The Jury, who as has been said, were chosen at random from the available pool of potential jurors in the area having listened to the prosecution, then listened to the defence gave a verdict.
The law is complex, the Judge has a duty to explain, in impartial terms what certain things mean, in a way a jury of average people can understand, it is one of the biggest parts of a Judge's job, to mediate proceedings, rule on what can and cannot be admitted, give a sentence if a guilty verdict is found, and to explain to absolute legal novices what exceptionally complicated/specialist bits of law might mean based on previous cases and do so in the simplest terms possible..
As a very simple example.
If I break a car window I am doing criminal damage.
However there are long established legal defences to that, for instance if I break the window to get a small child out of a car that has been left in the sun and is dangerously hot I am almost certainly clear e, even just doing so to aid a pet animal is IIRC enough in law.
There are massive numbers of these often very specific defences, as we've got something like 1000 years of case law and precedent.
