The system in this case. It should not be possible for a jury to clear people of acknowledged actions without a defence in law. I'd feel the same about any trial on any subject with the same scenario.
Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction
- Thread starter abbviper
- Start date
The system in this case. It should not be possible for a jury to clear people of acknowledged actions without a defence in law. I'd feel the same about any trial on any subject with the same scenario.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
See, this is where I absolutely disagree, or else there would be no protection against legally passed but unjust laws.
The alternative is too authotarian for my liking.
On the contrary, the UK has substantial protection against such things codified in law and process, including the human rights act, membership of various international bodies, appeals processes, and the supreme court.
Such protection should not rely on the lottery of your jury makeup and the eloquence (or lack thereof) of your defence, as is the case here.
Totally disagree, jury nullification is a very important check and balance on the power of the legislative and judicial branches of government. The human rights act has more back doors built into it than Windows XP.
Jury nullification (well, it's actually jury equity or the ability to render a perverse verdict in the UK, jury nullification is a US term) isn't a check and balance, it's a highly subjective, inconsistently applied anomaly.
The example I gave earlier around racism wasn't theoretical, there were examples of this from the USA in the 50s and 60s where this exact thing happened.
Apologies for the pdf link
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=wmborj&ved=2ahUKEwjc7Zr88ZbwAhVEsXEKHfLvD30QFjAMegQIHBAC&usg=AOvVaw2xdRuMh9qZxUpqQ4b1EUSi
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,180
- Location
- Rollergirl
I've always refused jury duty. There's no way I'm contributing to a decision that could cost someone their freedom when I have absolutely no training or expertise.
If I'm as silly as you think (well presented counter argument, BTW), would you want me on the jury in your trial?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
I dont get it. So I can go and deface a McDonalds now because they're making people fat? I mean, I'm morally justified right? Just a quick little sham trial and I'll be on my way to do it again somewhere else?
How is this ruling a good thing?
How is this ruling a good thing?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
As long as a significant portion of the general public agree with you, then maybe.
I think you'd be on your own though.
It shows that it's risky for companies and governments to fail to act on climate change.
How is that any different to the often abused, subjective, inconsistent and contradictory laws passed by the legislative branch? Clive Ponting's case was the perfect example of how the jury justly defied the legislative and judicial branch's combined tyranny.
I wouldn't say there was equivalence here to "state tyranny", are we really arguing that damaging buildings of private companies is now fair game if individuals don't like the business they engage in? That opens a can of worms for me.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Surprised how many folk are upset that a billion dollar corp that has contributed many billions of pounds to keeping fossil fuels at the forefront of the utilities sector having a bit of spray paint and a broken window on the building we bought them.
In this situation the power was misused.
But when you consider the ceaseless government abuses of power in terms of the unjust laws and the police officers and judges who are complicit in enforcing them, juries are so restrained as to be an almost flawless system by comparison. Rarely do juries exercise their legal authority to stop enforcement.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Yeah I agree. I don't think I'll be loosing any sleep over it.
I wasn't even having a go, you've clearly just being playing the victim so long you can't differentiate. Did you just ask me to 'do my research'?
Crikey, stay over the pond with the yanks fella. You sound like you fit right in.
On behalf of my American friends, I take exception to that, the bunch in Georgia lean slightly to the right, while the New York chapter, all college graduates, are more liberal, but to a man and woman, they could type a more grammatical version of the excerpt quoted below.
What's a nots only 1?
Edit: ah stealth edit, the excitement of posting came over you too greatly?
No.
I'm old and disabled. What's your excuse
https://www.facebook.com/TomHarwood...on-rebellion-block-ambulance/342538683766170/
So can we now go to there office and break there windows?
Exactly this. Can I now go and smash up a Tesco because I disagree with their business practices?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,180
- Location
- Rollergirl
Agreed.
Don't like the way children are exploited to provide the raw materials for the cosmetics industry? Get down your local Boots and fire a brick through the window.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Well, do you think you can?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Try it and report back to us what happens.
Legally, most of this outrage can be addressed by asking the questions - did this ruling change the law? No. Did it set a precedent that binds further rulings? No. Would another jury in identical circumstances return the same verdict? Not necessarily. So, no, legally it's not OK to smash stuff up just because you think it should be. This verdict (for now) stands alone. And again, it really should make no difference whether you agree with the decision or not. This is our thousand year old or more legal system (evolved over a thousand years obviously, not set it stone for the last thousand years, for any nit-pickers) working as it should. That's OK, even if (like democracy) it occasionally returns results you don't agree with. To disagree with this ruling is one thing. To think it shouldn't have happened, or that now it has happened it should be overturned is to argue against our entire legal system.