"Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law"
The government just have to say how long.
Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction
- Thread starter abbviper
- Start date
"Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law"
The government just have to say how long.
They still have to plead guilty, or be found guilty, first.
They did it. They should do 3 months jail.
Plenty of pictures\video as proof.
No need for a trial.
In FL now. If you so much as touch a cop while protesting\rioting.
That a Mandatory 6 months in jail. Cops have body cams, so that's proof.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
There's some impressive false equivalences in this thread.
For one comparing those who believe in God to those who believe in Climate Change. And trial without defense? Mandatory sentencing in trials without defense? Epic. Lots of evidence to support the view that people shouldn't be trusted to be jurors.
For one comparing those who believe in God to those who believe in Climate Change. And trial without defense? Mandatory sentencing in trials without defense? Epic. Lots of evidence to support the view that people shouldn't be trusted to be jurors.
Robot jurors?
Where is FL? China? Russia?
You can have your trial.
But then you could put on new charges like reckless endangerment\Trespass which will\could turn out to be bigger sentencing.
So take your pick. Do the time. We have the video and other proof or roll the dice.
You're a proponent of conviction and imprisonment without trial, interesting.
Even in Florida I don't believe they would send you to prison for six months without a judicial process where you plead, or are found, guilty.
It's part of the evidence which the alledged perpetrator might accept as sufficient proof to plead guilty or a jury might accept as sufficient proof to convict.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
robot criminals?
Sadly even though they may try to reform, robots always fall back into their criminal ways.
In the context of your own position, it's determined by you. You were talking about murder, not killing in defence. I asked you about your position. You've already included killing people in revenge for burglary and/or for assaulting someone in the murderer's family as being reasonable. Did you intend to do so? If so, what else, what was the "etc" in your list? A person in this thread publically declared themself a terrorist who doesn't draw a line, who considers any and all actions justifiable for their cause (one of the examples they gave was of people who planted bombs in civilian areas to kill lots of random people). So I am asking the question seriously. I don't know where you draw the line.
You can’t be serious, I take it that you’re kidding.
So the video of this event is enough proof of the action and the intent and no need for a trial by jury (weird I thought you were for the judicial system not a dictatorship) but another case with video and testimony of the events and a jury finding someone guilty was also wrong.
I quite like living in a country where you have a trial not just presumed guilt, even if the jury may not go the way the government wants it to at at times.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
God, this would be a very weird version of dystopia. AI notoriously making 'odd' decisions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,382
- Location
- ST4
By "these silly people" do you mean people who believe that climate change is an existential problem for much of the planet
I think he means those caught in the act when committing criminal damage and vandalism. But you knew that already, didn't you?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I suspect that there was a time when evil people broke the law, causing criminal damage and vandalism when fighting for a woman's right to vote - but you knew that already, didn't you?
Sometimes people have to break the law for the greater good and like these jurors I applaud their courage.
Their actions took zero courage and are very likely indicative of them being craven hypocrites, like some in this thread, who can't be consistent enough to consider their own discretionary actions and environmental impact when they think it's acceptable for people to act criminally against companies in this manner.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
In the same way we look back at suffragettes as heroes and Nelson Mandela as a peacemaker, one day we will look back at the 20th and early 21st centuries as times when certain individuals and companies enriched themselves while knowingly destroying the planet. I don't approve of the defendants' actions but I wouldn't jail them for it.
We may, or we may not. The things you refer to are a result of very well executed rebranding and sweeping a lot of nasty things (up to and including torture, murder, mass murder and terrorism - not minor things) under the carpet. That's a PR job. Who knows which way a PR job will go. It all depends on who gets to control the allowed narrative.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
So like almost everything in history, ever?
Rarely has there been a major historical event where 'the winners' didn't do bad things? Do we think the Allies in WW2 were all saintly? No, but they were better than Nazis and Fascists.
Rarely has there been a major historical event where 'the winners' didn't do bad things? Do we think the Allies in WW2 were all saintly? No, but they were better than Nazis and Fascists.