Tearing down statues

[FoxEye]

law is not nullified by a jury, they don’t have that power. They decide upon guilt after trying the evidence.

It is the nature of the beast. Juries are unpredictable and one can get surprise acquittals as a result.

There was chat of Diplock trials coming back during pandemic. Widely unpopular with practitioners. Happily they haven’t been brought back yet but there’s a lot of people and practitioners out there who share many views here and say get rid of juries and have a system more like an appeal from the Mags to the crown court.

But surely the evidence was overwhelming that they did, in fact, topple the statue? There was never any doubt that they toppled the statue. They didn't deny it!

So what evidence could they possibly have heard to result in an acquittal if the law were properly applied?

 

[cheesyboy]

But surely the evidence was overwhelming that they did, in fact, topple the statue? There was never any doubt that they toppled the statue. They didn't deny it!

So what evidence could they possibly have heard to result in an acquittal if the law were properly applied?

Think of it like graffiti. Random tagging or defacing is a crime. Banksy painting a stencil on your garden wall is not, because you welcome it.

 

[FoxEye]

You still haven't justified why you're ignoring the fact a legal defence was put forward and seemingly not rejected as valid.

I don't need to. You were the one making the assumption that the jury must have considered (and been convinced by) a compelling legal reason not to convict.

That the law must have been upheld.

I pointed to an unrelated case that showed the jury can basically choose do go their own way, and have done on multiple occasions.

In effect, I don't have to prove you are actually wrong because we're dealing with your assumption, for which I dare say you have no evidence yourself.

 

[Pudney]

But surely the evidence was overwhelming that they did, in fact, topple the statue? There was never any doubt that they toppled the statue. They didn't deny it!

So what evidence could they possibly have heard to result in an acquittal if the law were properly applied?

Why do you ignore what you don't like? The defences were:

• The defendants were preventing the commission of another crime (this is one of the defences to criminal damage) either:
  • Because the statue constituted a visible threatening or abusive display that was causing harassment, alarm or distress, or
  • Because the statue constituted an indecent display (I don't get how this could apply but I don't have more detail).
• Convicting the defendants would disproportionately infringe their rights under the Human Rights Act.

I think the most likely argument is the first one as the statue was clearly distressing the protestors. Interesting argument really.

To note, I think they should have been found guilty based on the limited information I have, but I can see the route to not guilty.

 

[Pudney]

I don't need to. You were the one making the assumption that the jury must have considered (and been convinced by) a compelling legal reason not to convict.

That the law must have been upheld.

I pointed to an unrelated case that showed the jury can basically choose do go their own way, and have done on multiple occasions.

In effect, I don't have to prove you are actually wrong because we're dealing with your assumption, for which I dare say you have no evidence yourself.

I applied Occam's Razor. You applied a more circuitous reasoning to get your assumption.

 

[PlacidCasual]

The judge erred or at least was incredibly generous in allowing the defence that it was preventing another crime. The Extinction Idiots had the same defence refused when their jury came up with a perverse judgement. There was a legal defence available in this case but it is a terrible decision nonetheless.

These recent 2 judgements make it clear that the facts and sanctity of the law are less important than your politics.

I do however broadly agree with the right of juries to disregard the law because it is a useful safety valve for when the law itself is immoral or wrong. But criminal damage is not such a law and claiming that you were being terrorised by a 100+ year old statue is about the norm for our infantilised young adults these days.

 

[FoxEye]

Why do you ignore what you don't like? The defences were:

• The defendants were preventing the commission of another crime (this is one of the defences to criminal damage) either:
  • Because the statue constituted a visible threatening or abusive display that was causing harassment, alarm or distress, or
  • Because the statue constituted an indecent display (I don't get how this could apply but I don't have more detail).
• Convicting the defendants would disproportionately infringe their rights under the Human Rights Act.

I think the most likely argument is the first one as the statue was clearly distressing the protestors. Interesting argument really.

To note, I think they should have been found guilty based on the limited information I have, but I can see the route to not guilty.

Many of those Human Rights are qualified or limited.

For instance, take this slightly silly example.

A person or group of people - clearly a minority - may be extremely offended by a lighthouse. They may say it's a symbol of the patriarchy and clearly shaped like a phallus (insert crazy reasoning here).

They don't gain the right to destroy the lighthouse, no matter how heartfelt and genuine their hatred for it. It may indeed cause they psychological distress, anger, suicidal thoughts, etc. Sleepless nights, etc. That may all be true, 100%. Their quality of life may indeed be adversely affected by the lighthouse.

Those qualified rights are balanced against the rights and wellbeing of the rest of society. They are not absolute rights, and somebody - even a large groups - being offended at a statue does not confer the right to destroy it, even if it does constitute a source of ongoing distress.

Incidentally, it's a bit bizarre to reason that a statue erected before they were even born was "harassing" them. How does that even work? But even if it was, they don't gain the right to remove it.

It was never proven that a majority of people were for removing it. So even if the human rights of some were being breached, there is more to consider.

 

[Pudney]

Many of those Human Rights are qualified or limited.

...stuff...

I know they're qualified or limited. It's why I said I think it's more likely it was another argument.

 

[Roar87]

Imagine being able to destroy anything you find distressing. Neighbours Christmas lights distressing you? Rip them out. Wind chimes annoying you? Just go throw them in the river. Motorbike too loud? Knock him off it with your car.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Imagine being able to destroy anything you find distressing. Neighbours Christmas lights distressing you? Rip them out. Wind chimes annoying you? Just go throw them in the river. Motorbike too loud? Knock him off it with your car.

Is that the next Tory election campaign?

 

[FoxEye]

I know they're qualified or limited. It's why I said I think it's more likely it was another argument.

If the reasoning (that you are giving) is that the statue was both "threatening or abusive" and by so being causing "harassment, alarm or distress" then we have a law that allows, according to this interpretation, many things to be destroyed because they are deemed to be offensive to one or more persons.

I find that extremely hard to believe.

The consequences of such an interpretation should be obvious to all of us. It would mean that the general wellbeing and consensus would take a back seat to an individual being offended.

 

[Voltar]

But surely the evidence was overwhelming that they did, in fact, topple the statue? There was never any doubt that they toppled the statue. They didn't deny it!

So what evidence could they possibly have heard to result in an acquittal if the law were properly applied?

Similarly one could be punched in the face and acquitted. Or be busted amidst a load of drugs and not be guilty. Or found with a blade and not be guilty. Plenty of examples where act clearly carried out but there is a reason for acquittal.

you’re outraged by the acquittal for pulling the statue down. Many people will be. But the law and criminal justice system were not broken by an acquittal. doubtless someone will have provided an advice on appeal and next steps. If it goes to the court of appeal then there’ll be an examination of the conviction. If incorrect application of law, will direct retrial (though weight of public opinion may put them off).

 

[FoxEye]

Similarly one could be punched in the face and acquitted. Or be busted amidst a load of drugs and not be guilty. Or found with a blade and not be guilty. Plenty of examples where act clearly carried out but there is a reason for acquittal.

you’re outraged by the acquittal for pulling the statue down. Many people will be. But the law and criminal justice system were not broken by an acquittal. doubtless someone will have provided an advice on appeal and next steps. If it goes to the court of appeal then there’ll be an examination of the conviction. If incorrect application of law, will direct retrial (though weight of public opinion may put them off).

So this all boils down to identity politics once again, ultimately.

A jury may convict group X but may acquit group Y, based on their ideology, or the media, or any number of reasons outside the law.

Ultimately not providing a consistent application of the law, but allowing any number of factors to allow some groups to gain advantage and other groups to be hit by the book and shown no mercy. Basically it's A-OK for the progressives to get away with this kind of thing (not attributing this viewpoint to yourself, but it would seem that this is the position we find ourselves in).

 

[Voltar]

So this all boils down to identity politics once again, ultimately.

A jury may convict group X but may acquit group Y, based on their ideology, or the media, or any number of reasons outside the law.

Ultimately not providing a consistent application of the law, but allowing any number of factors to allow some groups to gain advantage and other groups to be hit by the book and shown no mercy. Basically it's A-OK for the progressives to get away with this kind of thing (not attributing this viewpoint to yourself, but it would seem that this is the position we find ourselves in).

I think in your own way you have grasped that juries are human beings and will bring their collective opinions, backgrounds and experience to bear when called up. That is the essence of members of the public drawn out at random for jury service.

For instance you could be representing a young black man in a trial before a load of middle class white folks, as often happens. Or you could be representing someone charged with fraud before a jury comprised of a handful of gcse passes and short attention spans. It is the jury system, it is random. People’s backgrounds and experiences will be drawn on when assessing if someone is credible or not. The jury get to do that.


Colston 4 could have all been convicted before another jury. If convicted then we’d have appeals and then your law would be changed as it forms a leading authority on that ingredient of criminal damage.

 

[mattyfez]

Imagine being able to destroy anything you find distressing.

Can we have this for people who use thier mobile phones on loudspeaker please?

 

[Pudney]

If the reasoning (that you are giving) is that the statue was both "threatening or abusive" and by so being causing "harassment, alarm or distress" then we have a law that allows, according to this interpretation, many things to be destroyed because they are deemed to be offensive to one or more persons.

I find that extremely hard to believe.

The consequences of such an interpretation should be obvious to all of us. It would mean that the general wellbeing and consensus would take a back seat to an individual being offended.

It's why I said it was an interesting argument if it is indeed the reason for success. I don't agree with it personally. But I don't have to agree with something to understand how it could have persuaded someone else.

This is also perhaps an important lesson about the usefulness of having legal representation, I looked back and the Extinction Rebellion bunch who were acquitted (also wrongly in my eyes) represented themselves personally. Perhaps with more knowledge they could have also presented this defence with more persuasiveness.

 

[mattyfez]

So this all boils down to identity politics once again, ultimately.

A jury may convict group X but may acquit group Y, based on their ideology, or the media, or any number of reasons outside the law.

Ultimately not providing a consistent application of the law, but allowing any number of factors to allow some groups to gain advantage and other groups to be hit by the book and shown no mercy. Basically it's A-OK for the progressives to get away with this kind of thing (not attributing this viewpoint to yourself, but it would seem that this is the position we find ourselves in).

It's probematic though, if the law is set in stone, then we'd still be jailing and castrating gay people. I think Alan Turing was only fairly recently pardoned for his 'sins', despite being a world war 2 hero, and deceaced.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

My mind boggles that @FoxEye thinks we shouldn't stand up for things we disagree with.

 

[FoxEye]

My mind boggles that @FoxEye thinks we shouldn't stand up for things we disagree with.

Do you think I'd care if it was removed by democratic means and not by an angry mob? Nope, I wouldn't.

The idea that angry mobs can cause damage like this, and then be covered by an interpretation of the law, doesn't sit well with me.

Look at the people who did this and tell me you see human rights campaigners, virtuous people standing up for the oppressed. Heh. It was a bunch of students and rabble-raisers.

People who think their morality is the one true way, and are prepared to use violent conduct to get achieve their aims.

My mind boggles that @FoxEye thinks we shouldn't stand up for things we disagree with.

I can quite easily flip your argument and say that it boggles my mind, that people think vocal minorities should have the power to enforce their ideals and morality upon society through violence.

 

[Minusorange]

Kind of messed up, if they were found not guilty because they found the statue offensive

I'm sure there's people who could find Churches as equally offensive as statues due to historic terrible things the church has done, so does this mean they can burn churches down now ?