Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KingRobotPrince t1_jaz104a wrote

>He concluded that the defendants had either set out to “manipulate” the jury into acquitting them even if they were sure of the pair’s guilt, or to use the trial to continue their protest within the courtroom.

>“Either motivation would be serious as you would be seeking to set yourselves above the law,” the judge said.

Seems pretty clear. They don't want people breaking the law and then saying that even though they did it, it was OK because they were fighting climate change.

People should be able to see how bad it is be to allow people to mount such a defence, and how juries letting people get away with crimes based on ideology would be a very bad thing.

The court decides whether they are guilty or not, not that what they were doing was so noble that they shouldn't be found guilty of a crime for doing it.

Something like self-defense is different, as the circumstances can mean that the accused is in reality not guilty of a crime.

8

zanderkerbal t1_jb3hf7d wrote

Frankly, if the law says that it's not okay to try to prevent your extermination, the law can get fucked, and anybody in a position to prevent the law from getting us killed has an obligation to do so. In the majority of cases, I would probably agree with the principle, but even then seven weeks is ridiculous.

2

Marrossii t1_jazvi1v wrote

I don't know about UK, but presenting their "reason" for a crime as a part of defence, in order to make it look like a "reasonable decision" is common practice in other jurisdictions and sometimes it even works, typically by getting lighter sentence.

I would imagine in UK it is similar because if not, than what would be the point of having a trial and a defence if the guilt is already proven. Just have the judge pass a sentence from an office.

−3