Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

craybest t1_jazy613 wrote

Reply to comment by Law_Student in Insulate Britain protesters jailed for seven weeks for mentioning climate change in defence by Mighty_L_LORT

How can motivation not be important in every case? This is the dumbest thing I've read. (I don't mean your opinion, but how the law works)

12

Law_Student t1_jb0g0vb wrote

I think it's about trying to ensure that the law is applied evenly, without prejudice. Most criminals will probably have some rationalization for why they did something. If we get into judging their guilt based on such things, that could open the door to the law only applying to some people at some times, and as a society we want everyone to be subject to the law equally. So instead we take into account the entirety of the circumstances when deciding how much punishment is deserved and necessary, but someone is still guilty if they committed the act.

7

craybest t1_jb0g4rn wrote

And the entirety of the circumstances should obviously also include their intent and reasoning. It's absolutely nonsense it isn't.

2

Law_Student t1_jb0hn3q wrote

It will come up in sentencing. The judge is allowed to take it into account then. The jury can't, though, when deciding on guilt.

In this particular case the defendants essentially committed a crime against the court when they were ordered not to bring up the reason in the "are you guilty or not?" phase of the trial, and then did it anyway.

8

craybest t1_jb0ic6u wrote

Why shouldn't the jury know the intent of the person though? What's wrong about considering all sides in that part if the process?

2

Law_Student t1_jb0kk0l wrote

I suppose I can make two arguments on behalf of the way things are done.

First, the jury's role is to establish whether or not the defendant is guilty of the criminal act as defined by the statute. Did the defendant commit the crime, yes or no? Someone's reasons, in a case like this, don't really change whether they did the crime or not. They're superfluous to the limited question at hand.

Sentencing is the part where we worry about how much someone deserves to be punished for committing the crime, so mitigating factors are relevant there.

Second, it might be dangerous to the justice system's impartiality and effectiveness to allow a jury to consider other factors when they come to a decision about guilt. The laws are supposed to apply equally to everyone. If juries start carving out unpredictable exceptions based on how sympathetic they feel a particular defendant is, then the application of justice might become very unequal. For example, young black men stereotyped as hoodlums might be treated much more harshly than young, attractive white women who have different, more positive stereotypes. (Indeed, that sort of bias is already a problem even with the current system.)

6

Fanwhip t1_jb0ye9i wrote

Look at anti abortionists.
"our god says they are evil so we destroyed the thing bringing evil here"
Anyone who shares the same religion would/should go "they didn't do anything wrong"
The crime was "firebombing a building and destroying property of the owner"
Not "Was the religion's beliefs so strong they had the right to destroy a building and shouldn't be held accountable"

If we allowed the argument " I did what i thought needed to be done" and that was all that was needed to be guilty/not guilty. I cant imagine the amount of folks that could or would be set free.

"My body said it was natural to take what i want from them"
"I didnt like them any my brain said i should get rid of them"
"I wanted it so i made them give it to me"

None of those should be a viable defense to committing a crime.

2