vascop_ t1_jb048an wrote on March 5, 2023 at 12:09 PM

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

Like I said, if you ask others, they will tell you the impending doom is coming due to other reasons. AI will destroy the world, nuclear weapon proliferation, religion going out the window and the collapse of the family unit, climate change, these are all pet subjects from different people. Living in society means understanding you might be wrong. The way you feel about climate change, that the other subjects I mentioned are stupid or meaningless in comparison, that's how others might feel about your topic.

All of those might be correct to different extents, but the fact you think you're right doesn't mean an ambulance doesn't need to drive through the road you're cutting, for example. If I start cutting roads to protest the US doing drone strikes on children I'm right but I still will go to jail.

SellDonutsAtMyDoor t1_jb06poz wrote on March 5, 2023 at 12:38 PM

There's a little something called scientific objectivity that separates some of those things from others. Courts are supposed to be scientific.

The fact that you think you're right doesn't mean you should be able to block emergency responders, but putting an outright ban of explaining the defendant's reasoning is stupid and is not in any way the necessary response. It's not one or the other and I'd argue it's antithetical to the concept of fair trial. Courts are supposed to have nuanced reasoning and the judge does when deciding upon a punishment.

vascop_ t1_jb07guj wrote on March 5, 2023 at 12:47 PM

What's incompatible with a fair trial is making a mockery of procedures to determine if you blocked a road or not by doing a PowerPoint on climate change. It's incredible you are dancing around the fact that no level of "I think I'm right" allows you to block a road and act like an asshole in court.

SellDonutsAtMyDoor t1_jb08pl1 wrote on March 5, 2023 at 1:00 PM

I literally said that I didn't think that, you dummy.

It's not a question of the act and it's consequences, it's a question of the intended act and it's intended consequences. You seem to have lost your edge on the ethical and philosophical considerations that are massive in determining how we are suppose to condemn certain behaviour, and your defence of this mechanism of the legal system comes off as infantile, reductionist and, ultimately, quite flaccid.

I lost my mother within the last year in an instance where faster ambulance response might have saved her, but I can recognise that not being able to explain yourself in court is a far wider problem than just me.