equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
It might be baby milk MAN. Best to check.
Hungry Kidderminster woman stole Mars bars after benefit sanctions left her with no money for food
- Thread starter J Ed
- Start date
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
That's why I could never be on a jury. I would find (nearly) everyone not guilty.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
We have 400-ish years of legal precedent that says that duress is only a mitigation, not a justification, unfortunately.
That's exactly why you should be on a jury. AFAIK there's the option of finding somebody not guilty if you believe the law to be so wrong (ie immoral, unreasonable, or inhumane) that punishing somebody, even if they freely admit to having done it, is a greater wrong than whatever they did.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Is there? I thought you'd be found in contempt of court? Perhaps you'd just not be picked if you expresses your intentions before the trial though.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It's called "jury nullification". Governments hate it.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Which is jury nullification? Saying you intend to find the defendant not guilty or actually doing so?
Perhaps it depends on how many of the jury agree that this time the law's an ass - there was the case of those two Quaker women using a hammer on a fighter jet(?) because they genuinely believed that breaking in and damaging it prevented a far greater wrong of the plane being used in war.
Juries have also sometimes been known to find somebody not guilty in drug cases (where cannabis or other relatively non harmful stuff was involved) for the same reason. Not often enough to rely on it, but the option is there.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
The latter. The former is known as "mouthing off"
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Heh, but not really if it is a genuine attempt to get out of a 'duty' you have no respect for. It's funny that it's called contempt of court. Of course it is! But you can be jailed for that too!The latter. The former is known as "mouthing off"
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
That's a completely different thing.
The point about jury nullification is that the jury's decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused is final - regardless of the evidence put before them, if a jury decides as a matter of conscience to make a finding of not guilty, there's not a thing can be done about it.
It was probably never intended this way, but it becomes a last avenue of protection against bad laws, or good laws applied badly - which is, of course, why politicians hate it, and one of the reasons why Tory governments have been desperate for decades to remove or restrict the right to trial by jury.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
You can also run this as a defence in court, successfully done by the Smash EDO protesters (argued that EDO supplying Israel with computer parts that they use for guidance systems to attack Israel constituted a greater crime than the £x thousands of criminal damage they did to EDOs offices) and iirc the Hawk to Ploughshares protesters (who smashed up a £13m hawk jet that was waiting to be sent to Suharto in Indonesia to use to attack civilians in East Timor), and unsuccessfully by the Kingsnorth Climate Camp protesters (the damage being done to the environment by the power plant is a bigger crime than the aggrated trespass that they committed).
Sea Star
have you ever explored your dark side?
Or a magistrate, probably.
Sea Star
have you ever explored your dark side?
or, indeed, logic.
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
Whatever judge decided on that sentence should do us all a favour and take a swing from the nearest fucking tree.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
TBF, almost everything in that "sentence" was beyond the magistrate's discretion. That's one of the most offensive things about it, in my view.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Thank you for the donations to all who contributed (£180 in total), I have now turned off donations for the gofundme site and am donating the money raised to the more organised Wings Over Scotland campaign. Just waiting for the last contribution to clear which it will by the 26th, after I donate that then I will delete the campaign.
You are a good guy.
teqniq
DisMembered
On a related note covered in this thread
Magistrate quits after being suspended for offering to pay asylum-seeker's court charge
Magistrate quits after being suspended for offering to pay asylum-seeker's court charge
Zabo
Well-Known Member
"
The justice secretary, Michael Gove, has scrapped the controversial mandatory criminal courts charge after more than 100 magistrates resigned in protest.
The abrupt U-turn ditches a money-raising scheme introduced by the previous justice secretary, Chris Grayling, that only came into force in April this year.
The announcement was made by Gove in an address to the annual meeting of the Magistrates Association in central London.
He explained that every time he spoke to any magistrate they warned him about its negagtive impact on the adminstration of justice.
Critics warned that the charge – ranging from £150 up to £1,200 – was unlikely to be collected and created a perverse incentive for the innocent to plead guilty.
Commenting on the announcement, Malcolm Richardson, MA national chairman, said: “This is fantastic news and we’re very grateful to Mr Gove for listening to the case made by magistrates about the charge. In all my years on the bench, I’ve never seen something strike so hard at the heart of justice.
“Although we have lost many experienced magistrates, there will be an enormous sense of relief across the criminal justice system. We’re grateful that Mr Gove made this announcement to the MA, as it stands in testimony to his collaborative approach and his appreciation of the work of magistrates.”
Michael Gove scraps criminal courts charge
The justice secretary, Michael Gove, has scrapped the controversial mandatory criminal courts charge after more than 100 magistrates resigned in protest.
The abrupt U-turn ditches a money-raising scheme introduced by the previous justice secretary, Chris Grayling, that only came into force in April this year.
The announcement was made by Gove in an address to the annual meeting of the Magistrates Association in central London.
He explained that every time he spoke to any magistrate they warned him about its negagtive impact on the adminstration of justice.
Critics warned that the charge – ranging from £150 up to £1,200 – was unlikely to be collected and created a perverse incentive for the innocent to plead guilty.
Commenting on the announcement, Malcolm Richardson, MA national chairman, said: “This is fantastic news and we’re very grateful to Mr Gove for listening to the case made by magistrates about the charge. In all my years on the bench, I’ve never seen something strike so hard at the heart of justice.
“Although we have lost many experienced magistrates, there will be an enormous sense of relief across the criminal justice system. We’re grateful that Mr Gove made this announcement to the MA, as it stands in testimony to his collaborative approach and his appreciation of the work of magistrates.”
Michael Gove scraps criminal courts charge
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
good day to make a sly u-turn on one of graylings shitty wannabe hardman policies
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
the book banning cunt
Similar threads
