top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 138 points 1 month ago (1 child)

The judge, Mr Recorder M Chawla KC, withdrew any lawful defences from Olax Outis, who, continuing their protest, refused to stand for the judge throughout the trial, instead only standing out of respect for the jury whenever they were brought in or out of the court.

So fucking based.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I wonder if that had any impact on the result. Logic response would be the jurors applied the process based on the evidence but when the judge is clearly dismissive, it really leaves them no choice. But I am curious if the level of condescension by the was a major psychological factor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 1 month ago

    Love that while the UK leadership may be a lot of racists and bigots, the people luckily aren’t pieces of shit. Hopefully they can vote in better representation to reflect that in coming elections.

  • source
  • [–] 51 points 1 month ago

    «Never again is now» is such a good slogan

  • source
  • [–] 138 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Its a short article, but it actually feels good to read. The judge tried to fuck him over and the guy represented himself, but the jurors saw through the bullshit.

    Every now and then the good guys win one.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago

    I think he represented his position well.

  • source
  • [–] 114 points 1 month ago (85 children)

    The judge interrupted several times in the first few sentences, telling Olax that references to Genocide were inadmissible. Court security were then ordered to remove Olax to the cells, and the judge summed up the case and sent the jury away to deliberate without the defendant present.

    Unusually, Olax was not even returned to the court to hear the verdict.

    Hmmm yes much legal system, very justice.

  • source
  • hideshow 85 child comments
  • [+] -52 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (84 children)

    "Israel is committing genocide" is not relevant to a charge of criminal damage. English law does not recognise "I was protesting something grievously wrong" as a general defence, and nor should it - so trying to lead the jury to be sympathetic because they agree with your message instead of finding according to the law would indeed be unjust.

    EDIT: if you're going to add yet another biting and insightful one-line reply, include with it an explanation in your own words of why a judge can exclude evidence in a trial, and whether you disagree that that's a good thing or if not, why this differs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 84 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    nor should it

    Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.

    would indeed be unjust

    It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Law in capitalist countries is not an effort towards justice, it is an effort towards protecting private property and the rights of capitalists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example. Why do you think they always want their industries deregulated, E.g when it comes to safety regulations.

    Doesn't get much better under communism either since party elites are allowed to do anything they want and enrich themselves in the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example

    This only limits certain actions, not killing in general. There are ways that capitalists legally kill people all the time, like by enforcing car-centric infrastructure or with climate change or by refusing necessary healthcare in privatized healthcare systems or by evicting tenants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yes, but under libertarianism that would all be legal. So I'm not sure life without laws would be all that much better than life with laws. Would give even more power to the elites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I'm just saying that the legal system is not here to protect the working class against capitalists, it's there to (1) protect capitalists from the working class, (2) moderate conflicts between capitalists. This means that some particularly gruesome activities are moderated to prevent outright revolts, but less visible killings are permitted.

    If we want to make a legal system that actually protects the working class, the first thing it needs to do is prohibit private property over means of production to prevent unlimited capital accumulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Who went to jail for PFOA's?

    Who went to jail after the 2008 debacle that almost crashed the world economy?

    Laws in capitalistic countries protect capital. You are a fool for not understanding this.

    Safety regulations are there to protect capital as well because without healthy safe workers you will not be able to run your business.

    Ask yourself why safety is routed through HR in your company.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Those laws are always temporary under capitalism, just look at the deregulation happening now in the US. Meanwhile China has gradually been improving its worker protections for almost a century, with almost no setbacks.

    And speaking of China, if you are a senior party member of the CPC and you use it to enrich yourself, you get executed. As usual, accusations of communist misdeeds by capitalists are just confessions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Surely you have examples of a successful transition from socialism to communism and then it's failure, then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Are you stalking me now?

    No, I have no examples of a successful transition from to communism because it can't really happen at scale with humans in charge. The "vanguard" will never relinquish control. Why would they? Someone else would take the role anyway.

    Maybe one day we'll have real AGI to handle it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    So you've got no examples of what happens under capitalism happening under communism, yet seem very sure about it being an inevitable outcome.

    Oh God you're an AI enthusiast?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Okay, can YOU name a single large scale communist country that did away with the vanguard?

    Depends on what you mean by AI. No, I don't think LLMs will ever be sentient. I also just know that under human leadership it's impossible for true equality to exist. Those in power will always want more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    But it is our best effort. I don't think even an abstract concept of justice is served by taking into account political motivation for your actions unless you apply the principle blindly. Do you think someone spraying right-wing slogans like "deport all migrants" or "traitors" or just "fuck you" on RNLI buildings should be off the hook because they think there's an existential threat to the country from a trickle of refugees? Do you think they should be allowed to bring up those beliefs in court?

    Besides assigning consequences to bad actions, justice must in the first instance be fair. I see no fair way to privilege motivations that I sympathise with (anti-Israeli-genocide) but not ones that I find detestable (anti-immigrant).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    This is the value of jury trials, the people get a chance to decide what is just. What's the point in having a justice system that results in outcomes the vast majority would consider unjust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Why is the judge able to exclude evidence?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That's part of their job. Anything that's more prejudicial than probative, anything that isn't relevant to the charges, anything that has no verifiable source, that all gets tossed if the judge is doing their job. And that's not an exhaustive list.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Yeah which is a good thing for fairness, and then the fact the jury decided based on more than what was allowed alone was also a representation of a public desire for real justice

    I think everyone played their roles

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    University of Birmingham disagrees: https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/45/2/329/8078322?login=false they say that it should be a legal defence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    They're welcome to say that. I'll stick with my own beliefs and those of the judge in this case though, after a brief read of some of that long paper. You're welcome to make the case, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I'm sorry. You're beliefs don't matter. Only facts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Like the fact that the article linked does not represent the law in the UK at the moment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    The Jury is law and the Jury decided Olax Outis did nothing wrong. Maybe the judge shouldn't have disrespected the Jury? Maybe they decided that, given the context, it was more important that voices against genocide not be silenced?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    the jury is law

    Nope.

    Happy to discuss this, but first read a book on how the law actually works, so that you can talk about how you think it should change coherently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'm done doing your homework. The fact is is that the Jury acquitted Olax Outis unanimously. If you think that was a mistake, well, you weren't on the Jury.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Your understanding of legal theory seems to have come from a Tumblr post, so I wouldn't accept any homework you did on my behalf.

    There is room for disagreement and reasoned debate but you don't understand enough to engage in it. Bye.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (49 children)
  • [+] -13 points 1 month ago (48 children)

    To determine facts. For them to be able to do that, they need to not be subjected to irrelevant emotional arguments.

    Throughout these comments I've been asking what people think if the slogan had instead been "deport all immigrants" - do you have a view on whether a jury should hear a defendant's motivation for spraying something like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    Why would you need a jury to determine facts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    I don't have the inclination to quote standard legal theory at you, it's not like I'm on crackpot territory here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    It's a valid question. If this were about fact finding, a judge should be more capable than random people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    You, too, are welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook about why we have juries. I replied originally because the article was bad and because people don't seem to consider why you might keep stuff from a jury. Having done that, if people still disagree, they are welcome to criticise the English legal system and its ordinary justifications without getting me to copy and paste them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Juries shouldn't only decide on what the law says and the facts, but also on their sense of justice applied to a specific case.

    No, I won't justify my answer. Go read a book

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    If you can't justify it, I'm obviously not going to change my mind. I've read many books and done my own thinking. I'm sure it's a huge surprise that someone could have thought about something and come to a different conclusion than you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    You're welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook. I'm not going to do your work for you. Tired of explaining and justifying my position and I'll imply others are ignorant instead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    You're not listening:

    I’ve read many books and done my own thinking.

    Piss off if you're not going to read what I write.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    You think you're the only one who reads books and does their own thinking?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Go read a book. Or Wikipedia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Look mate. We clearly have differing opinions. Maybe you don't want to convince me of yours, which is fine, but if that's the case, there's not much point replying. If you do, linking me to other ways facts can be determined in legal contexts doesn't do anything to achieve that, does it? I do already know about judge-led trials, in case that wasn't obvious, and their existence doesn't support your opinion from what little of it you've shared.

    I've had about five billion replies on this, mostly more one liners that show no thought. Try and do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    That turned into an opinion pretty quick

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    That's a little bit misleading, they're supposed to determine the facts based on the evidence, then provide a verdict.

    When giving a verdict they can take into account the severity of the penalty and the circumstances of the crime.

    I think a jury should hear the motivation for the defendant's actions: as a counterexample consider a defendant on trial for breaking their parole (under freedom of movement), but who did so to rescue people from a burning building. A jury would have to hear the motivation to take this into account.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    But there are limits for good reason: if they broke parole in order to volunteer at a food bank or give blood, these are not valid motivations in the eyes of the law. Emergencies are, by common agreement, different than most other circumstances.

    That determination can be made by the judge so that the jury doesn't hear emotional arguments about how important the work at the food bank is and potentially be swayed. It's the same as the judge deciding what evidence is admissible - we don't show the jury absolutely everything because some is likely to lead them to return a verdict we know, through experience and careful consideration, to be incorrect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The impartiality of juries only extends to what happens within the courtroom, they must not be swayed by anything that happens outside it. Everything else is fair game, including testimony.

    Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience, which has been a principal of law for over 300 years. Your experience and consideration doesn't get to decide for the jury what their decision must be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago

    I don't think you're really engaging with this... do you think there should be no limits on what evidence and testimony is admitted, just because it's inside the court? Why even have the judge in there?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (18 children)
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    Ok. I don't, that sounds like it would lead to a lot of bad outcomes as well as giving an opportunity for terrible people to grandstand and waste time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    More of a strict letter of the law than a spirit of the law kinda guy, eh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    There's nothing in the spirit of the law that is supposed to allow people to air their grievances in court, so no. What I'm against is adding that to the spirit of the law.

    And the reason is because I think there's no fair way to do it that doesn't open the way for awful people to abuse it. And what I definitely am for is fairness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    The entire concept of the law is for people to air their grievances in court, instead of airing out each other's skulls. Do you think motivation is irrelevant to crime?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    The prosecution is airing its grievances, not the defence. And motivation matters in some circumstances but this this isn't one of them. Unless you want to implement a fair principle for everyone, which I think would do more harm than good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Motivation absolutely matters in all circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Uhuh. Well, you're very confident, yet I'm for some reason unconvinced by your detailed argument...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    Can you name a single crime where the offense is not either enchanted or mitigated by motivation?

    I can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Most motivations are irrelevant to most crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Really? Then why are voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter 1, manslaughter 2, manslaughter 3, murder 1, and murder 2 all separate crimes, when (without motivation) the crime is just killing someone you weren't supposed to kill?

    Kinda sounds like all those distinctions can be collapsed down to murder, right?

    Why have varying sentences for crimes?

    Matter of fact, why is mens rea even taught in law school?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    That's murder where I fully agree that motivation is very important. That is one single action - killing a person.

    Juries don't pass sentences so varying sentences are not relevant here. This man's motivation should absolutely have been taken into account had he been convicted when passing his sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Oh. So which of the types of murder should he be convicted of, for accurate sentencing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Well. Someone died. You said the conviction requires no knowledge of motivation. Which of the 5-7 separate and distinct crimes of varying severity do we convict them of, and how do we decide without knowing motivation? (Like, "premeditated")

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Ah ok, so it's easy - just allow all good things in the courtroom but ban the bad ones. I wish I'd thought of that. I must be a fucking moron I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Everything is relevant when you're deciding the guilt or innocence of a man being pressed under the boot of the state.

    Fuck the law, when it is unjust and immoral we must fight to change it or, in this case, at least realize it and use jury nullification as it was intended.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago

    Direct link to the text of his full closing speech which is excellent.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    Wow, love seeing good news sometimes

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago
    [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Jury nullification has its place. This is one of them.

    I am shocked at how free speech has been censored in so many western countries. A requirement to prove your statements, fine. A prohibition on patently false statements, sure. Let’s put guardrails up that nerf clearly bad actors like holocaust deniers and other bigots that target large swaths of humanity.

    But being arrested protesting AGAINST genocide? Holy hell, things have gotten bad over there. As a Canadian, I feel sorry for my political parents.

  • source
  • My handler in the CIA taught me how to do graffiti. I think now that was his way of setting me up. God damn Illuminati! Can't even masturbate in your window anymore without getting roped into serving the greater good of the police state, amirite guys? Everyone understands these normative references I make, yea?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›