Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren’t bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.
I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.
Ok and if people in power refuse to press charges or just ignore it, then what? That’s the problem we’re facing. Trump was convicted, he is a 34 time convicted felon and has 0 consequences. The supreme court is corrupting the law itself. If the law was such that you go to jail for being gay, I would say it is very much up to the people to judge the ethics of that law. This whole concept is at the root of the civil war, and it’s why there had to be an actual war.
I was making a distinction between ‘the people’ in general, and ‘the jury’. The people can, and should, consider the ethics of the law, and act appropriately. In less extreme cases that might involve encouraging your local legislator to push for changes in the law. We’ve seen the results in more extreme cases. Juries on the other hand should judge the case in front of them on its facts, rather than their feelings about the defendant and their actions. We’ve seen the results of juries not doing so, with lynch mobs getting away without consequence, and other defendants being found guilty for the color of their skin.
As to your point regarding the problem of those in power simply ignoring the law, you’re right, that is a problem, and one which I doubt will be solved without extreme action. It is, of course, possible that in four years this gang will peacefully hand over to a less criminal administration, but I’m not confident of that. Even if they do, rebuilding trust in the concept of the law being applied equally and fairly will be a massive, and long term, challenge.
This is supposed to be uplifting news though, so let us hope that his defence can find a compelling argument and the jury can find him not guilty without recourse to tactics that might make the overall situation worse.
Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren’t bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
I agree with what you are saying, but this is not a precident you want to set. Jurys are supposed to consider whether the defendant broke the law, not whether they agree with the ethics of the action. Too many miscarriages of justice have occured for ‘vibes’ to be an acceptable way to judge these things.
I would rather see his defence mount a case around self-defence or something of that nature (the CEO was harming Luigi or his family for instance) so that the jury have a reason to say he was within the law.
Ok and if people in power refuse to press charges or just ignore it, then what? That’s the problem we’re facing. Trump was convicted, he is a 34 time convicted felon and has 0 consequences. The supreme court is corrupting the law itself. If the law was such that you go to jail for being gay, I would say it is very much up to the people to judge the ethics of that law. This whole concept is at the root of the civil war, and it’s why there had to be an actual war.
I was making a distinction between ‘the people’ in general, and ‘the jury’. The people can, and should, consider the ethics of the law, and act appropriately. In less extreme cases that might involve encouraging your local legislator to push for changes in the law. We’ve seen the results in more extreme cases. Juries on the other hand should judge the case in front of them on its facts, rather than their feelings about the defendant and their actions. We’ve seen the results of juries not doing so, with lynch mobs getting away without consequence, and other defendants being found guilty for the color of their skin.
As to your point regarding the problem of those in power simply ignoring the law, you’re right, that is a problem, and one which I doubt will be solved without extreme action. It is, of course, possible that in four years this gang will peacefully hand over to a less criminal administration, but I’m not confident of that. Even if they do, rebuilding trust in the concept of the law being applied equally and fairly will be a massive, and long term, challenge.
This is supposed to be uplifting news though, so let us hope that his defence can find a compelling argument and the jury can find him not guilty without recourse to tactics that might make the overall situation worse.