Comment on Lawyers ‘Scared’ to Do Their Jobs After Charges Against Palestine Action Barrister
Maeve@kbin.earth 3 days ago
That's the point, isn't it?
Comment on Lawyers ‘Scared’ to Do Their Jobs After Charges Against Palestine Action Barrister
Maeve@kbin.earth 3 days ago
That's the point, isn't it?
Tango@piefed.ca 3 days ago
Juries can practice jury nullification if they want and nobody can stop them, but barristers aren’t supposed to suggest it. Imagine if, say, a prosecutor told an Israeli jury that they didn’t technically need evidence to arrive at a “guilty” verdict for a Palestinian defendant, just “their conscience”. Jury nullification can’t become just another trial strategy, or the whole legal system becomes worthless.
Maeve@kbin.earth 3 days ago
This is so wildly general, I can't comment in good faith. As it stands, the whole legal system does seem to be worthless, unless one has plenty of money for legal fees and social status, and even then, as long as they are arguing the "preferred" view.
Tango@piefed.ca 2 days ago
I don’t disagree; I’m just pointing out that the judge was unlikely to be targeting the barrister for any political reason. Courts always discourage any overly obvious suggestion of jury nullification, regardless of the case being tried or whether it does or does not relate to Israel.
Maeve@kbin.earth 2 days ago
Fair.
cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 3 days ago
That doesn’t really work. The right wing aggressors will always see the purpose of law is to punish their enemies (which it is). The idea that it contains a technicality for the sake of fairness that you’re literally not allowed to tell people about so its not entirely one sided is not the same.
Tango@piefed.ca 3 days ago
With an argument like that, it sounds like you have a lot of contempt for the court system. So if the barrister also argued in open court that “ignoring all law and evidence is the right thing to do”…
cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 3 days ago
No, you use a dog whistle for that.