Submitted 2 days ago by okwithmydecay@leminal.space to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
https://realmedia.press/olax-acquittal/
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.
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.
«Never again is now» is such a good slogan
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.
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.
Direct link to the text of his full closing speech which is excellent.
I think he represented his position well.
This garbage article doesn’t mention what he was charged with. After a search, turns out he was charged with criminal damage, and his main defence seems to be that he used washable paint so didn’t damage anything. Nonetheless the prosecution claim it cost £7000 to clean off.
I think people unquestioningly celebrating his acquittal need to think more carefully about it. If he’d just sprayed a shitty tag on a major statue or public building, presumably you’d all think that was wrong and would deserve some punishment, even if small. Even if the paint were washable, if it cost a lot to clean. But if it’s the content of the message that determines legality, as judged subjectively by a jury, we’re going to have some dark acquittals in the future. The fact that a jury happens to agree with the message is not a good way of judging guilt and innocence. The principle of rule of law is that the law takes a certain amount of blindness to things, to prevent it being abused.
While I get your concern, that sort of undermines having a jury of your peers. If we’re solely judging by what the law says, why not just have a group of judges decide? Or voted-for representatives?
It being your peers is a counter balance to the power of bad laws being passed and providing the public a way to push back (when things are incorrect).
While you simultaneously (and fairly) worry about the will of the majority being able to run roughshod, I’d say that ability in the context of a jury is decently limited so the ability for a jury to rule this way provides a sufficient check on possible bad laws.
There are lots of good reasons for jury trials, I think the biggest one is that you get a slice of the population rather than whatever your population of judges happens to be. What you’re talking about amounts to jury nullification, which is a fact of jury trials but I don’t think many people would say is the purpose of them. The textbook distinction is that the judge interprets the law, and the jury decides facts as needed under that interpretation.
I think it would be good to think what might happen if someone were up in court for having spray-painted “deport all immigrants”, or a similar far-right slogan. (Perhaps more offensive? Perhaps more aggressive? You can imagine many.)
Such a person ought to be treated the same in the eyes of the law as anyone else performing the same actions - as long as his slogans don’t meet the threshold of specific hate crimes, he’d just be someone with a strongly held belief that his political leaders needed to change course. If a jury of his peers happened to be all Reform voters, that should not acquit him, in my opinion.
The article does point out that the victim had been imprisoned for 6 months at that point. That’s already disproportionate punishment for writing a slogan with washable paint on the likeness of some genocidal cunt. Would he have been put through that if he’s written some other message? I doubt it.
Do you think that if a government made a law criminalizing having brown skin that a jury has a moral imperative to find brown people guilty?
I think the point of a jury is to apply justice to the legal system, and in fact their moral imperative is to acquit people who face unjust applications of the law or are victims of government oppression.
I’m not sure you understand what the law is… The law is not a book of rules, it does not exist independently from its creators, it is the will of the people. If the people find someone not guilty, they’re not guilty. The law was invented by people and only exists to be an extension of the will of the people.
If ten people from a representative section of the population thinks someone is guilty or not guilty, that is the law. It doesn’t matter whether they did something or not, what they are deciding is whether they should be punished for it or not. That’s why there is a jury in the first place, otherwise you’d have a system based on accuracy, not on argument.
I understand that what you’re talking about could be understood to be “the law” but it’s not what I’m talking about when I use the word, and I don’t think it’s what most people understand by the word.
But OK, when you say “the law” you mean “what people get convicted for.” I’m saying this person probably should have been convicted, but you haven’t even said whether you agree, because picking a different definition for a word doesn’t help decide what should or should not happen.
No doubt the sentencing of the Palestine Action protesters influenced the outcome here. In that case the jury convicted them of criminal damage and the judge used that to sentence them as terrorists. Pulling a bait and switch like that has consequences. The intended consequence was to intimidate protesters into silence. The actual consequence was to undermine confidence in the legal process. This jury knew that a guilty verdict would give the judge free rein to do the same trick, and they knew what an injustice that would be. The jury did the right thing, given that they were acting within a broken system.
Yes that is what protest law is. You are not understanding free speech and the right to protest lol.
Free speech does not protect damaging property anyway.
I agree with the guy’s message, but all of y’all are having a hard time understanding how the legal system is supposed to work.
Justice is supposed to be blind and proceed according to the law.
If you don’t like the law, that’s where, you, as a citizen, and through your legislature, amend/create those laws.
That is why it is important to watchdog your legislators. They are the ones that are allowing this shit to happen in the first place.
Am I glad he was aquiited, absolutely. But the judge wasn’t wrong either.
Man, I love that fucking line, “Never again is now”.
free speech and right to protest aren’t the same in the UK as in the US.
What is “protest law” in the UK? Where on the world does free speech allow spraying slogans on public buildings?
The people have spoken, Javert, and that’s how the law works.
Killing factory owners is how we got the eight hour work day. Progress is not made by doing as you are told. Sometimes (most of the time) the system is wrong and breaking a part of it is what fixes that part of it. Governments should be for the people, and the people have spoken.
I suppose jury could say it’s an improvement, not a damage. Or that 7k is ridiculous and hence throw out the case.
Wow, love seeing good news sometimes
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?
Based
Oh, you still have jury trials? Must have been expected to receive less than 3 years in prison because they cancelled jury trials for all of them. Aren’t you glad you voted for labour?
No, they havent “cancelled” them. There is legislation going through which would restrict trial by jury for those offences, but it hasnt even reached the lords yet. That is likely to be where it is picked apart.
They already did it for a year or less in prison in 2020 and that is passed no?
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Hmmm yes much legal system, very justice.
FishFace@piefed.social 1 day ago
“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.
locahosr443@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
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.
Guilvareux@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.
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.
LePoisson@lemmy.world 14 hours 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.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 day ago
University of Birmingham disagrees: academic.oup.com/ojls/article/45/2/329/8078322?lo… they say that it should be a legal defence.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca 19 hours ago
Idiot.