TeamRandom27 t1_jazxgxi wrote
Reply to comment by vascop_ in Insulate Britain protesters jailed for seven weeks for mentioning climate change in defence by Mighty_L_LORT
But the thing is that in many cases there are factors that change how long/if someone gets sentenced etc. I just don't really see how this would be different?
vascop_ t1_jazxwrx wrote
Motive can be inculpatory, exculpatory or meaningless depending on the case. I'm not sure how to repeat the same thing in different words. Maybe you'd like motive to always be considered, but that isn't how most countries practice law. This is particularly relevant for menial cases, most traffic offenses, etc. You cannot start going through red lights because you want to minimize your driving time to stop climate change for example.
TeamRandom27 t1_jb03nds wrote
I totally see what you mean but I don't really understand why it's taken into consideration for some examples and in other you aren't even allowed to mention it but I probably just don't know enough about it
mrp3anut t1_jb2et8r wrote
Ill try my hand at explaining why motive matters sometimes and not other times.
Up this chain someone mentioned murder vs manslaughter. The difference between these crimes isn’t based on “why” someone did it. The difference is based on what level of “did you do this on purpose”. The various degrees of murder aren’t different based on the specifics of your justification. In the case of manslaughter the crime is usually “you were doing some generally stupid or bad thing that wasn’t murder and by bad luck you killed somebody “. Generally the “bad” behaviour in a manslaughter case did not have the goal of killing someone. That is very different than someone who planned out the murder of another person. If you plan out a murder because you hate that person for their race, believe murdering people will reduce climate change, or just dislike that person etc doesn’t have any bearing on the question of “ was this crime done on purpose rather than bad luck while doing some far milder bad thing”
SellDonutsAtMyDoor t1_jb03hz4 wrote
Which is, in itself, an admission that the law is fundamentally intended to be ignorant or indifferent of morality in most instances, and that only high-prorile charges are afforded the consideration of moral judgement.
mrp3anut t1_jb5q3t1 wrote
Its more that “i did it because X” is only a defense when X is something society has written in as a justified reason to break that law. In the case of murder society has predetermined that self defense is a legitimate reason to kill someone and thus it can used as a defense. Killing someone because they are a climate denial activist, they are on the other side of the abortion debate, or any other reason that you personally believe to be a good enough is not a legit defense.
The law needs to be applied as equally as possible and not be subject to the whims of a given judge or jury. Obviously we aren’t perfect at accomplishing this but to purposefully undermine that foundation is a very dangerous thing. It took society a long time to progress to the point that our legal systems are set up to strive for fairness rather than punish whoever the local powers doesn’t like while letting others off because they “did it for the greater good”. Would you support the idea that the state could highlight that these two “did it for climate change” if the jury was likely yo be climate change deniers and thus more likely to find the women guilty due to their political dislike of climate change activists?
mrp3anut t1_jb56fvm wrote
It isn’t different but the time for arguing why you did it in hopes of a lighter sentence is during sentencing not when the jury is deciding if you did it or not.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments