Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
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.
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?
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.
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?
More of a strict letter of the law than a spirit of the law kinda guy, eh?
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.
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?
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.
Motivation absolutely matters in all circumstances.
Uhuh. Well, you’re very confident, yet I’m for some reason unconvinced by your detailed argument…
Can you name a single crime where the offense is not either enchanted or mitigated by motivation?
I can’t.
Most motivations are irrelevant to most crimes.
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?
Wtf, lol