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.
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?
That’s murder where I fully agree that motivation is very important. That is one single action - killing a person.
Juries don’t pass sentences so varying sentences are not relevant here. This man’s motivation should absolutely have been taken into account had he been convicted when passing his sentence.
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.
Wtf, lol
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?
That’s murder where I fully agree that motivation is very important. That is one single action - killing a person.
Juries don’t pass sentences so varying sentences are not relevant here. This man’s motivation should absolutely have been taken into account had he been convicted when passing his sentence.
Oh. So which of the types of murder should he be convicted of, for accurate sentencing?