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.
No, I definitely get what you mean; it makes sense.
I just…don’t know how you get around the fact that there’s nothing, really, to stop that. Theoretically, that’s why you have multiple jurors: as you said, to get a slice of the population (and, hopefully, offset or dampen any bias a homogeneous group would, otherwise, have). Having a properly diverse slice is, theoretically, the mechanism.
But – in addition to that – I think what you’re envisioning only fully and always works if we can assume that the laws are fair and that all those carrying out the law are working from good faith. Judges, being more knowledgeable of the law, make sense to interpret the law but I’ve definitely seen some absurdly biased reading of particular laws, as well; what do we do, then, as recourse if a blatant mistreatment of justice is occurring but, well, that’s what the law’s been interpreted as and, as the system exists, that’s what we’re supposed to take on its face? (I don’t know that it really fits since, in the end, it was the judge who made the decision and you’ve already mentioned they should be the ones to interpret but I’ve seen lawyers argue that those later found innocent should remain sentenced because they didn’t prove said innocence during their trial so, based on the procedure/practice of things, their innocence should be dismissed/ignored: https://www.injusticewatch.org/archive/2020/missouri-attorney-general-fights-exonerations/)
I think, ultimately, I’m less worried about a sense that it sets any kind of precedent for the law being interpreted on whim is the fact that it was a slice of the population. Generally, you’ll probably have someone who may want to more closely hew what the law is. The fact that the whole jury was in agreement might point to an issue with something and allow the people to otherwise push back on how their government is serving them. But I’d suspect outcomes like this to be outliers, rather than the norm.
(this is only personal – and, therefore, incidental to our conversation – but having seen the lack of easy recourse for people to put a check on their government over my time of being alive has made me more sympathetic to some avenues to overturn judges’ interpretation of the law, in some manner; I am slightly envious of the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty allowing to push back on the courts in a way that the U. S.'s congress simply cannot)
No, I definitely get what you mean; it makes sense.
I just…don’t know how you get around the fact that there’s nothing, really, to stop that. Theoretically, that’s why you have multiple jurors: as you said, to get a slice of the population (and, hopefully, offset or dampen any bias a homogeneous group would, otherwise, have). Having a properly diverse slice is, theoretically, the mechanism.
But – in addition to that – I think what you’re envisioning only fully and always works if we can assume that the laws are fair and that all those carrying out the law are working from good faith. Judges, being more knowledgeable of the law, make sense to interpret the law but I’ve definitely seen some absurdly biased reading of particular laws, as well; what do we do, then, as recourse if a blatant mistreatment of justice is occurring but, well, that’s what the law’s been interpreted as and, as the system exists, that’s what we’re supposed to take on its face? (I don’t know that it really fits since, in the end, it was the judge who made the decision and you’ve already mentioned they should be the ones to interpret but I’ve seen lawyers argue that those later found innocent should remain sentenced because they didn’t prove said innocence during their trial so, based on the procedure/practice of things, their innocence should be dismissed/ignored: https://www.injusticewatch.org/archive/2020/missouri-attorney-general-fights-exonerations/)
I think, ultimately, I’m less worried about a sense that it sets any kind of precedent for the law being interpreted on whim is the fact that it was a slice of the population. Generally, you’ll probably have someone who may want to more closely hew what the law is. The fact that the whole jury was in agreement might point to an issue with something and allow the people to otherwise push back on how their government is serving them. But I’d suspect outcomes like this to be outliers, rather than the norm.
(this is only personal – and, therefore, incidental to our conversation – but having seen the lack of easy recourse for people to put a check on their government over my time of being alive has made me more sympathetic to some avenues to overturn judges’ interpretation of the law, in some manner; I am slightly envious of the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty allowing to push back on the courts in a way that the U. S.'s congress simply cannot)
Mm thanks for this