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.
But there are limits for good reason: if they broke parole in order to volunteer at a food bank or give blood, these are not valid motivations in the eyes of the law. Emergencies are, by common agreement, different than most other circumstances.
That determination can be made by the judge so that the jury doesn’t hear emotional arguments about how important the work at the food bank is and potentially be swayed. It’s the same as the judge deciding what evidence is admissible - we don’t show the jury absolutely everything because some is likely to lead them to return a verdict we know, through experience and careful consideration, to be incorrect.
The impartiality of juries only extends to what happens within the courtroom, they must not be swayed by anything that happens outside it. Everything else is fair game, including testimony.
Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience, which has been a principal of law for over 300 years. Your experience and consideration doesn’t get to decide for the jury what their decision must be.
I don’t think you’re really engaging with this… do you think there should be no limits on what evidence and testimony is admitted, just because it’s inside the court? Why even have the judge in there?
But there are limits for good reason: if they broke parole in order to volunteer at a food bank or give blood, these are not valid motivations in the eyes of the law. Emergencies are, by common agreement, different than most other circumstances.
That determination can be made by the judge so that the jury doesn’t hear emotional arguments about how important the work at the food bank is and potentially be swayed. It’s the same as the judge deciding what evidence is admissible - we don’t show the jury absolutely everything because some is likely to lead them to return a verdict we know, through experience and careful consideration, to be incorrect.
The impartiality of juries only extends to what happens within the courtroom, they must not be swayed by anything that happens outside it. Everything else is fair game, including testimony.
Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience, which has been a principal of law for over 300 years. Your experience and consideration doesn’t get to decide for the jury what their decision must be.
I don’t think you’re really engaging with this… do you think there should be no limits on what evidence and testimony is admitted, just because it’s inside the court? Why even have the judge in there?