Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

[applecorped]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...aw-925561.html

[mrbaracuda]

**** me, I need a gun and I need it now.
You never know when those 'activists' come 'round.

[PogoPedant]

[rule8]'n Greenpeace, undermining yet another just cause.

[RandFan]

Dumb dumb dumb.

[rwguinn]

Here I was thinking that the US was the only place with that much idiocy on juries...

[Ashles]

Yes heard about this today. Unbelievable.

Does this mean I can break into their houses and steal/break anything I deem not environmentally friendly?
(Dishwasher/Washing machine/Detergent/Toothpaste/Computer/TV/Boiler etc.)

[Arthur Denton]

That's really an outrage! Honest, it disgusts me to think that you can vandalize in the name of the environment. Think about the possibilities of "pseudo environment defenders" actually pursuing obscure political power through violence.

[quixotecoyote]

I would have thought the decision over whether 'imminent' can apply to global warming would be made by a judge, not a jury. It seems a question of law rather than a question of fact.

[RadioactiveMan]

If someone had actively attempted to stop these people from doing the damage, could they have then been liable for preventing an act that would have (allegedly) prevented greater damage? In other words, given that the act was "lawful," did anyone have the right to stop them, and if they tried, could they have been held criminally or civilly at fault?

[Zygar]

This verdict can be used to justify any act of eco-terrorism. Pardon me while I acquire some nukes to drop on some offshore oil rigs.

[Fiona]

Interesting that the response to this refers to eco-terrorism and nukes. They painted a word on a chimney. I think it is a little hysterical to imagine that the next step is violence, but I am sure you have evidence to encourage this fear.

The uk has signed up to agreements to limit carbon emissions.There is doubt as to whether the targets will be met and there is doubt as to whether they are adequate. As far as global warming goes the scientific consensus appears to be that there is evidence that it is happening and that it is a serious problem with large scale adverse consequences.

In those circumstances the people who took this action did just enough to gain publicity for their point of view by shutting down the power station for a short time. They do not deny they did this nor the costs of doing it: they based their case on the fact that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They convinced the court and they won their case. I see nothing to be outraged about. I think we need a slippery slope argument to even begin to make a case against them: and that is all I can see here

There is a bias in the planning process insofar as only certain kinds of issues are routinely addressed and included in the decision making. Till recently more remote effects have been overlooked or ruled irrelevant: and thus the interests of business are set against very local concerns. Yet it is not obvious to me why the wider picture is not relevant. If the large companies make a big profit from doing things which cause harm to a lot of people indirectly then I think that has to be included in our decision making. I do not know how the cost/benefit analysis would come out in this or any other case if this were done: but I do think it should be part of the calculation. But those who seek to introduce it are not finding it easy to be heard. This kind of direct action raises the issue and brings it into the equation. I cannot understand why this is seen to be a bad thing.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Fiona

Interesting that the response to this refers to eco-terrorism and nukes. They painted a word on a chimney. I think it is a little hysterical to imagine that the next step is violence, but I am sure you have evidence to encourage this fear.

The uk has signed up to agreements to limit carbon emissions.There is doubt as to whether the targets will be met and there is doubt as to whether they are adequate. As far as global warming goes the scientific consensus appears to be that there is evidence that it is happening and that it is a serious problem with large scale adverse consequences.

In those circumstances the people who took this action did just enough to gain publicity for their point of view by shutting down the power station for a short time. They do not deny they did this nor the costs of doing it: they based their case on the fact that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They convinced the court and they won their case. I see nothing to be outraged about. I think we need a slippery slope argument to even begin to make a case against them: and that is all I can see here

There is a bias in the planning process insofar as only certain kinds of issues are routinely addressed and included in the decision making. Till recently more remote effects have been overlooked or ruled irrelevant: and thus the interests of business are set against very local concerns. Yet it is not obvious to me why the wider picture is not relevant. If the large companies make a big profit from doing things which cause harm to a lot of people indirectly then I think that has to be included in our decision making. I do not know how the cost/benefit analysis would come out in this or any other case if this were done: but I do think it should be part of the calculation. But those who seek to introduce it are not finding it easy to be heard. This kind of direct action raises the issue and brings it into the equation. I cannot understand why this is seen to be a bad thing.

Do you agree with the jury's decision?

[Fiona]

I do not know all the facts of the case. I see nothing outrageous in it though

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Fiona

In those circumstances the people who took this action did just enough to gain publicity for their point of view by shutting down the power station for a short time. They do not deny they did this nor the costs of doing it: they based their case on the fact that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They convinced the court and they won their case. I see nothing to be outraged about.

"Necessary"? What else would they (you) consider "necessary"? We are at a crossroads of imminent harm. The fate of earth and mankind hangs in the balance. What is out of bounds in your eyes? Forget slippery slope. What would you think moral or immoral in order to gain sufficient publicity?

I seriously doubt you can consistently maintain this position at any cost. But I think it would be interesting to find our what you would entertain.

BTW, the decision is outrageous.

[RandFan]

One more thing:

A nation of laws doesn't function by whim and personal ego. Civil disobediance is a good thing but only if those who do so are willing and able to be punished for their actions. Everyone has a reason to think their reasons justify civil disobedience including abortion rights protestors.

[Fiona]

There is legal basis for acquittal and they were acquitted by due process. Your position appears to be that the jury must not acquit whatever the law. I do not think it is me who is disrespecting the rule of law

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I do not know all the facts of the case. I see nothing outrageous in it though

You don't see a problem here at all? Really?

[Fiona]

No I don't
They took their decision: they went to court and presented their case. That is what is supposed to happen and the fact the decision went one way rather than another was based on existing law. What is the problem?

[applecorped]

Hmmmm.....I see were you're going and it's true that one should accept a jury's finding as that is the way it is set up. I don't always agree with jury verdicts (OJ Simpson) but I do think it is still the best system available. I am concerned about the message this particular verdict will send to other groups.

[Arthur Denton]

Originally Posted by Fiona

No I don't
They took their decision: they went to court and presented their case. That is what is supposed to happen and the fact the decision went one way rather than another was based on existing law. What is the problem?

It opens a breach in the law. Similar decisions may be taken by judges on other places. In fact, if they decide you pollute too much at home and bring your house down because you're away from your conservation quota, a judge and a jury will have to take the decision into account, and the risk of you not seeing those vandals under arrest/feeling the long arm of the justice is higher than it was before. It's about private property and civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is still disobedience, and vandalism is still vandalism, no matter the cause.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Fiona

No I don't
They took their decision: they went to court and presented their case. That is what is supposed to happen and the fact the decision went one way rather than another was based on existing law. What is the problem?

Is the prosecutor unbiased?

[Darat]

I'm with Fiona here - I don't understand what the compliant is, these people were subject to the due process of the law. Is the problem that the due process returned a verdict that you think is wrong? That we have a law in Britain that means that a court can consider the proportionality of the criminal damage to the outcome?


(Have to say if I was on the jury I wouldn't have cleared them but that's a different point.)

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Fiona

There is legal basis for acquittal and they were acquitted by due process. Your position appears to be that the jury must not acquit whatever the law. I do not think it is me who is disrespecting the rule of law

No, my position is that humans are capable of ruling counter to the law. It's called jury nullification.

Quote:

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision; in other words, "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."

Smilie notwithstanding it's BS.

[Fiona]

That is not what happened here, Randfan. That is what happened in the Clive Ponting case and there is a different argument to be had about that.

[Darat]

Randfan - this wasn't "jury nullification" (which I have to admit I don't know if it even exists in any of the British legal systems?) they were charged under a law that allows a defence of a type of justifiable damage.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Fiona

That is not what happened here, Randfan.

Oh, well, you declare it thus it must be thus.

Thanks for that.

So argument is pointless now?

[Fiona]

The argument from jury nullification is irrelevant.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Oh, well, you declare it thus it must be thus.

Thanks for that.

So argument is pointless now?

Fiona hasn't "declared it" - it's in the article that was originally linked to, 2nd paragraph:

Quote:

...snip...

The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.


...snip...

[applecorped]

I was going to dig in and disagree with Fiona but Jury Nullification has it's place. Rightly or wrongly I would be apt to let a grieving father off for killing his childs murderer. In this case my bias towards Greenpeace caused me to immediatley label this particular verdict as wrong (which I still think it is but the jury has spoken, so be it).

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Darat

(which I have to admit I don't know if it even exists in any of the British legal systems?)

And you would stop it how? What's the point of having a judge or jury make a decision if a judge or jury isn't allowed to make a decision. If you know what is the correct answer and what is the correct basis for that answer then why have a judge and jury at all. You suggest the process is only objective. If so we only need computers.

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

[Darat]

What on earth are you going on about?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Darat

Fiona hasn't "declared it" - it's in the article that was originally linked to, 2nd paragraph:

The greater damage has not been established as objective fact.

That's nonsense. It's something to hang ones hat on. In the end the judge or jury can do what they please, within certain restraints of course.

If this were a house on fire or if there were objective evidence that the defendants were justified in their fears then I would think the law would have some legitimacy in this case.

[Fiona]

@ Darat. Jury nullification is a term which describes what happened to Clive Ponting, most famously in recent times. It is a completely different phenomenon. Interesting though.

http://www.freedomtocare.org/page110.htm

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Darat

What on earth are you going on about?

3.5 gallons, you?

In America I can kill someone to defend myself. I can't go next door and shoot my neighbor in his sleep because I think he is going to kill me.

However, if my neighbor is a racist and no one likes him a jury could acquit me on the ostensible basis that my fear was reasonable.

Got it?

[Darat]

No Randfan - perhaps my brain has shutdown for the night but I havena clue!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Here is a link to the Act:
http://sixthformlaw.info/06_misc/sta...e_act_1971.htm

And a commentary for the Crown Prosecution Service:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section11/chapter_b.html

[Lonewulf]

The argument is that it's okay for the jury to be able to rule that a little bit of damage to a corporation is okay if the defense relies upon the argument that there could be a much greater deal of damage coming from the corporation's methods, I.E., global warming coming from coal plants... right?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

@ Darat. Jury nullification is a term which describes what happened to Clive Ponting, most famously in recent times. It is a completely different phenomenon. Interesting though.

http://www.freedomtocare.org/page110.htm

Oh I remember the Clive Ponting case but I'm sure jury nullification has come up on the Forum before and I thought I had a vague recollection that (at least for E/W/NI law) it can't really happen as the judge can always in effect order a jury to return a certain verdict or just make the verdict determination if the jury won't?

ETA: OK it's official my brain has shutdown for the night and I'm running off my spinal cord - "jury nullification" is a fundamental right of a jury in English law.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

The argument is that it's okay for the jury to be able to rule that a little bit of damage to a corporation is okay if the defense relies upon the argument that there could be a much greater deal of damage coming from the corporation's methods, I.E., global warming coming from coal plants... right?

If my spinal cord is to be trusted - pretty much yes.

[Fiona]

not quite:


Section 5

(1) This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or under his control so to destroy or damage property.

(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse--
(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed--
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

(5) This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.