you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That's a little bit misleading, they're supposed to determine the facts based on the evidence, then provide a verdict.

When giving a verdict they can take into account the severity of the penalty and the circumstances of the crime.

I think a jury should hear the motivation for the defendant's actions: as a counterexample consider a defendant on trial for breaking their parole (under freedom of movement), but who did so to rescue people from a burning building. A jury would have to hear the motivation to take this into account.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago

    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?

  • source
  • parent