Juries soft on virtuous criminals
Why we posted this: It can matter if people let their prejudices over-ride their respect for the law.
Original story:
Pair cleared of air base damage
BBC Online news
22 May, 2007
Summary and extracts from story:
Prosecutor Peter Blair QC said the two had expected to be arrested and prosecuted and had made preparations for being sent to prison. When caught by Ministry of Defence police they had coloured liquid and bags of nails and staples to use in the sabotage plan, the court heard.
Defending, Edward Rees said they carried out their protest because they believed the planes were being prepared to bomb Iraq indiscriminately with uranium and scatter bombs.
These particular bombs would inevitably have resulted in indiscriminate death of civilians.
They believed that the extent of the damage to normal life was unreasonable.
Judge Tom Crowther told the jury before it retired: “I remind you again, you do not have to decide the legality of the decision to go to war.”
Jurors took four hours to reach their not guilty verdicts.
livingissues comment:
Regardless of one’s opinion of the Iraq war, this verdict was outrageous. It is not for juries to decide whether the British or US armed forces were set on committing war crimes from their base at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire. There are other courts for that. The jury’s job in this case was to reach a verdict on two people caught in the middle of a break-in. They had already cut their way through a security fence and they were equipped to cause extensive sabotage to B-52 bombers, which they freely admitted intending to do. This was before the war had started, before a bomb had been dropped.
The logical conclusion of the verdict is that motives are an excuse for premeditated crime. Of course they have always been, and rightly so, a mitigating factor in sentencing. In contrast, this jury has sided with protesters who have labelled without a trial, or evidence of intent, the British and US armed forces as murderers in-waiting.
This time the protesters got off. Next time an unsympathetic jury might find against them on more serious charges for reasons other than the evidence. Hence, it was a very bad outcome for justice, which should be administered without fear of favour, to rich or poor, free of the influence of the mob and politics of any colour.
