My fellow travellers remind me why I’m more of a classical liberal than a libertarian. Take a look at the comments thread of this piece by the Quiet Man over at OoL.
As to the point he is making, there is no argument from me. I agree that the sentencing guidelines make a mockery of justice. The juror in question was foolish and clearly did not appreciate why what she did was wrong. That she was held in contempt was quite right. However, the sentence she received was way over the top for the offence – not least when compared with lighter sentences handed down for violent assault.
No, it’s when we get to the comments that things get interesting. Follwow the thread where Lee wades in with his plan to disrupt the jury system by not only doing exactly what Ms Dallas did, despite it being clear why it was wrong, he has decided that being an Englishman puts him above not only the law, but the rights of the defendant. When it is pointed out to him, we get this:
What right would you have to tell me how to behave on a jury? An Englishman/woman has the right to be tried by their peers – and that includes people such as myself who hold unconventional views.
Lee is entitled to hold whatever unconventional views he likes. No one is gainsaying that. What he is not entitled to do is wage a one-man war against the system from the jury bench. In so doing, he is jeopardising the defendant’s entitlement to a fair trial. And previous convictions are withheld from the jury for a very good reason. They are not judging previous, they are judging the evidence in this case, and this case alone. That is because it is up to the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. That someone has previous convictions does not mean that they committed this offence. Because, of course, the police have never taken the easy route and charged a convenient suspect because they have previous, have they?
Yet, despite these principles being pointed out, Lee is adamant. He can do as he damned well pleases and I must not tell him otherwise. Although if we served on the same jury he would find out pretty sharpish that I can and will.
You do not volunteer to be a juror, neither are you employed; therefore you are not bound b y any contract.
I have every right to undermine the English legal system, I’m a citizen, a free man and an Englishman. I believe that the system is wrong, bloated, corrupt and corrupted, and have every right to do whatever I see fit to change things.
Never mind the defendant. Lee is going to have his day in court. That an innocent person may go down for a crime they did not commit is neither here nor there to our hero – he is going to change the system. I presume the defendant is mere collateral damage.
However, look at the language – language that I see all too often in libertarian circles. Language that puts people off. It puts me off and I am sympathetic. The sheer, pompous arrogance of “I can do as I like and to hell with everyone else”. Yet libertarian philosophy does not involve doing as you like. There is the counterbalance of personal responsibility – and that personal responsibility involves not causing harm to others. In this case, the defendant in a criminal trial. A defendant who is innocent until proved guilty on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution, not what some idiot juror has looked up on the Internet.
I will do as I see fit, as a man of good faith and moral integrity: you must abide by your own moral code…but don’t you dare try to impose it on me.
This from a man who would impose his campaign on an unwitting defendant, possibly causing a miscarriage of justice. The cognitive dissonance is staggering. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
You’re quite right of course but I wonder if the intemperance of the man Lee and that of some other libertarian bloggers is simply down to lack of knowledge and experience. Our society has become very nasty over the last fifty years or so and I do wonder if the relaxation of strict, and in many cases unfair, moral and legal standards coupled with the increase in authoritarian bossiness has created mental confusion on all sides of peoples political and social views.
Fair point. I can get similarly worked up (whodathunkit?). However, what we are talking about doesn’t require too much taxation of the grey matter.
What irritated me and has done with similar discussions with libertarians is the “I can do as I please” attitude without recourse to the other side of the equation – personal responsibility to temper that, knowing when to reign it in because it may cause harm to others.
XX language that I see all too often in libertarian circles. Language that puts people off. It puts me off and I am sympathetic. XX
Language used by arseholes that can not tell the difference between “Libertarian” and “Anarchist”?
Of course the “anarchist” wankers were never noted for their intelligence. Here, for example, their closest “allies” and bussom buddys are the fucking COMMUNISTS!!
I mean have they learned NOTHING since the Winter palace job?
“However, the sentence she received was way over the top for the offence – not least when compared with lighter sentences handed down for violent assault.”
But offences against authority (e.g. contempt of court, non-payment of council tax) are always punished more heavily than those against the individual. It’s the system, innit?
As the gentlemen above points out, libertarians believe in the rule of law. We may believe that the laws are intrusive and, in many cases, unjust—as do you—but we do believe in obeying them.
“Lee”‘s views are anarchist, not libertarian.
DK
He is also a grade A idiot.