4 ms·
>> It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing. You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted
by abduhl 4y ago
>> It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.
You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving.
That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct.
It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
- jakobnissen 4y agoThat is simply not correct. Nearly all laws have exceptions which mean you can be found innocent under the right circumstances, even if you admit to doing whatever you're charged of. For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
- abduhl 4y agoThese are defenses to a crime and they are explicitly provided for in the law. You don’t just get to assert a random defense just because you want to, which is what your approach is. There is no “good faith” or “did the right thing defense” to the law here, as you noted. Defenses are not required for all criminal laws and, in general, do not exist for crimes.