How would you judge this guy?

[Josquius]

Can somebody please tape Martinus?

You'd like that wouldn't you?

[Barrister]

Seriously though.  Not guilty.

Of murder, absolutely.

But even in Canada I can see several minor charges he appears to be guilty of.  Voyeurism and obstruction of justice most notably.

Could you charge voyeurism without having the law struck down by the Charter?  And in this case, obstruction of justice would be the sort of ideological, bullshit charge that they would lay on him for thought-crime.

I just saw a charge of voyeurism for surreptitious videotaping the other day.  Nothing wrong with the charge.  And obstruction of justice by urging witnesses to lie is also perfectly valid.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm conflicted. On one hand, I want homophobes to get their comeuppance.

On the other, do we really want to advertise that "saying mean things about us" is our kryptonite. 

I resent your implication that all gays are a homogeneous group bearing the same characteristics of personality. Quit stereotyping.   

[Martinus]

I have always had a philosophical problem with criminalizing "obstruction of justice" per se. I mean, if that also is another crime (e.g. someone murders a witness or threatens him or her with violence) then it should be prosecuted as that crime, but just telling a witness what to do (when you are an accused) is a bit fishy - it's hard to draw a line between that and just preparing defense.

The witness could obviously be charged with perjury but I have a problem with putting an extra charge on the accused.

[Martinus]

Seriously though.  Not guilty.

Of murder, absolutely.

But even in Canada I can see several minor charges he appears to be guilty of.  Voyeurism and obstruction of justice most notably.

Could you charge voyeurism without having the law struck down by the Charter?  And in this case, obstruction of justice would be the sort of ideological, bullshit charge that they would lay on him for thought-crime.

I have to agree. It seems like a way to artificially inflate the charge.

This is especially silly with systems like the Anglosaxon one where you just pile up these charges on top of the other (in European systems, otoh, you usually just get charged with the most serious crime, if you commit a number of crimes that are in close casual relation to each other).

[Martinus]

Btw, a question to BB - in Canadian legal system, can you be found not guilty of the "core" crime but be found guilty of "obstruction of justice" in relation to the proceedings about this "core" crime?

[Barrister]

Btw, a question to BB - in Canadian legal system, can you be found not guilty of the "core" crime but be found guilty of "obstruction of justice" in relation to the proceedings about this "core" crime?

Absolutely.

It's not unheard of for someone to commit perjury, or obstruction of justice, when the underlying offence is extremely minor (say, speeding).  In those cases the perjury or obstruction charge is orders of magnitude more serious than the underlying charge.

To treat it otherwise would make it "okay" to lie or obstruct justice when the underlying charge isn't very serious.

[Barrister]

I have always had a philosophical problem with criminalizing "obstruction of justice" per se. I mean, if that also is another crime (e.g. someone murders a witness or threatens him or her with violence) then it should be prosecuted as that crime, but just telling a witness what to do (when you are an accused) is a bit fishy - it's hard to draw a line between that and just preparing defense.

the line between prepping a witness and tampering with a witness is pretty damn clear.

[dps]

a. Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,
(1) with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or

This seems to be the most serious charge. Sounds like the perpetrator might be guilty of that.

But was it an attempt to intimidate?  Seems more like an attempt to embarass.

[Martinus]

Btw, a question to BB - in Canadian legal system, can you be found not guilty of the "core" crime but be found guilty of "obstruction of justice" in relation to the proceedings about this "core" crime?

Absolutely.

It's not unheard of for someone to commit perjury, or obstruction of justice, when the underlying offence is extremely minor (say, speeding).  In those cases the perjury or obstruction charge is orders of magnitude more serious than the underlying charge.

To treat it otherwise would make it "okay" to lie or obstruct justice when the underlying charge isn't very serious.

See, this is where I have a problem with that. As far as I am concerned, if someone is wrongly accused then the entire proceedings are "wrong" from a philosophical perspective - and upon being found not guilty should be considered non-existent. So if you lied during these proceedings (say, you are accused of murdering X; you are innocent; you also had an affair with X; you say that you didn't have an affair with X) you should not be accused of perjury.

Incidentally, I think we already discussed it before, but under Polish law, the accussed cannot be charged for lying during the trial - as this is considered a part of his right of defense (otoh, a witness can be charged for perjury).

[Martinus]

a. Bias Intimidation. A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of an offense specified in chapters 11 through 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.2C:33-4; N.J.S.2C:39-3; N.J.S.2C:39-4 or N.J.S.2C:39-5,
(1) with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; or

This seems to be the most serious charge. Sounds like the perpetrator might be guilty of that.

But was it an attempt to intimidate?  Seems more like an attempt to embarass.

Yeah. I have a problem with crimes defined in that way to be honest (similar to hate speech).

I think "taping someone without their permission" (outside of public place) should be a criminal offense (and a qualified one if the taping is during an intimate or embarassing act; and further qualified if the tape is subsequently published).

[Martinus]

Oh btw, I'm suprised noone has yet said that it's just like me to "defend a gay-death-causing homophobe" - since every time before I complained about some law being too harsh, I was accused of bias.

[Josquius]

I have always had a philosophical problem with criminalizing "obstruction of justice" per se. I mean, if that also is another crime (e.g. someone murders a witness or threatens him or her with violence) then it should be prosecuted as that crime, but just telling a witness what to do (when you are an accused) is a bit fishy - it's hard to draw a line between that and just preparing defense.

The witness could obviously be charged with perjury but I have a problem with putting an extra charge on the accused.

Obsctruction of justice is a very fucked up crime.
I read a story recently of a guy's bad experience with the Japanese police. They seemed to arrest him and dragged him into the station to question him about some robberies in the area (he was foreign, had to be him), when he asked if he was arrested...they said no, its a voluntary investigation or somesuch. 'So I'm free to leave whenever I want?' 'yup'. So off he goes....only to be arrested as soon as he steps out of the door for obstruction of justice.

[Neil]

The Japanese value order, and so it's a bit tougher then petty criminals in other countries are used to.

[Valmy]

Can somebody please tape Martinus?

Want some erotic M/M feet videos eh?

Surely you can find a few of those in the military.