Thread by @DefendourJuries

THE SMASHED WINDOW DILEMMA

A person smashes a car window, causing the car alarm to go off and creating a public scene. The police quickly arrive and arrest the person.

During the arrest, the person tries to explain their motive for breaking the window. 🧵 1/9

The police officer handcuffs the now arrestee and tells them that they were spotted by multiple witnesses breaking the window and they will have to take their explanation to the investigating officer during interview.

In the meantime, they’ll be taken to a holding cell. 2/9

During the interview, the now detainee is shown video evidence of themself smashing the car window and is told they will be facing trial for their alleged crime. The detainee does not deny breaking the window.

They are told they’ll need to explain their motive in court. 3/9

Prior to the trial, the now defendant is told by the judge that they will have no defence in law.

They are not permitted to explain their motives in court and are told that, if they do, they’ll face arrest for “contempt of court” and could be sent straight to prison.

4/9

During the trial, the prosecution tells the jury “clearly, you saw the defendant break the car window in the CCTV footage. You’ve heard the accounts from witnesses, you must find the defendant guilty”.

The judge explains to the jury that the defendant has no defence in law. 5/9

The jurors find the defendant guilty, permitting the judge to move forward with sentencing.

At no point during the trial are the jurors told the whole story. The motives of the defendant are kept from the jurors under threat of contempt of court and imprisonment. 6/9

The information kept from the jury?

A baby had been left alone inside the car, suffocating in intense heat. The defendant broke the window in order to rescue the baby.

Does it seem fair that they were not permitted to explain this to the jury?

Was it an unjust trial?
7/9

Peaceful activists are facing a similar injustice in UK courts due to manipulation by ministers seeking to avoid accountability for the decisions they make.

Nonviolent climate activists are being denied a fair trial by judges who refuse to allow jurors to hear their motives. 8/9

Regardless of the accusation, defendants should have the right to explain their motive.

A jury cannot give a fair verdict if they are not told the “whole truth”. It is imperative that evidence is not withheld - doing so will lead to unjust convictions.

DefendOurJuries.org

If, unlike the trolls who seemingly don’t agree with the principles of fair justice in a democracy, you think EVERYONE should have the right to explain what motivates them to take nonviolent action:

Show your support here: DefendOurJuries.org