| Revision as of 08:56, 24 October 2011 editOCNative (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,664 edits Mark as stub. Clean up ref.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:52, 8 March 2012 edit undo140.247.13.20 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| A '''political defense''' is a defense to a criminal charge in which the defendant asserts at trial the political motivations behind the allegedly criminal conduct. In some circumstances, the defendant might assert political motivations in order to seek acquittal. In other circumstances, defendants might not have a realistic hope of acquittal but may nevertheless use the trial as a forum for expressing political views. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| A political defense is distinguished from a ]. A legal defense, or a "technical defense", seeks acquittal by demonstrating that the defendant did not satisfy all of the elements of the alleged crime. In a political defense, the defendant might concede that the conduct took place, but attempt to convince the jury or the public that the conduct was inherently just because of its political motivation. Some defendants might offer both a technical defense and a political defense. | |||
| ==Political Defense objectives== | |||
| There are several reasons why a defendant might attempt a political defense. | |||
| * '''Acquittal'''. Where the conduct is known to have taken place, a political defense might be the only way of obtaining an acquittal. | |||
| * '''Public advocacy'''. Defendants might use the opportunity to make their political statements in a forum that they believe is likely to be heard by the public. | |||
| * '''Personal integrity'''. Defendants who have committed acts of conscience such as ] might desire to have their actions judged on political terms rather than on legal terms. | |||
| * '''Extracting statements from opponents'''. Where defendants are able to subpoena governmental officers or other political opponents, a political defense may permit them to document other parties' unjust conduct. In the Chicago Conspiracy Trial, for example, defendants subpoenaed Mayor Richard Daley in an attempt to elicit information about his role in contributing to the violence for which the defendants were blamed. | |||
| ==Types of political defenses== | |||
| There are several ways that defendants might make political statements within a criminal proceeding. | |||
| ⚫ | * '''Necessity Defense'''. A ] is a common law doctrine according to which individuals are exonerated from otherwise criminal conduct where that conduct was intended to avoid a greater harm.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience|author=Steven M. Bauer and ]|journal=]|volume=39|number=5|date=May 1987|pages=1173–1200}}</ref> Some defendants of civil disobedience prosecutions, such as the ], have successfully convinced juries that their protests were necessary in order to convince the government to modify allegedly harmful policies. | ||
| * '''Jury nullification'''. ] occurs when juries decide to acquit defendants even though the defendant has violated the letter of the law. It is legal for juries to acquit defendants for any reasons they choose. However, in federal courts and in most state courts, it is illegal to tell the jury that they may acquit the defendant where the defendant has in fact committed the criminal conduct. In addition, the rules of evidence generally prevent defendants from entering evidence of political motives where those motives are irrelevant to the proof of underlying conduct. Therefore, defendants seeking jury nullification might have to develop a "shadow defense." A shadow defense is an established legal defense, such as ] or necessity, where the defendant does not expect to succeed but which allows the defendant to enter evidence about his/her political motivations for the purpose of convincing the jury to nullify. For example, in the trial of the ], the defendants made an entrapment defense alleging that FBI agents had convinced the group to undertake their allegedly illegal conduct. While making their entrapment defense, the defendants called witnesses to discuss the history of the use of agents provocateurs by the government and also the history of civil disobedience; they also called character witnesses such as a defendant's mother in order to discuss the defendant's peaceful tendency and also his political beliefs. | |||
| * Pro se representation. Defendants who choose to represent themselves are typically allowed greater latitude than lawyers are, and may be able to directly communicate their political message during opening statements, closing statements, or witness examination. | |||
| * Defendant conduct. Defendants might make non-verbal statements by virtue of their courtroom conduct. During the Chicago conspiracy trial, for example, defendants wore judges' robes and police uniforms to court in order to communicate their irreverence for orthodox structures of government power. | |||
| ==Related== | |||
| ] | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 20:52, 8 March 2012
A political defense is a defense to a criminal charge in which the defendant asserts at trial the political motivations behind the allegedly criminal conduct. In some circumstances, the defendant might assert political motivations in order to seek acquittal. In other circumstances, defendants might not have a realistic hope of acquittal but may nevertheless use the trial as a forum for expressing political views.
A political defense is distinguished from a legal defense. A legal defense, or a "technical defense", seeks acquittal by demonstrating that the defendant did not satisfy all of the elements of the alleged crime. In a political defense, the defendant might concede that the conduct took place, but attempt to convince the jury or the public that the conduct was inherently just because of its political motivation. Some defendants might offer both a technical defense and a political defense.
Political Defense objectives
There are several reasons why a defendant might attempt a political defense.
- Acquittal. Where the conduct is known to have taken place, a political defense might be the only way of obtaining an acquittal.
- Public advocacy. Defendants might use the opportunity to make their political statements in a forum that they believe is likely to be heard by the public.
- Personal integrity. Defendants who have committed acts of conscience such as civil disobedience might desire to have their actions judged on political terms rather than on legal terms.
- Extracting statements from opponents. Where defendants are able to subpoena governmental officers or other political opponents, a political defense may permit them to document other parties' unjust conduct. In the Chicago Conspiracy Trial, for example, defendants subpoenaed Mayor Richard Daley in an attempt to elicit information about his role in contributing to the violence for which the defendants were blamed.
Types of political defenses
There are several ways that defendants might make political statements within a criminal proceeding.
- Necessity Defense. A necessity defense is a common law doctrine according to which individuals are exonerated from otherwise criminal conduct where that conduct was intended to avoid a greater harm. Some defendants of civil disobedience prosecutions, such as the Winooski 44, have successfully convinced juries that their protests were necessary in order to convince the government to modify allegedly harmful policies.
- Jury nullification. Jury nullification occurs when juries decide to acquit defendants even though the defendant has violated the letter of the law. It is legal for juries to acquit defendants for any reasons they choose. However, in federal courts and in most state courts, it is illegal to tell the jury that they may acquit the defendant where the defendant has in fact committed the criminal conduct. In addition, the rules of evidence generally prevent defendants from entering evidence of political motives where those motives are irrelevant to the proof of underlying conduct. Therefore, defendants seeking jury nullification might have to develop a "shadow defense." A shadow defense is an established legal defense, such as entrapment or necessity, where the defendant does not expect to succeed but which allows the defendant to enter evidence about his/her political motivations for the purpose of convincing the jury to nullify. For example, in the trial of the Camden 28, the defendants made an entrapment defense alleging that FBI agents had convinced the group to undertake their allegedly illegal conduct. While making their entrapment defense, the defendants called witnesses to discuss the history of the use of agents provocateurs by the government and also the history of civil disobedience; they also called character witnesses such as a defendant's mother in order to discuss the defendant's peaceful tendency and also his political beliefs.
- Pro se representation. Defendants who choose to represent themselves are typically allowed greater latitude than lawyers are, and may be able to directly communicate their political message during opening statements, closing statements, or witness examination.
- Defendant conduct. Defendants might make non-verbal statements by virtue of their courtroom conduct. During the Chicago conspiracy trial, for example, defendants wore judges' robes and police uniforms to court in order to communicate their irreverence for orthodox structures of government power.
Related
References
- Steven M. Bauer and Peter J. Eckerstrom (May 1987). "The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience". Stanford Law Review. 39 (5): 1173–1200.
 | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |