>If we start with the premises that if people think that something is a crime, they can commit a crime to try and prove it, our legal system will quickly crumble.
How about starting with the solid facts, that what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?
>Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence.
We could just say no -- or, if they did find evidence, yes.
This keeps the risk of violating the law, but makes it OK if you indeed unearth something beneficial.
You know, as if we can make rational value judgements given the end result, and not give everyone a free pass, or condemn everyone from the start.
Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing.
But as I've said, this is the human element, and is why we have a jury, if the jury feels that his actions though criminal were justified.
They can hold him free of punishment, this is why our judicial system is structured this way, because the letter of the law, doesn't understand the context of a situation, and a jury can.
Who in your opinion makes the choice of "what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?" A judge, a police officer, a prosecutor, or a jury of his peers?
That value judgement you are talking about is literally the roll of the jury, but to get to that point, they have to be arrested, and prosecuted.
>Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing.
Well, that's bad. And it has been known to be bad since the time of Les Miserables at least...
>Who in your opinion makes the choice of "what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?" A judge, a police officer, a prosecutor, or a jury of his peers?
The jury of peers. But we're still on the court of public/pundit opinion, and many are making arguments as if the technical aspects of the law outweigh any benefits -- in fact as if breaking the law itself is morally condemnable whatever the circumstance. So I wanted to counter that.
Besides, are the people which will be jury really "peers" when the act might benefit humanity at large, but they are tied to a particular nation state (one he doesn't even belong to)?
"Peers" original intention was to be people "related to the community/society the accused lives in" with the same public interests (and moral ideas).
What system would you propose would be better, I frankly wish that we didn't have a whole profession based the process and procedures of the court. It makes defending yourself almost impossible.
But the court has the burden to prove that the person is guilty of a crime, to 12 different people. You are required by law to be given a lawyer to assist in your case if you can't afford one.
That is a better shake than probably 75% of the world right there. Hell its better than you get in the military in the US.
So basically you want the process to be judged by the outcome, not by... the process.
That's not how the legal system works and that's not how ANY legals system COULD work, because it would require the process to be finalized and the outcome known before any legal enforcing to happen).
Basically you're bringing an utterly irrational viewpoint to the discussion then you end up with " we can make rational value judgements".
>That's not how the legal system works and that's not how ANY legals system COULD work, because it would require the process to be finalized and the outcome known before any legal enforcing to happen).
Actually that's how many regional and "local customs" legal systems works all around the world.
And it's even part of standard roman-legacy law, to take into account the outcome (and also thinks as intentions, circumstances, and so on).
How about starting with the solid facts, that what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?
>Would it still be journalism, if they hacked the database and didn't find evidence.
We could just say no -- or, if they did find evidence, yes.
This keeps the risk of violating the law, but makes it OK if you indeed unearth something beneficial.
You know, as if we can make rational value judgements given the end result, and not give everyone a free pass, or condemn everyone from the start.