SD v WholockA113 2019 Crim 4

SD v WholockA113 2019 Crim 4

Date of judgment	9th August 2019
Judge	Judge Rudy2033
Charges	1 charge of Harassment (Article I.B.5 of the Community Standards Amendment) 1 charge of Bullying (Article I.B.5 of the Community Standards Amendment)
Verdict	Guilty of both charges
Sentence	1 month mute 6 months parole thereafter, subject to an ad-hoc parole commission (common law)
Applicable persuasive precedent
Appeal	Case affirmed by the Court of Appeal WholockA113 (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) 2019 SDCA 2

JUDGMENT by Judge Rudy2033

[1]. The result from this trial stems mostly from the screenshots from general. In the screenshots it does seem like a one off attack. Imade even asks the defense to stop to which the defense replies with “no”. I do not believe the defense did this out of a bad place. The defense was wishing to protect our democracy from what he saw as a bad influence, but this does not excuse him from the law. The conversation in general shows a series of vicious attacks. This could be defended against if it was a single incident. The evidence presented shows it was a repeated occurrence. There may have been no threatening, therefore under the definition of bullying I just got from searching it up means there was no bullying. What I can say is that I do believe they fall under the harass part of the charge. I must also add that in the private messages you say “it’s a matter of keeping you out of important offices by getting it in people’s head’s that you aren’t good.” This can be taken as you having the goal of the entire sub taking the same position as the defendant. If it is in the same aggressiveness the defendant took is not certain but it can fall under the charge. In my experience the defendant is a person who truly cares for the sub and that makes you do things to defend it. But the reasoning for a crime is not relevant to the conviction and does not excuse anyone. I find the defendant guilty on the charges of harassment and bullying.

[2]. The previous precedent over charges of this type is three months mute followed by an indefinite parole. However, that was for a repeat offender. As this is the first time the defendant has been found guilty the court shall have mercy. In addition, the law referenced by the prosecution recommends a temporary mute. I hereby, with heavy heart, sentence u/wholockA113 with a temporary mute of one month followed by parole lasting up to 6 months that can be lifted by an ad hoc commission at any time if the defendant shows he has truly changed and improved. It is a harsh sentence but it a 2/3rds reduction of the mute time given to the previous harassment case.