When you are doing something for publicity.

Possibly suffer

It is at the least probably suffer.

If you are intentionally damaging property while looking for publicity. And do not expect to face legal consequences. You are seriously failing to learn from history.

In this case. The jury was specifically ordered to ignore her motive for the actions. That was what prompted the response I quoted. And this is the case in the vaste majority of crimes.

Her argument was that climate change is not a belief but a fact. Unfortunately, that is not what the court claimed. The belief they ordered them to ignore was not climate change. But her claim that her committing a crime was excusable due to the need to draw attention to it.

You may claim she expected jury nullification. And heck, she almost got it. But that in itself is what I mean by history. Jury nullification is so rare in the UK as to be almost non-existence. To expect it from property damage. Where the evidence is public and obvious is not realistic. It is a theoretical principle of over legal system. Not a defined expectation.

Comparison If you speed on the motorway. You may believe it is possible you will get a ticket. But when you do it past a speed camera that flashes. You are not being honest unless you tell the wife it's probable or pretty darn certain.

EDIT: unless you can claim someone was chasing you with a gun. Saving life has historically been an excuse for crime. But only in very direct situations.

Interesting to consider. If she filled aircraft fuel tanks with sugar. Or the jet engine equiv. Her climate change argument might be considered an excuse. As her belief that damaging the aircraft could stop the harm would be relevant.

Unlike damaging electronic signs, painting or historical documents.

The law says I must kill anyone 2 shades of white below mine.

Ever wonder why laws like that don't exist.

The closest we got is prejudicial reporting laws. Germany in WW2.

But a less racist example/ Draft during the same war. Draft is the only time it has been a crime to refuse to kill. And at the time, society truly believed you had an obligation to kill for your nation. Pacifism was just seen as another word for coward.

Many people suffered prison and other punishment. For refusing to fight during the second world war. If those people were not willing to risk prison. They would have been ignored. But because many were willing to go to prison. And be forced to work mines rather than fight and kill. (PS, My grandfather brother died in those mines.)

Mining at that time was generally more dangerous than joining the soldiers. And according to my grandfather, he knew the risk when he refused to fight. For context ill add my grandfather was an engineer for smiths. So was in a protected profession. He made instrumentation for spitfires. I raise all this just to point out the discussions I had with him. As he considers himself to have grown from his brother's experience. He was angry that he was not able to fight during the beginning of the war. As was the case for many young men in protected professions in the first years. Learning of his brother, experience and death in forced labour. Made him realise and respect the sacrifice he and other pacifists made.

Other options were presented late in the war. Plus more recently. Remember the recent election. And the Tories trying to reintroduce national service. If no event like pacifists going to jail during WW2 had happened. Then the Tories would not have bothered to offer so many non-military options.

We as a society now respect the concept of pacifism because people took risk to fight for the rights not to kill. Same with mmost other modern ideals.

Women's right to vote was won by the women willing to be jailed and beaten by police. Not the people running church coffee mornings.