A Kangaroo Court is a bogus legal proceeding which disregards due process, the law and fairness in pursuit of expediency and desired outcomes, it is usually convened after orders from another similar Kangaroo proceeding

[Thread]

A Kangaroo Court has one purpose: to punish a particular individual regardless of whether he actually broke the law or not. It is conducted in such a way as to make it clear who's in charge (She State), but at the same time impossible to prove that they're abusing their powers
Even before a Kangaroo Court delivers its inevitable guilty verdict, the proceedings are designed to deliver maximum humiliation & misery to its victim. The KC only follows common legal principles when it suits it, but will not hesitate to disregard such if and when necessary
A Kangaroo Court fully operates on the concept of expediency. It's own laws and procedures are sufficiently vague and open-ended to allow it to change them as it goes using its "discretion". If things start going off-course, just change a rule and we're cooking again
Any normal legal proceeding has an unknown outcome, every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not so in a Kangaroo Court. The outcome of this particular proceeding is a foregone conclusion. The sitting is merely a formality to give a semblance of thoroughness
As noted above, the aim is to inflict maximum humiliation and misery. Thus, it is not acceptable, for instance, that the target of the KC simply invokes his right not to participate in the process. He needs to be there so onlookers may witness his flogging in the public square
Anyone who's watched TV will know how a Kangaroo Court works: the leader—a President/wealthy oligarch/connected politician who has just overthrown the previous regime, goes on a campaign to arrest his rivals for any reason he can think of...
His aim is to punish or get rid of one person, in particular. The Leader has managed to arrest/charge/kidnap that person and has his corrupt law enforcement system, police, investigators, and judges ready to send him to jail.
The Leader understands that he cannot just kill the person because it might make him a martyr in the eye of the people, make him look innocent, and if he was popular enough it could lead to a violent revolution. Plus it takes away the chance to brag about his suffering...
Hence the need for a Kangaroo Court, which is effectively a show trial, a show of force and an opportunity for virtue signalling on the part of the government. Due to the amount of political power and wealth behind a Kangaroo Court, surviving its onslaught rarely ever happens

More from Law

I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like

My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m