Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #15, Apr 20]

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

"Welcome to our last class together," Alex said, offering her students a light smile. "I'll be honest: I've really enjoyed our conversations this semester. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about justice, and thank you for your insights and perspectives on all the subjects we've covered. They've been nothing short of fascinating."

She gestured to the stack of papers on her desk. "This, of course, is your final. It's structured just like the midterm was. You can use anything you may have brought with you, but you shouldn't need to. You cannot work with your classmates, and I'll ask that you not talk to one another until all exams have been handed in. Even if you and your friend are both finished, the next person over might not be, and your conversation could be a distraction.

"Once you've handed in your exam, you're free to leave. Or, if you'd rather, you can stick around and tell me what you thought of class -- what I did wrong, what I did right, anything like that. But for now, you've got finals to complete. Good luck, and show me what you know."

Comments

Final Exam - JST15

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Just like the midterm, this test has five questions, spaced out enough that you could write a couple of paragraphs between each answer comfortably, though that is not to suggest that each question merits such verbosity.

(I like nesting my OCD, dammit. And as always, feel free to handwave if you'd rather.)

Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Blackstone's formulary states that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned. If you were to create a justice system with an eye towards Blackstone, what elements and/or safeguards might you include, to protect the innocent from false imprisonment? List at least two.

Re: Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[therewaslife]

Bod gathered his thoughts before he started the exam.

I think you'd have to make sure that, during trials, suspects are judged by the sum of all the parts rather than one part. If an eyewitness says one thing but scientific tests prove another, the suspect can't be judged by just one. Trial processes might have to change to accompany this so one part of the case doesn't hold more weight than others.

I also think you'd have to police the police. If there's corruption on the police force, nothing is going to stop them from arresting any person they dislike and sticking them in jail because they have that authority.

Re: Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[momslilassassin]

Ben, not surprisingly, had a lot of thoughts on this particular question. His essay ran to the other side of the paper as he explained in detail how he felt the Jedi's ability to know if someone was telling the truth or not would be invaluable in his judicial system. He had a brief tangent explaining the current political difficulties involved with getting the current government to trust Jedi at all, but mostly stayed on point.

Re: Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[blondecanary.livejournal.com]

I'd keep the Fifth Amendment in place, protecting defendants from being compelled to testify, and I'd keep the set-up of innocent until proven guilty, instead of vice versa. If you start out with the burden of proof on the police and prosecution, then malicious accusations can't accuse the innocent with as much weight, and if people can keep quiet and not be tortured or coerced, then their lawyers can make statements that help them, instead of the opposite!

Re: Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[glacial_queen]

Karla hoped that Professor Cabot wouldn't mind that her answers were flavored by the Kaeleeran system as well.

While I don't think I would ever go as far as making mental testimony mandatory, I would like to get Black Widows more involved in the judicial process. All members of the Blood have the ability to gather information and relive memories from another person's mind, especially when offered freely, but Black Widows have extensive training in dealing with mental landscapes--particularly when dealing with older, traumatic, and potentially augmented memories, able to distill truths from the chaff of minds and memories. But the ability to go into the minds of both parties and see the truth of the matter as they see it is invaluable.

Of course, that can't be the only measure of truth. There are those people who may have very good reasons (beyond innocence or guilt) to not want people in their minds, and this option is completely unsuitable for landens, as it presents a danger to them. For that, we'd need to put something similar to the 5th Amendment into place, where it is not considered damning to refuse to allow someone else to go into one's mind for evidence. As incredibly useful as that ability is, it cannot become the be-all, end-all of an investigation or trial, especially when it has the potential to be damaging to the individual's psyche.

I think the most important element one can put into place with an eye towards a system like Blackstone's is the knowledge that there is no one single rule that can be enforced in every case. Coming from a world of magic, we still don't have any foolproof measure to tell the innocent from the guilty. Keeping that in mind, as well as balancing compassion with justice, is probably the key.

Re: Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[bitten_notshy]

The most important safeguard to protect the innocent is a fair trial by jury, in which the defendant can speak on his own behalf and evidence is offered and challenged by both sides.

A secondary step toward protecting the innocent is making certain the lawyers, judges and police representing the state are educated and trained so as to disregard their own individual biases.

Re: Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[bamf-tastic.livejournal.com]

The whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing is very, very important. And so is the idea of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And everyone involved in the process has to try their best to be fair and impartial.

Really, though, it shouldn't be something where you just add on the safeguards at the end. They should be built in from the very basics of the system, and should be in all aspects of it.

Re: Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

[heromaniac]

Momoko was tempted to skip this question and move to an easier one, but a quick glance at the rest of the test showed that wouldn't be possible.

So she thought about it and wrote about ensuring that the police used multiple layers of evidence, including forensics, and didn't rely on eye witnesses. She went on to say that while witness and character testimony was important, it shouldn't be what the prosecutor hangs his (or her) hat on. Or what they hang the criminal on.

She also wrote about juries and how that was a very interesting idea but she wasn't sure if she would keep jury trials. She liked the idea of a judge, or maybe a panel of judges, who would know the law and decide the case by its merits and not be swayed by how much make up someone is wearing or something. She wasn't sure how a jury of ordinary people could be trusted not to just decide based on what they wanted or saw.

Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

A tort is defined as being a wrongful act that causes harm to another person. Torts are addressed in civil court, where individuals seek compensation for personal wrongs.

Torts are wrongful, but not necessarily criminal. Give one example of an act which could be a criminal tort, and one that could be non-criminal.

Re: Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[therewaslife]

A criminal tort, Bod started, could be medical malpractice. You're physically harming someone due to your own negligence and possibly causing more damage than was originally there.

A non criminal tort is defamation. If you're purposefully tarnishing the reputation of someone, you're not physically harming them but you are harming them and they might take you to civil court to try and prove this.

Re: Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[momslilassassin]

Ben wrote in detail about a hypothetical case where someone could be tried for war crimes while the families of their assassination victims also filed for monetary compensation.

He wondered a bit why the Imperial Remnant hadn't tried this route on his father at one point or another.

Re: Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[blondecanary.livejournal.com]

A criminal tort would be on where an individual hurt someone will drunk-driving, and the injured party sued for damages.

A civil court would be possibly where a tradesman's work was not completed and he refused to refund a preliminary fee; or vice versa, where a businessman took a non-paying customer to court. A personal wrong, but debatable about whether there was a crime, if each party was aggrieved as to the outcome of their business transaction.

Re: Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[bitten_notshy]

If I run up to you in the street, punch you in the face, and run, I've committed the criminal act of assault and could have a criminal tort placed against me.

You might also place a civil tort against me if punching you in the face caused lost wages -- for example, if you work as a model and had to miss several days of work while your injuries healed. You could also use the tort to sue for emotional distress.

Re: Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[glacial_queen]

A criminal tort is where you cause harm or injury, often through negligence, though occasionally with malicious intent. Battery, the unwanted, harmful, and/or offensive contact upon another's person, is both a crime and a tort, in that it can be prosecuted by both the state (criminally) and a private party (civilly).

An example of a non-criminal tort is alienation of affection, where the plaintiff can sue a third party for the alleged failure of the plaintiff's marriage.

Re: Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[bamf-tastic.livejournal.com]

A criminal tort could be something where someone is beaten up because of their race and they sue to get money to pay their doctors bills. A civil tort could be if someone doesn't do something they were paid to do, or they do it badly.

Re: Question 2: Civil Court - JST15

[heromaniac]

It's not a cake, it's not a cake, it's not a cake...

If there was an accident and someone got hurt, but there was really no person to blame, just, like, a part malfunction or something? That would be a Tort. Also, if someone agreed to a contract and then didn't keep his appearances because his new girlfriend didn't like the attention he was getting from the president of the fanclub, his breaking of the contract could also be a tort!

Wow, she hoped she remembered the definitions right.

Question 3: Cruel and Unusual Punishment - JST15

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Certain justice systems forbid cruel and unusual punishment, that is, any legal redress which is viewed to be needlessly painful, humiliating, or degrading. Give one example of punishment that would qualify as being cruel and/or unusual, and one which does not.

Re: Question 3: Cruel and Unusual Punishment - JST15

[therewaslife]

Bod tapped his pen against his paper before he got started writing. I don't think imprisoning someone for the duration of their life is cruel and unusual punishment. If they've committed a heinous crime, then they deserve to spend the rest of their life feeling guilty, thinking about that, and being safely incarcerated so they cannot wreck another life.

I think stoning someone might be cruel and unusual though. I know it's not a widely used practice but, from what I've read, parading someone out in the middle of a town and throwing rocks at them until they die sounds unnecessarily cruel and painful. It shouldn't be done.

Re: Question 3: Cruel and Unusual Punishment - JST15

[momslilassassin]

Ben gave Alex an education on carbonite freezing as his example of cruel and unusual punishment (figuring that Force-choking and lightning-from-fingers was a little Dark Jedi specific), and then explained the use of entire planets as prisons for the normal procedure used at home.

Re: Question 3: Cruel and Unusual Punishment - JST15

[blondecanary.livejournal.com]

Forcing someone to do community service by cleaning up a park they'd littered or graffiti'd isn't cruel and unusual; it addresses their specific crime, and arranges for them to mitigate some of the harm they did.

Forcing someone to breathe a hallucinogenic gas compound to the point of near-death and insanity, as they'd done to others, is cruel. And unusual. And the state should not use that as a method of punishment. The state has to be better than its criminals, or we all turn into a criminal society.

Using it on someone to get them to cooperate and explain where they'd hid a terrorist bioweapon, as Batman reportedly had, was both, but also... maybe necessary at that moment.

Gotham got the defenders it deserved.

Re: Question 3: Cruel and Unusual Punishment - JST15

[bitten_notshy]

Cruel and unusual punishment are defined by the culture. In the middle ages, putting someone in the stocks and having them pelted with fruit was not seen as humiliating for a petty thief; now it is.

In this time and place, it seems as though execution via public hanging is seen as cruel and unusual due to the degradation and pain involved, while execution by the use of drugs is not.

Re: Question 3: Cruel and Unusual Punishment - JST15

[glacial_queen]

In Kaeleer, one of the punishments for attempted sexual assault by a male is the use of a Restraining Ring. That Ring comes with another, a Controlling Ring, which allows the wearer to inflict pain at will, whether to control the other person's behavior or simply on a whim. This is no different that slavery, save for the limited duration and gives far too much power to the wearer of the Controlling Ring. Additionally, the Controlling Ring can be passed to others, making this less about justice and more about vengeance.

A swift and painless execution for rape, on the other hand, especially when the assault results in a witch being broken, is neither cruel nor unusual. It both suits the severity of the crime and is a much kinder fate than the one the victim is facing. Again, however, the execution cannot be drawn out or in anyway demeaning.

Question 4: Case Study: Civil Liberties - JST15

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

A prosecutor conducts an unlawful search of a private residence, in order to obtain information that is key to convicting a dangerous pedophile. The defense argues that the information should be withheld, as the search clearly violated the law. The prosecutor notes that the unlawful search occurred in the victim's home, and not the defendant's, and so the defendant's civil rights have not been compromised. The victim may sue the prosecution in civil court, but the accused lacks standing to object to the search. Should the evidence be admitted? Give one argument for each side.

Question 5: Case Study - Prisoners' Rights and Victims' Rights - JST15

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

A convict is released from prison and moves to a new residence. The local neighborhood watch posts flyers with his picture and a description of his crimes, warning citizens to avoid contact with him. The flyers are on telephone poles and posted in the windows of local businesses, even occasionally tucked under the windshield wipers of cars. Some of the businesses in question bar the convict from their premises. The convict insists this is harassment, and that he has paid his dues to society and is trying to move on with his life. The neighborhood watch argues that they have a right to inform the population about the dangerous element in their midst. Should the police intervene? Give one argument for each side.