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

"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."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

Edited 2010-04-20 11:16 (UTC)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Question 1: Innocence, Guilt and Reasonable Doubt - JST15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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