My question is fairly simple. Are there any crimes, technical like piracy, hacking, etc. Or non technical crimes the Government can accuse a citizen of doing that everyone would agree that we would collectively ignore that basic, almost millenium old right first defined in the Magna Carta.
With all of the violence and division, threats to weaponize the legal system against political opponents etc, Do you still believe the Govt should prove its case in court?
The reason I ask is that I am familiar with a situation where the Govt has accused someone of a crime and all levels of state and federal law enforcement, etc has all agreed this person is basically dead already, has never been arrested for anything, and will get no chance to defend themselves in court.
So in summary, is this a situation you would agree with, whether the Constitution in your country guarantees the right to a trial or not.
I hope that makes sense. Thanks!
If you take away the right to a trial and just throw the law books as they are at people, with no flexibility and human consideration, our laws will likely remain archaic and most likely oppressive. The law must be in accordance with the people of the time, for after all, they are the country.
Also, you will find that circumstances around crimes vary a lot and considerations for these variables ought to be made. A non-flexible approach that does not involve these considerations quickly becomes inconsiderate and perhaps even oppressive.
A trial also reduces the chance of bias and irregularity in the dishing out of justice. Leaving the fate of a person in the hands of one person's interpretation and determination can be a slippery slope.
Adding to this there is the issue of stare decisis that can make laws lean in a particular direction that may not always apply to the situation they were originally formed from. People must be able to determine if case law is applicable.
Even a trial by a jury of peers may not be good enough. A jury can still be a small mob of like minded individuals that would group-think in the same potentially biased manor as a judge. In this case the defendant must be able to appeal to higher courts and get different a different set of peers to review the case.
As a fun side note even a jury has some potential caveats. Here [1] is one of them. I think it would be interesting to get opinions from judges and lawyers on jury nullification.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ [video]
Note: This has degenerate cases, That too is okay. A government is there to serve the People, and if the People look at a case the Government thinks is airtight, and goes "nah", that's it. Case closed. The People have spoken.
We have a legal system, not a Justice System. No matter how hard people want the latter, that's the ideal we'll always fall short of. The happiness, if you will, we are pursuing.
> The reason I ask is that I am familiar with a situation where the Govt has accused someone of a crime and all levels of state and federal law enforcement, etc has all agreed this person is basically dead already, has never been arrested for anything, and will get no chance to defend themselves in court.
This is tyranny. Even if the target is guilty. I'm sad to hear of it.