Law, Human Rights and democracy in the Wizarding World

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 31108

Gabriel Rozenberg wrote:

> I think most US people on-list are in danger of assuming too much 
>that 
> government works the same in the US as everywhere else. 

I have been painted into a corner and am running the white flag up 
the pole.  I give!  I surrender!  Uncle!  :-)

Actually, I know there are many differences in the legal systems and 
political systems of Britain and the U.S.  I just had no idea what 
they were.  Until Gabriel straightened me out, that is.  But as the 
U.S. framework is the only framework with which I have experience, I 
thought I'd have a go.  

As I indicated, I'm in the camp that believes the wizarding world is 
not a dictatorship.  So let's see if any of my U.S.-based theories  
haven't been entirely gutted.

Cindy wrote:

> >Also, Fudge tells Snape in PoA that he'll try to arrange for Snape 
to
> >receive Order of Merlin, First Class, if Fudge can manage it.  This
> >suggests that *someone* has authority over Fudge in these matters -
-
> >probably the wizarding legislature.  I don't think Fudge is
> >necessarily supposed to be a dictator.  I think he is just sort of
> >representative of the most of the government, rolled up into one
> >person for convenience and simplicity.
> >

 
Gabriel wrote:

> All government Ministers have similarly broad powers. If a 
>government 
> minister wanted to get someone knighted, he'd send a note over to 
the Prime 
> Minister and ask if he could sort it out. It might happen if the PM 
>felt he 
> owed him a favour, etc. 
 

Doesn't that prove my point that Fudge is not a dictator?  He 
expresses doubt that he can secure the highest honour for Snape, 
which is something that wouldn't trouble a true dictator at all.

Cindy wrote:

> >The other reason I don't think the wizarding world is a 
dictatorship
> >is that Crouch Sr. had substantial powers as the Head of Magical 
Law
> >Enforcement.  He, not the Minister of Magic, made a number of
> >critical decisions (aurors could use unforgivable curses).  Since 
the
> >wizarding world was in a war with Voldemort, Crouch Sr.'s power to
> >direct the war effort suggests that he, not the Minister of Magic,
> >might be the commander in chief.
> >
 
Gabrielle wrote:

> Or he could've been in Fudge's War Cabinet. Since Churchill at 
least the PM 
> in times of war has picked 4 favcoured Cabinet ministers to form an 
inner 
> cabinet which can make quick decisions. That would give Crouch 
quite enough 
> influence. We don't really have a singe c-in-c like the US (well we 
do, but 
> since she's the Queen, and follows the advice of her ministers, 
whatever 
> that means, executive power can be dispersed through many or held 
by one 
> depending on circumstance.)
> 

Let me first clarify that when I wrote "commander in chief," I was 
thinking of "commander in chief of the military."  In the U.S., 
that's the president.  If Crouch Sr. really had the power to direct 
the Voldemort war effort independent of the Minister of Magic's 
wishes, I figured that might indicate a less than all-powerful 
Minister of Magic.  But as you point out, we really don't have a lot 
of information to go on.  

In any event, I know I'm on really thin ice here, but I don't see how 
this point undermines the theory that the wizarding world isn't a 
dictatorship.  After all, if there are cabinet ministers making 
critical decisions without approval from the dictator, then I guess 
it is an awfully loose dictatorship.  Perhaps this is akin to the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff in the U.S., then?

Gabrielle wrote:

> Indeed: in fact trials are much fairer in Britain, since the press 
is 
> stopped from printing anything which could prejudice the jury; the 
judge 
> can't overrule the jury's verdict as I think sometimes happens in 
some US 
> courts; etc.
> 

I need to gather up the other lawyers on the board for a frontal 
assault to beat back the assertion that trials are much fairer in 
Britain.  :-)  For instance, the judge's ability to overrule the jury 
in the U.S. exists as a safeguard for the defendant.  IIRC, the judge 
can overrule a guilty verdict and free the defendant, but can never 
pronounce the defendant guilty if the jury has found otherwise.  Many 
people also believe that having public trials and allowing media 
access is also of benefit to the defendant in many cases, as it 
prevents "railroading."  I could bore everyone senseless with a list 
of criminal law safeguards in the U.S. that may (or may not) be 
present in Britain.  But I can't get on board with the idea that the 
British way is "much fairer."  Not yet, anyway.  :-)

I think that we can surely agree, however, that trials in the U.S. 
and in Britain are *much* more fair than wizarding trials.

Cindy wrote:

> >Hmmm.  Well, if the Ministry of Magic is equivalent to the U.S.
> >government, then it might very well have separation of powers after
> >all.  Crouch Sr. sounds like the head of the judicial branch.
> 

Gabrielle wrote:

> But he's a minister! Seems unlikely. 


I don't think I expressed myself well there.  I meant that when 
Crouch Sr. was the Head of Magical Law Enforcement during the 
Voldemort years, he was akin to our friend John Ashcroft, the U.S. 
Attorney General and head of the Department of Justice.  I have no 
idea how that correlates to the British legal system, but I'd love to 
know.

Cindy