Wizarding Justice, again

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 34125

I agree with Barb, when she writes:

 > Indeed, we have yet to see a really extensive depiction of 
 > wizarding justice.  We saw what we thought was a miscarriage of 
 > justice when Crouch sent his son to Azkaban (turned out to be 
 > perfectly right) and what seemed to be justice when Bagman was 
 > released (there are hints from Winky that he is far more sinister 
 > than he appeared, and the twins' opinions notwithstanding, 
 > possibly brighter than he seemed as well).  We also see an episode 
 > that is common in the Muggle world: someone making a deal to get 
 > released, with no intimation that they were not completely in the 
 > wrong (Karkaroff naming names).  


Yes.  I'd also like to add that while people keep referring to these 
scenes as "trials," they aren't really.  What we see of Crouch and 
Bagman's trials are only the *sentencings.*  Both parties would
seem to have been already found guilty in their respective scenes
(Bagman was not acquitted of the charges against him; he was merely
absolved from penalty, which is not at all the same thing).  What
we see in both cases is the declaration of verdict and the 
sentencing, not the trial as a whole.

And of course Karkaroff's scene isn't a trial at all.  It's some kind 
of hearing, but it's not exactly a trial.

We have no idea what evidence may have been presented over the course 
of Bagman or Crouch Jr.'s trials, nor what the rules of preponderance 
of evidence might be in the wizarding world.

Sirius claims that Crouch the Lesser's trial was little more
than a show-trial, but his knowledge of the event must be
second-hand -- he was in prison at the time.  From Dumbledore's
comments on the unreliability of the Longbottoms as witnesses,
and from his admission that he was not absolutely convinced
of young Barty's guilt, we might infer that Dumbledore, too,
feels that the evidence was scanty and the outcome possibly
unjust.  And it's certainly obvious that an ugly mood prevailed
over the proceedings.  The trial was certainly *biased.*

But we can't really say that it was *improper.*  It's possible 
that the rules of preponderance of the evidence are just not very 
strict in the wizarding legal system.  It's also possible that the 
onus of proof within the system falls upon the defendant -- that 
it's a "guilty until proven innocent" system.  While both trials
do strike us as rather dubious according to the Spirit of Justice, 
they may well have been perfectly within bounds of the legal system 
itself.

However...

> The only other "justice" we know of is Sirius' being imprisoned 
> without a trial--but it seemed that his deep-seated feelings of 
> guilt for switching the Secret Keeper were as much to blame for 
> this, as we never hear of him demanding a trial.  He seems to have 
> gone off willingly (he's said to be laughing madly).

However, I don't know about this.  It's possible, I suppose, that
by the laws of the wizarding world, the defendant only gets a trial
if he *wants* one, or that confession obviates the need for a day
in court...but I don't quite believe it.  Sirius certainly seems
bitter enough in retrospect about having been sent to prison without
trial, and he speaks of it as if it were an extraordinary event:
an exception to normal legal proceedings, rather than an unfortunate
by-product of his state of mind at the time of his arrest.

Although if wizarding law *did* hold that a criminal who confesses
his guilt does not need to stand trial, that *would* cast the
Shrieking Shack scene of PoA in a somewhat different light, 
wouldn't it?


-- Elkins