Umbridge's Great Success as a DADA Teacher

[feetmadeofclay]

No: HPFGUIDX 77166

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vivamus42" <YahooGroups at T...> 
wrote:

> And while we're on the subject of Umbridge, does anyone familiar 
with 
> English law care to guess what the consequences of her midnight
> attack 
> upon Hagrid might be (not to mention the unprovoked attack on 
> McGonagall in front of many witnesses)?
> 
> Vivamus

The wizarding world apparently does not adhere to English common 
law.  The thought of condeming a person to death without offering 
even any semblence of a trial is very much against the spirit of the 
common law.  

That being said I am sure people can pick out times when it 
happened...  But I still think it shows the WW cannot be adhering to 
the same legal system.

As well Harry had a panel of judges which one only usually gets at an 
appeal level.  

English Common law requires that the justices be a self-administered 
body distinguished from the legislative and the executive arms of 
government.  Fudge may repesent the excutive, Arthur's job may 
represent the legislative since we know he writes laws even if he 
doesn't pass them.  I get the feeling bureaucrats like Arthur write 
the laws, Fudge's team looks them over and they are sent directly to 
the Queen for official signing.

The problem here is that we've never got a clear picture of how the 
WW is integrated into the english parlimentary system. It is clear 
that Fudge is Her Majesty's Minister of Magic.  But ordinarily that 
requires that Fudge would be elected to the house and then selected 
by the Prime Minister to sit in that position.  It could be that 
Fudge is part of a single magical riding and elected to serve in that 
praticular position. Or it could be that Fudge is appointed within 
the Wizaring community and sent to serve as Minister and thus not 
elected by it.  He probably either way does not formally sit in the 
house.  It is hard to imagine that Rowling intends us to believe that 
the house hears readings on bills like The Muggle Protection Act.  
One wonders if Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has a shadow minister 
of magic.  I doubt it.  

Ordinarily (English style) judical branches are set up as self 
administering bodies to prevent instances where political goals and 
bias may influence the work of administering justice. It prevents the 
e appearances and actuality of bais. England's highest court is the 
Judicial Commitee of the House of Lords.  Distinguished barristers 
and justices are appointed to sit in the house as Law Lords and 
oversee cases that are appealed to that House.  One wonders if Harry 
could have taken his case to any other court for an appeal if he had 
lost.

I don't think Rowling has any intricate knowledge of English law 
beyond what any English person might know. Nor does she seem 
interested in depicting its idyosyncracies or history. I think it is 
meant to be evocative of the corrupt nature of the WW's political 
administration.  Kangaroo courts and all that. 

 Injustice happens all the time, but usually people at least get a 
trial no matter how fake it may be.  Harry's trial as well was 
somewhat slapdash in nature.  No traditional formal proceedures were 
followed. I wondered when I read it if she had ever even seen a 
trial.  There don't appear to be barristers or solicitors in the WW. 
The trial had none of the trappings of trials, like formal pleadings, 
writs or presentations of affidavits. Those trappings have always 
been rather a hallmark of the English legal system.  Hallmarks so 
stunningly lambasted in books like Bleak House.  

I found Rowling's Wizarding legal system to be bit of a straw man.

Golly