Justice in the WW (WAS: Re: Umbridge's great success)

[feetmadeofclay]

No: HPFGUIDX 77502

Well... You have a point about Riddle's comment. I meant that the 
same Queen of England would be Queen of her magical subjects.  From 
what I can see they still live in England and the English governement 
seems aware of them.  I find the idea that the English crown would 
just allow the magical to form a seperate form of self-government 
within its borders highly improbable.  

But you may be right...  If Riddle says so, it must be true.  


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" <manawydan at n...> 
wrote:
> Golly: I found Rowling's Wizarding legal system to be bit of a 
straw man.
> 

Ffred:
> I'd have to disagree on that one. Once you decide (as JKR has) that 
the WW
> is a bureaucracy, then that has all sorts of implications for 
justice,
> lawmaking, and politics generally - I think she's drawn out those
> implications very effectively.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ffred

GOLLY:
Well, then it is even more of straw man. If the point is to discuss 
the implications of corruption then in creating a government with a 
system to easily bent towards corrupt, you create a straw man.  

The independence of the judiciary was an important step towards 
reducing the interfering arm of state control over justice. It 
promotes the idea of natural justice or even the idea that justice is 
commonly applicable.    

There is a reason the system has evolved to look as it does. It dealt 
with weaknesses. The reason the UK had Chancery courts was because 
the courts of Common Law were too rigid and justice requited a way 
around such rules.  In time, it became clear each system was so 
byzantine that almost none recieved justice and the system was 
altered yet again to combine the two courts. The system is constantly 
evolving both to maintain its ability deliver justice and to maintain 
its appearance of justice before the community it serves.    

If the WW is nothing more than some South American style dictatorship 
with its justice, rules and enforcement flowing all from one single 
source, its weaknesses are obvious and Rowling belabours them. 
Afterall nobody in the western democratic world thinks that is a 
super to run a government.  She's hardly even making an important 
point about people and corruption.  She's merely set up a straw man 
we all know is going to be unjust so she can then wag her finger at 
it and tell us how corruption harms others (and perhaps the soul).  
She's made it easy for readers to turn off the brain and not question 
why society fails to promote justice and harmony. Her society is so 
entirely unlike mine... The simple answer is that bad leaders - make 
the world bad.  

Then the grey area is gone. There good fathers like DD (ruler of 
Hogwarts) and bad fathers like Fudge or Crouch.  If your leaders are 
like DD then you must trust them to do what is right.  If your 
leaders are not DDesque - do not trust them.  Hardly highbrow stuff - 
in fact it is stunningly conservative. Failure of our father figures 
to shelter and protect us. The whole idea gives me shivers ....

The end result is also to paint witches and wizards as foolish (for 
trusting their government) or powerless against it. I don't get the 
feeling that is what I'm supposed to be getting though in the books.

Golly