A Clarification on Trial / Hearing and Other Legal Issues

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 166202

Goddlefrood:
> It is true, as you say that Fudge forced the inception of "The
Hearing", but I wanted only to deal with that (the hearing itself).
> 
> My interpretation FWIW, as I said in my earlier on list, is that the
constitution of the panel for the presiding body was in its nature
somewhat similar to a Tribunal (and I define that, I believe). The
closest legal system to what we see of the Wizengamot is probably
either what's called a Star Chamber, or akin to how inquisitions were
conducted during the Spanish Inquisition (if interested on latter
suggest Rafael Sabatini - Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition). 

<snip>
> To Carol's points then. It may well be the case that the *original*
intention was to have a closed door (in camera) hearing before Ms.
Bones. It did not end up that way. I deal with it in my previous from
what *actually* happened and did not care to address hypotheticals for
the purpose of my analysis.
> 
> It is, though, Carol, as you suggest a fair extrapolation <snip>
that the previous hearings we have been privileged to see *brief*
parts of were different from Harry's. <snip>
> 
> Aware as I am that the quote (p.27 of my edition <snip>) mentions 
Interrogators I can not suggest that you then infer this equates with
the word Judges.

Carol responds:
I'm sorry, but I'm not really following your argument here. I'm not
suggesting that "interrogators" is synonymous with "judges." I was
referring to my own earlier post, in which I suggested that the
"interrogators" were part judge, part prosecuting attorney, whereas
Dumbledore is part witness for the defense, part defense attorney
(using American terminology). As I understand it, a judge presides
over a hearing or trial and asks the jury for a verdict afterwards.
So, to that extent, Madam Bones, like Crouch Sr. before her, seems to
be acting as a judge. I realize that judges do not normally
interrogate witnesses or defendants (that would be the job of the
various lawyers or attorneys or whatever term you prefer)--unless it's
just a small, informal hearing like the one that Tonks, Lupin, and
Black apparently anticipated. And the hearing *was* originally
scheduled to be held in Madam Bones's office. That is not a
presumption on my part. It's canon.

My point is that since Madam Bones holds the same office as Barty
Crouch Sr. does in the Pensieve scenes, it seems likely that she would
have similar powers (minus authorizing Unforgiveable Curses) and
generally follow similar procedures (though he, fortunately for him,
didn't have to deal with the Minister's interference in the
proceedings). At any rate, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I
was just bringing up points that I had previously addressed and
referring to the canon previously cited rather than repeating the
quotations.

I am, however, interested in your reference to the Inquisition. I'm
not sure that it applies to Harry's hearing or trial (I had thought
that a trial involved a judge and jury and a hearing involved only a
judge; also, that a trial involved guilt or innocence whereas a
hearing was a preliminary conducted to determine whether a trial was
necessary, but I defer to your expertise), but the appointment of
Umbridge as High Inquisitor certainly *does* suggest the Spanish
Inquisition. (I've previously tried to compare Umbridge with
Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor and received a resounding silence in
response.) It seems to me that, for example, the Ministry is
protecting itself against heretical views just as the Roman Catholic
Church was (and later Umbridge subjects students to torture for what
she considers to be their own good). If anyone is more familiar than I
am with that period in history and wants to explore the parallels and
implications, I'd be interested. 
> 
Goddlefrood:
> All *I* can infer, and I mention this in previous, is that the
hearing Harry attended was conducted by a presiding body with the
format outlined there. Chairman, Legal Expert and another undefined
role for Dolores. Notwithstanding the use of the word Inquisitors,
which I am not comfortable with accepting.

Carol:
Okay, now I'm confused again. No one in the previous posts in this
thread used the word "Inquisitors." Nor does JKR (via Fudge) use that
term in "The Hearing." Fudge refers to himself, Umbridge, and Madam
Bones as "interrogators" (and they certainly do interrogate Harry and
Mrs. Figg, or at least Fudge and Madam Bones do--Umbridge just
questions Dumbledore with regard to the Dementors--and we know why
she's interested in that particular topic). But, now that you mention
 it, I do think we're supposed to see a connection between what the
Ministry is doing and an Inquisition. If we look at the literal
meanings, don't "interrogator" and "Inquisitor" mean the same
thing--one who questions or inquires? Granted, "interrogate" implies a
systematic inquiry and "inquisitor" implies harshness because we
associate it with the various Inquisitions (particularly, the Spanish
Inquisition) but in terms of literal meaning, there's not much difference.

Which raises the question, why is Umbridge's position (later in the
book) given that particular title? What, exactly, is she questioning?
Is she interrogating everybody, teachers and students alike, or is she
investigating Hogwarts itself, questioning Dumbledore's authority? Or
both? I think her job is to suppress heretical thinking, and that's
where the job title comes in. But like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor,
she believes, or pretends to believe, that she's acting to protect the
poor, helpless peasants/students.

> Goddlefrood:
<snip>
> It is simply inconceivable that Madam Bones did not vote in favour
of clearing Harry of all charges (more usually termed voting not
guilty, not proven appearing to be unavailable). We just were nit
shown it. <snip>

Carol:
I disagree. I think that, like the chairman of an organization
following Robert's Rules of Order (Parliamentary procedure), she
merely asks for a vote rather than voting herself. Had she actually
voted, surely Harry would have noticed, and the narrator, seeing from
his pov, would have commented. Obviously, neither of us can prove the
other wrong, but it's obviously not "inconceivable" because I'm
"conceiving" it. (IMO, Fudge is usurping her role by announcing the
verdict, but he's rather flustered at the moment and has been bending
or altering the rules, in any case. At least, he doesn't dispute the
conclusion that the jury--the Wizengamot or its voting members--has
reached.)

I'm also wondering why Madam Bones refers to Harry as "the witness"
rather than "the defendant," which sounds to me like a Flint.

Carol earlier:
> 
> > Fudge again steps in to say "Cleared of all charges, but that does
not make it his job to do so." He is, IMO, overstepping his authority
here and throughout the book with his ministerial decrees and the
appointment of Umbridge as High Inquisitor. <SNIP>
> 
Goddlefrood:
> On this point, it will be found from my earlier, that I concluded
that Fudge was the Chairman, the relevant canon quotes are there. It
is *always* part of the function (please not job) of a Chairman in a
proceeding to announce the verdict, however reluctant he or she may
be, and of course Fudge appeared reluctant.
> 
> He is not overstepping his authority *here* although he may have
done so before the proceedings were convened. Once they were convened
he *was* the Chairman and carried out the expected function of one. <snip>

Carol:
But as I see it, it's Madam Bones whose "function" ought to be that of
the Chairman. As I said, her job is exactly the same as that of Barty
Crouch Sr. *She* calls for the vote (the chairman's job). Fudge is
overstepping his bounds, taking advantage of the fact that as Minister
for Magic, he's her superior. He does the same thing by changing the
time and veue of the hearing and appointing himself and Umbridge as
interrogators.

Carol, who had another point to make but has forgotten what it was