h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Obviously there are issues for the wider society (and a fair trial is important for general justice), but does it matter for the individual if they are in fact guilty?

There is a high profile murder case in NZ at the moment where a man's conviction was quashed by the Privy Council. He's served over a decade in prison already. The Crown (NZ) has decided to retry the man.

It's very obvious that the original trial was severely lacking (and that's what the Privy Council based its decision on). The police and prosecution made errors that were at best incompetent. So on the grounds of that the man deserves to have his conviction quashed. But that doesn't mean he is innocent. If he's guilty, does he deserve a fair trial? (I mean this question in an abstract sense, obviously pragmatically there is no way to know if he is guilty or not unless he has a fair trial, although that doesn't guarantee the truth either).

"Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent is convicted" - or something like that.

Yes, it matters. Our justice is faulted (but the best we have), hence 'beyond reasonable doubt' (after a fair trial).

If you need absolute certainty, religion is the only way to go...

Ah, Kea, on rereading, you asked if it matters for the individual. That rather depends on whether he actually _is_ guilty. Though, come to think of it, it matters to him anyway.

Of course it matters. Trials aren't just a matter of determining guilt or innocence, but of setting an appropriate sentence if the defendant is guilty. An unfair trial will likely result in an unjust sentence, even if it judges the issue of guilt correctly.

There's also the issue of wider public confidence in the system. People can't have confidence in a judicial system that can't run trials fairly.

Hi Kea,

Are you hinting at the possibility of a quick judicial review and put himback in the slammer, because he knows and you ( collectively ) know that he IS guilty?

If so I don't think that would be acceptable. It is necessary for justice to be seen to be done, not just dispensed - as per Otto's post.

Novo

No, but theoretically you don't know they're guilty until they've had a fair trial, so you can't have one without the other, right?

Read this and then say that 'guilty' people should not be allowed fair trials. This man lost 48 years of his life for being wrongly convicted of a murder before the Supreme Court of Canada finally vindicated him.

"Truscott, just 14 at the time, was sentenced to hang for the murder, making him Canada's youngest death-row inmate. His sentence was commuted to life in prison and he was paroled in 1969."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/28/truscott-reaction.html

And yes, this is one very clear reason why capital punishment should be abolished. The other is that the state simply should not have the power to kill those people who break its laws. The state has a clear responsibility to protect the public and punish those who break the law. It should not have the right to kill citizens who break the law.


az

"Im guilty your honour" is the plea made by both defendants

The police agree under questioning by the prosecuing QC that they found the victim dead in the defedants flat there were no other fingerprints in the flat and that neighbours never saw anyone but the victim and the defendants entering the flat.

"Okey cokey then" says the Judge ( that's latin for Ive heard enough) "Does the Defence wish to question any witnesses?"

"I know they did, you know they did it and they have admitted they did what's the point, lets get this over with and get down the rub-a-dub, eh" (latin for public house) "the Defence rests but I am a bit parched so make it quick"

"Bostin (good) 25 years each and the defence buys the first round because they lost!"



Speedy and efficient. Except that a case like that would miss important details like who else might have preveted the murder, what lead up to it and how could we prevent similar cases in the future.


Then there are cases where people admit guilt and want a trial to publicise the cause they broke the law for. They want their names and the names of the company or government department they spray painted or bloackaded in the papers and people to know they lengths they will go to to make a stand. They wont want a summary judgement with none of the usual trimmings.


A mate of mine who liked a drop or two, went for drive up to a local beauty spot and had a nice drink. It was late he was tired and emotional. He was awoken by the police who were doing a routine patrol on the public car parks in the parkland. He'd have much prefered it if the details f his visit to the Magistrates hadnt been dealt with in the standard way.

Sure, if someone pleads guilty, then the purpose of the trial is to produce evidence that will have a bearing on the severity of the sentence. Minor crimes which carry a set penalty could be dealt with more economically.

What bothers me though, is when a case is overturned through appeal as an unsecure conviction/let off because of a technicality. This is not that someone has been proved innocent, but has not sufficiently well been proved guilty. Whilst I do not want to see innocent people put away through a perversion of justice, I don't like the idea that clever lawyers can find loopholes to free guilty parties.

Is this question substantially different from

"Should a lottery winner have to present the winning lottery ticket?"

Maybe I misread the original post, but it seems that originally the question was, all societal and practical implications aside, is the actual indivual any better or worse off for having a fair trial, when the individual him/her self knows s/he's guilty? Everyone else is talking about whether a person should have a right to a fair trial, which wasn't the original question.

My answer to the original question is yes. If it's me, and I know I've done it, first, I want the chance to throw myself at the mercy of the court for a lighter sentence. Second, some people just like knowing that they are being treated fairly, even though they might themselves believe they don't deserve such treatment.

Interestingly, the question is most likely moot, since (in the U.S. at any rate) if you know you are guilty, and have no doubt that the judge and/or jury will find you guilty, you have the option to negotiate a plea bargain with the prosecutors, who will often offer to recommend a lighter sentence, or drop certain charges, in exchange for your guilty plea. They do this because (1) it takes the guess work out, they don't risk a guilty person going free, and (2) it saves them and their employers (the State or state) time, money, and energy. Because it's a good deal all around, any defense attorney worth the paper her/his Juris Doctorate is printed on will try to plea bargain, and advise the client to go along with it. Actually, public defenders, who charge much less per hour than the value of the paper their degree is printed on, will do this even more so, because it lightens their caseload.

>>Maybe I misread the original post, but it seems that originally the question was, all societal and practical implications aside, is the actual indivual any better or worse off for having a fair trial, when the individual him/her self knows s/he's guilty? Everyone else is talking about whether a person should have a right to a fair trial, which wasn't the original question.<<

Thanks for clarifying that Irv

It's true that I'm not asking if a guilty person has a *right* to a fair trial (everyone one does IMO).

And I'm not talking about people that have been found guilty by jury (as we know that that happens to innocent people too). I'm talking about people who did actually commit the crime with which they are charged (i.e. irrespective of whether they are found guilty or not guilty).

The case I am referring to, the man was charged with murdering his parents and siblings. He served a long sentence, and his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council because the original trial was so badly done. The NZ govt has decided to try him again, although I'm not sure why.

So there is alot of debate here about guilt and innocence. Most people, including the media, think that the man is not guilty. Others think he is. And some are cautioning about assuming his innocence given that the first trial was so badly botched.

Because so many people think he is innocent, I've been looking at what that means. The truth is that no-one knows if he murdered his family, possibly not even himself (he apparently has no memory of that time). And I'm not convinced that a new trial will be fair given how long it is since the murders, how much information is in the public domain, how badly the first trial went etc. So he could be convicted again even if he is innocent.

But if he is guilty, has he been denied justice by the original botched trial and subsequent appeal processes? And does it matter if he has been denied justice?


>>
Are you hinting at the possibility of a quick judicial review and put himback in the slammer, because he knows and you ( collectively ) know that he IS guilty?<<

No,not at all, novo. I tend to think that he shouldn't be retried at all. If I was convinced that he was guilty, and he had to be retried, then I'd want him to have a fair and proper trial.

If he has no memory of the time in question, and the first trial was so badly botched, then he has probably been sitting there this whole time having no idea whether justice has been done to him. If he is guilty, and doesn't know it, a fair trial may at least let him come to peace with the time he has served, and the time he has yet to serve.

If someone really has no memory of the deed, can guilt be said to exist even if it can be proven that the individual actually perpetrated the crime?

I suppose that depends on the definition of guilt, which is a very interesting philosophical point. There's still a justification for locking him up, though: someone who blacks out and kills people, then has no memory afterwards, is not a safe person to have in society.

Unquestionably someone who blacks out and commits mayhem must be adequately restrained

The person may not be actually guilty, since they have no guilty knowledge, but are in fact suffering from a lethal psycho-physiological impairment. Truly horrible.

I'm reminded of the movie, Memento: a nasty little film noir piece in which the protaganist, who suffers from Anterograde Amnesia, attempts to discover the identity of his wife's killer

I don't think it's that he might have blacked out and killed. More that he killed and the trauma of that was too much for him to remember.

>>
If he has no memory of the time in question, and the first trial was so badly botched, then he has probably been sitting there this whole time having no idea whether justice has been done to him. If he is guilty, and doesn't know it, a fair trial may at least let him come to peace with the time he has served, and the time he has yet to serve.<<

He has always maintained that he is innocent*, so he definitely doesn't want another trial at all. But that brings us back to the original question - if he did commit the crime does it matter if the next trial is fair or not (public interest aside for a moment)? I think Otto's point about appropriate sentencing is valid, although it will be very interesting to see if he is found guilty by the jury again whether he gets the same sentence (which he'd serve less what he's already served).

*and if that is true then it was the trauma of finding his family that caused the memory loss.

A re-trial after such a long time could throw up some interesting changes in public opinion. I'm thinking how some past crimes are now no longer considered illegal (e.g. homosexuality) and others are now viewed more sympathetically in the light of medical discoveries (e.g. post-natal depression).

First, I'll say that there is no doubt in my mind that the man you mention is *not* guilty, and there never has been right from the start.

That being said, I think the decision to re-try him is absurd. I think his conviction should have been quashed and that should have been the end of it. I don't see what new evidence or new slant the police can put on it.

Given my feelings on this particular case, it's hard to answer the more global question - but I'd say yes, of course it's important - to both guilty and innocent! (more so to the latter of course..)

Vicky

All the above assume that a fair trial equates to justice - it doesn't.

The law and justice may occasionally be bedfellows but often they are merely nodding acquaintances on the landing.

A trial attempts to determine which version of events, of those offered, most accurately reflects the actual happening.

The law then determines the appropriate punishment.

Even if the trial has correctly determined the happenings, the punishment determined by the law may not be justice.