Political trial

Last updated

A political trial is a criminal trial with political implications. When the trial is carried out without the minimum guarantees of the rule of law, the political trial is the expression of a totalitarian or authoritarian system, where the administration of justice as a whole is political (and not just the conduct of that single process, due to a biased Court).

Contents

Definitions

Trial against behaviours claiming cultural pluralism

T. Becker writes that "in a sense, all trials are political. Since courts are government agencies and judges are part of the 'system' all judicial decisions can be considered political." [1] A political trial is characterized by the fact that public opinion and public attitudes on one or more social questions will inevitably have an effect on the decision. [2]

Political trials can include trials for civil disobedience and other forms of protest against government policy. The government may use prosecution to frighten potential supporters and sympathizers of a movement, [3] and to discredit a movement and compel its members to spend time, money and energy avoiding conviction and imprisonment. A defendant in a political trial may offer a "legal defense" or a "political defense".

A technical defense would argue that the alleged crime did not occur as a matter of fact or law. In a political defense, a defendant may assert the political motivations behind the conduct in an attempt to convince the jury or the public of the justness of the political motivations and of the injustice of the prosecution. [4]

It has been suggested that in political cases, justice will be better served if the lists used to impanel jurors are more complete and if challenges and excuses are minimized, in order to ensure that the jury more accurately reflects the diversity of the community. [5]

Trial in order to curb opponents against the government

When a political trial is "an examination before a court concerning the conduct of governmental affairs or somehow relating to government", [6] you could have political justice: [7] if bias is not only cultural but systemic, politics has an impact on criminal procedure chosen for the trial and on the impartiality of the Court.

There is some question as to whether political trials are necessary or if they are a disease of politics and law. [8] Political justice is defined in terms of the state's reaction to perceived threat; and political prisoners are defined as those incarcerated because of either political crime (political criminals) or political justice (victims of repression). [9]

Defendants in political trials tend to participate in the proceedings more than defendants in non-political cases, as they may have greater ability to depart from courtroom norms to speak to political and moral issues. [3]

Examples

Biased trials in democracies

Political trials in the United Kingdom

In Northern Ireland, Diplock Courts tried anyone charged with a politically related offence and provided for delays in permitting legal access to suspects where the suspect could be interrogated for up to seven days. While suspects retained the right to silence, it was on condition that if they chose to rely upon it, a trial judge could later draw an adverse inference from their silence. One notable case, of many, arising from the British political courts in Northern Ireland is that of Belfast man Christy Walsh case.

Political trials in Colonial America

Political trials in the United States

Biased trials in totalitarian states

When the Soviet Union was created, the trial of Sofia Panina was one of the first political trials. [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

In common law jurisdictions, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice</span> Justice to those who have committed crimes

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions. Goals include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims. The primary institutions of the criminal justice system are the police, prosecution and defense lawyers, the courts and the prisons system.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Military Tribunal for the Far East</span> Post–World War II war crimes trials

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), also known as the Tokyo Trial and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, was a military trial convened on 29 April 1946 to try leaders of the Empire of Japan for their crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity, leading up to and during the Second World War. The IMTFE was modeled after the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, Germany, which prosecuted the leaders of Nazi Germany for their war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the adversarial system, which is adopted in common law, or inquisitorial system, which is adopted in civil law. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Israel</span> Part of the article of the series of government of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial</span> Coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal

In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of assizes (Belgium)</span> Criminal court in Belgium

The court of assizes is the trial court which tries the most serious crimes in the judicial system of Belgium. It is the highest Belgian court with criminal jurisdiction; as such, it is the only Belgian court that can sentence someone to life imprisonment. The courts of assizes are not permanent courts; a new court of assizes is assembled for each new trial. There is a court of assizes in each of the ten provinces of Belgium, as well as one in the arrondissement of Brussels-Capital which is not part of any province. Further below, an overview is provided of the eleven courts of assizes and their seats. They are the only courts in Belgium for which the provinces are used as territorial subdivisions. They are also the only courts in Belgium that hold jury trials. The jury acts as sole trier of fact, but decides on the penalty together with the judges. The trial by jury of certain crimes is laid down in article 150 of the Belgian Constitution. The Belgian courts of assizes have the same origin as their French namesakes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "a[n]…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes." The Supreme Court rejected the Tenth Circuit's reversal of Felix's conviction, finding that the Court of Appeals read the holding in Grady v. Corbin (1990) too broadly.

Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial. They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. Game theory has been used to analyze the plea bargaining decision.

A political defense is a defense to a criminal charge in which the defendant asserts at trial the political motivations behind the allegedly criminal conduct. In some circumstances, the defendant might assert political motivations in order to seek acquittal. In other circumstances, defendants might not have a realistic hope of acquittal but may nevertheless use the trial as a forum for expressing political views.

References

  1. ↑ K McNaught (1974), "Political trials and the Canadian political tradition", University of Toronto Law Journal, 24 (2): 149–169, doi:10.2307/825069, JSTOR   825069
  2. ↑ Burnstein, Malcolm (1969), Trying a Political Case, vol. 28, Guild Prac., p. 33
  3. 1 2 Barkan, Steven E. (1976–1977), Political Trials and the Pro Se Defendant in the Adversary System, vol. 24, Soc. Probs., p. 324
  4. ↑ SE Barkan (1983), "Jury Nullification in Political Trials", Social Problems, 31 (1): 28–44, doi:10.2307/800407, JSTOR   800407
  5. ↑ J Van Dyke (1976), Selecting a jury in political trials, Case W. Res. L. Rev.
  6. ↑ RP Sokol (1971), "The Political Trial: Courtroom as Stage, History as Critic", New Literary History, 2 (3): 495–516, doi:10.2307/468335, JSTOR   468335
  7. ↑ Otto Kirchheimer, Political Justice. The Use of Legal Procedure for Political Ends, Princeton University Press, 1961 (Series: Princeton Legacy Library, 2303), DOI: 10.1515/9781400878529.
  8. ↑ Christenson, Ron (July 1986), "What is a Political Trial?", Society, 23 (5): 25–31, doi:10.1007/BF02695554, ISSN   0147-2011, S2CID   144583067
  9. ↑ Political Crime, Political Justice, and Political Prisoners, vol. 12, Criminology, 7 Mar 2006, pp. 385–398[ dead link ]
  10. ↑ AF Withington, J Schwartz (1978), "The Political Trial of Anne Hutchinson", New England Quarterly, 51 (2): 226–240, doi:10.2307/364308, JSTOR   364308
  11. ↑ Haber, David (1951), Lawyer Troubles in Political Trials; Harper, Fowler, vol. 60, Yale L. J., p. 1
  12. ↑ A Lindenmeyr (2001), "The First Soviet Political Trial: Countess Sofia Panina before the Petrograd Revolutionary Tribunal", Russian Review, 60 (4): 505–525, doi:10.1111/0036-0341.00188, JSTOR   2679365
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.