Role of the judicial branch

[Loony Le Fist]

How do Revlefters feel about the role of the judicial branch? I'll share some of my thoughts on the subject.

I feel that a trial by jury is very important. They give legitimacy and credibility to the system. Unfair trials and trials that do not have proper standards of evidence lead to a loss of legitimacy in that system. I feel that any judicial system must have, at least, the following:


Access to all evidence collected by the state, especially exculpatory evidence
A trial by a random jury of peers from the district of where the alleged crime was committed.
The ability to call into question the spirit and application of the law in question (I don't think there are any countries that allow this)
Access to a public defender whose performance is judged by reviews of their acquittal rate (yet something else not afforded by any country I know of)
Juries must have access to the possible punishment for the crime in question (I don't think any countries allow this either)
The ability to file motions for dismissal, and any other appropriate motions
The elimination of leniency of sentencing in exchange for snitching (i.e. plea bargains)
The right to not incriminate oneself (i.e. the defendant should not be required to testify)


I'm sure there's more. Thoughts?

[Ember Catching]

Why would the bourgeois-supernatural construct 'legitimacy' be anything for communists to strive for? Coercion, not legitimacy, is the lifeblood of the state.

[Loony Le Fist]

Why would the bourgeois-supernatural construct 'legitimacy' be anything for communists to strive for? Coercion, not legitimacy, is the lifeblood of the state.

Well I'm not necessarily talking about states. But even in the absence of a state there has to be a way to ensure that people don't do things that endanger or injure others. And that system must have what I am referring to as legitimacy. Perhaps your interpretation of legitimacy is different than mine. Allow me to explain.

This isn't about some bourgeois construct. This is about having a legal system that respects people's basic human rights. Their ability to defend themselves and present contrary evidence. What I mean is that no one is going to take a system seriously that doesn't give people the right to trial, and the ability to present contrary evidence.

I'm curious--are you suggesting a communist state's judicial system shouldn't have any legitimacy then? I'm not really one for assassinating dissidents on the spot. I would like to see some kind of due process there. With publicly provided defenders. Other than the fact that you claim it's "bourgeois" what precisely is wrong with this? I don't think I'm understanding your criticism.

[Ember Catching]

Well I'm not necessarily talking about states. But even in the absence of a state there has to be a way to ensure that people don't do things that endanger or injure others. And that system must have what I am referring to as legitimacy. Perhaps your interpretation of legitimacy is different than mine. Allow me to explain.

This isn't about some bourgeois construct. This is about having a legal system that respects people's basic human rights. Their ability to defend themselves and present contrary evidence. What I mean is that no one is going to take a system seriously that doesn't give people the right to trial, and the ability to present contrary evidence.

I'm curious--are you suggesting a communist state's judicial system shouldn't have any legitimacy then? I'm not really one for assassinating dissidents on the spot. I would like to see some kind of due process there. With publicly provided defenders. Other than the fact that you claim it's "bourgeois" what precisely is wrong with this? I don't think I'm understanding your criticism.
Right, so you're talking about the legitimacy of the courts rather than the political legitimacy of the state in general — even so, I disagree that judicial legitimacy is everywhere and always desirable.

To give an example, trials in absentia for the political leadership or military staff of the counterrevolution should be denied if the time it would take to prosecute them according to fair legal standards would enable them to commit further acts of barbarity against the proletariat or otherwise obstruct the deconstruction of capitalism — this is likely to be true for every non-communist political or military formation.

The irony in counterposing the notion of "basic human rights" to "some bourgeois construct" is not lost on me.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
To give an example, trials in absentia for the political leadership or military staff of the counterrevolution should be denied if the time it would take to prosecute them according to fair legal standards would enable them to commit further acts of barbarity against the proletariat or otherwise obstruct the deconstruction of capitalism — this is likely to be true for every non-communist political or military formation.


Well I disagree with the idea of bail money. So I think it's ok to hold people in jail if they are deemed a possible danger to society or a flight risk. It isn't like you can't hold people in jail during their trial and then either release them if they are acquitted, or put them in prison to serve their sentence. My point here is that due process is required to do this.



The irony in counterposing the notion of "basic human rights" to "some bourgeois construct" is not lost on me.

Well it is ironic. However, even if an idea is considered to be "bourgeois" in origin doesn't always mean it's a bad idea. Court's are bourgeois because of how justice is currently done in practice, where money plays a role. Not because the idea of a judicial system is bourgeois. Note my initial post in how I attempt to resolve the issues of the bourgeois court system.