Mm. I want to see what he is able to accomplish. Perhaps Kazuma-sama's dreams can also still be achieved. . .
If I learn from the legal system of Great Britain, I could teach others in Japan. And perhaps Naruhodo-san will return to Japan someday to practice law.
Well. . . our nation was closed off from the rest of the world for many years. Recently, we have had to open our borders to other nations and have sought to adapt to new customs and the modern way of doing things.
Prior to that point, decisions were primarily handed down without trial - matters of guilt or innocence would be decided by magistrates. Whereas in the modern system we are attempting to adopt, a person accused of a crime is given the opportunity to appear before a judge, and shall have a defense attorney present to argue for their innocence.
It is not so much that the systems differ as that ours is relatively young and it is thought that we could look to older systems for guidance. Though I admit that the court system in Great Britain has its own flaws. It is rife with corruption, and often the powerful are able to make use of their right to defense to elide justice while the poor are convicted on little evidence. I should want our young system to remain cautious in avoiding this outcome.
Might I ask which aspects do you think are beneficial to the court system? While Amonlogia's borders have been open for a long while now, there are always advancements to be made. I'd like to bring back some of this knowledge with me, if I can.
Of course. I will do my best to share my insights as a judicial assistant, should you feel them helpful.
To me, there are two significant principles in a modern judicial system that any country would be wise to adopt. First, there is the notion that accusations must be supported by evidence, and that evidence ought to adhere to scientific principles. For example, a police force ought to have specific prescribed methods for the collection and examination of evidence, and the conclusions they draw from that evidence ought to be based on sound reasoning. While witness testimony shall always be a cornerstone of investigation, it ought to be used to recount observations, not conjecture. It is useful to hear a witness give an account of events he or she witnessed with their own senses. It is not useful to allow a witness to testify to rumor or to speculate on things they did not observe or the contents of another person's mind.
Second, there is the principle of the presumption of innocence. A person accused of a crime ought to be considered innocent of that crime unless the prosecution is able to put on a compelling case of their guilt. The precise burden of proof must needs vary based on the severity of the crime, but if the prosecution is unable to prove its case or if the defense is able to expose too many holes in that case, a person should not be convicted of a crime.
In the British system, there is a countermeasure that some may wish to adopt. I myself hold mixed opinions about it, but. . . there is a system of allowing a jury of six persons pulled from the general populace to weigh in on the case along with the judge. The thinking is that, although evidence must be scientific and burdens of proof must be adhered to, there is a role for common sense and morality in the courtroom as well. Ordinary persons can be thought to represent that notion, and bring to the case their own perspectives on human behavior and the soundness of evidence.
I think juries can be hasty to reach verdicts from time to time and there have been notable instances of corruption. But I have also seen times when jurors have been able to add great value to the understanding of evidence. For example, scientific principles of evidence may show that two streets were the same distance from the crime, but jurors may add the common sense notion that some would naturally avoid the street that is known to be frequently covered in ice.
but rochalizo listens attentively, pulling out what look like the coupon they were all given at the start x2, before he recalls that the back is already covered in writing.]
... It sounds as if you have quite a bit of experience by now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
If I learn from the legal system of Great Britain, I could teach others in Japan. And perhaps Naruhodo-san will return to Japan someday to practice law.
no subject
no subject
Prior to that point, decisions were primarily handed down without trial - matters of guilt or innocence would be decided by magistrates. Whereas in the modern system we are attempting to adopt, a person accused of a crime is given the opportunity to appear before a judge, and shall have a defense attorney present to argue for their innocence.
It is not so much that the systems differ as that ours is relatively young and it is thought that we could look to older systems for guidance. Though I admit that the court system in Great Britain has its own flaws. It is rife with corruption, and often the powerful are able to make use of their right to defense to elide justice while the poor are convicted on little evidence. I should want our young system to remain cautious in avoiding this outcome.
no subject
Might I ask which aspects do you think are beneficial to the court system? While Amonlogia's borders have been open for a long while now, there are always advancements to be made. I'd like to bring back some of this knowledge with me, if I can.
no subject
To me, there are two significant principles in a modern judicial system that any country would be wise to adopt. First, there is the notion that accusations must be supported by evidence, and that evidence ought to adhere to scientific principles. For example, a police force ought to have specific prescribed methods for the collection and examination of evidence, and the conclusions they draw from that evidence ought to be based on sound reasoning. While witness testimony shall always be a cornerstone of investigation, it ought to be used to recount observations, not conjecture. It is useful to hear a witness give an account of events he or she witnessed with their own senses. It is not useful to allow a witness to testify to rumor or to speculate on things they did not observe or the contents of another person's mind.
Second, there is the principle of the presumption of innocence. A person accused of a crime ought to be considered innocent of that crime unless the prosecution is able to put on a compelling case of their guilt. The precise burden of proof must needs vary based on the severity of the crime, but if the prosecution is unable to prove its case or if the defense is able to expose too many holes in that case, a person should not be convicted of a crime.
In the British system, there is a countermeasure that some may wish to adopt. I myself hold mixed opinions about it, but. . . there is a system of allowing a jury of six persons pulled from the general populace to weigh in on the case along with the judge. The thinking is that, although evidence must be scientific and burdens of proof must be adhered to, there is a role for common sense and morality in the courtroom as well. Ordinary persons can be thought to represent that notion, and bring to the case their own perspectives on human behavior and the soundness of evidence.
I think juries can be hasty to reach verdicts from time to time and there have been notable instances of corruption. But I have also seen times when jurors have been able to add great value to the understanding of evidence. For example, scientific principles of evidence may show that two streets were the same distance from the crime, but jurors may add the common sense notion that some would naturally avoid the street that is known to be frequently covered in ice.
no subject
but rochalizo listens attentively, pulling out what look like the coupon they were all given at the start x2, before he recalls that the back is already covered in writing.]
... It sounds as if you have quite a bit of experience by now.
no subject
. . . Only a small amount. But I have read many books on the subject.
no subject
Your research and preparation will certainly do you well. I take it your example about the street was based off something, though?
no subject