I think the point here is that English justice is comparatively fair to what else was around in other European states at the time - as fellow fans of Garrow's Law will know there have been many developments to the advantage of defending council, and the actual verdict, though heavily influenced by the judge, is decided by a theoretically impartial jury of twelve rat-paying citizens.
However, it is not free from the influence of politics, and a trial is won on points of Law, evidence, precedent, and the effective performance of council to sway the jury in their favour. A defendent may be innocent, but if all of the above factors are stacked against them they will be found guilty.
Plus, as Stephen rightly says, judges, council and jury are all human; prone to human weakness of vanity, greed and sloth. A council will argue for the fee, whatever the side, and a judge being the ringmaster of his court, can be as petty or mean as he wishes so long as he lets both councils speak and they may call their witness, and that he does not actually say to the jury "You must find this person guilty/not guilty."
So basically, in the the ideal world of English justice it should work perfectly. But in practice it is not.
*is a fellow fan of Garrow's Law* (there will be a second season)
You are touching on several points where I sometimes feel that even today, justice is not what it is supposed to be. But then, this is not an ideal world.
Since I love Jack (and Stephen) I am rather taken against Ellenborough Quinborough. Mind, I cheered when I read somewhere that Garrow was once up against Ellenborough and won. That's how O'Brian's characters can cloud RL. :D
I don't think Jack realizes how much harm his father is doing him, and I can well understand Lawrence who is not a timid man, but who on suggesting to incriminate the General, suddenly found himself up against a seven foot Jack Aubrey.
However, it is not free from the influence of politics, and a trial is won on points of Law, evidence, precedent, and the effective performance of council to sway the jury in their favour. A defendent may be innocent, but if all of the above factors are stacked against them they will be found guilty.
Plus, as Stephen rightly says, judges, council and jury are all human; prone to human weakness of vanity, greed and sloth. A council will argue for the fee, whatever the side, and a judge being the ringmaster of his court, can be as petty or mean as he wishes so long as he lets both councils speak and they may call their witness, and that he does not actually say to the jury "You must find this person guilty/not guilty."
So basically, in the the ideal world of English justice it should work perfectly. But in practice it is not.
Reply
(there will be a second season)
You are touching on several points where I sometimes feel that even today, justice is not what it is supposed to be. But then, this is not an ideal world.
Since I love Jack (and Stephen) I am rather taken against Ellenborough Quinborough.
Mind, I cheered when I read somewhere that Garrow was once up against Ellenborough and won.
That's how O'Brian's characters can cloud RL. :D
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment