3 ms·
The right not to be unfairly tried is easily satisfied by not having a trial at all. The right to a fair trial is about two things: you must be tried before be
by dieterrams 9y ago
The right not to be unfairly tried is easily satisfied by not having a trial at all.
The right to a fair trial is about two things: you must be tried before being found guilty and punishment/sentencing is administered, and that trial must be executed fairly. In effect, you have the right to a (fair) trial.
A trial and especially a fair trial are undeniably interventions on how things would otherwise proceed. But I agree with moomin that the positive/negative distinction is not really meaningful.
- Qantourisc 9y agoThere is still the option to mandate both. (No unfair tried, and a fair trial.)
- icebraining 9y agoA trial and especially a fair trial are undeniably interventions on how things would otherwise proceed No, because otherwise it would just be aggression. A trial is a method for the accusers to be able to show that their subsequent aggression (imprisonment, removal of property, etc) is justified.
- dieterrams 9y agoNo, it is to prevent the defendant from being unjustly blamed and punished.
- icebraining 9y agoUnjustly blaming and punishing someone is defamation and aggression. You don't need extra rights to be protected from that.
- dieterrams 9y agoHow about you read declarations of rights to a fair trial and point out where they imply that they are principally about ensuring the accusers' application of aggression is justified, as opposed to protecting the accused? Whether or not you think an "extra right" is necessary has no bearing on why that right is provided.