3 ms·

I guess this is as good a place as any to say it: Why isn't it possible to hold trials without the accused present, at least in certain situations? The verdict

by ugh 16y ago

I guess this is as good a place as any to say it: Why isn't it possible to hold trials without the accused present, at least in certain situations? The verdict of such a trial against Bin Laden could have been spoken years ago, making the whole situation a lot less complicated. I know that this shouldn't be the usual case and there should probably be ample time for the accused to show up (three, four, five years) and then there is the question how someone who doesn't even show up should be defended but I don't see any huge problems with that, especially if it's only used in very rare cases.

derrida 16y ago
Because in common law there is a principle of 'natural justice' that is designed to make sure that all parties have equal and uninhibited access to the legal system. A conviction in absentia would be considered by most lawyers to be as bad as a trial that proceeded where the defendant was assumed guilty to be proven innocent.
RainFlutter 16y ago
I suspect that much of the trouble with this is twofold; a) 'very rare cases' has this habit of becoming commonplace in practice, and b) who other than the accused could reasonably determine whether he is being defended to his satisfaction? You could posit "defense" attorneys whose interests lie in subverting the process. In short, you say you don't see any huge problems, but that sounds a little like Fermat saying he can't fit a proof in the margin. I suspect that if you look further you'll start seeing problems :p
hnhg 16y ago
If the accused is afraid of unfair treatment, like Julian Assange after the treatment of Bradley Manning, then it would be reasonable for them to want to stay away from that country until they received certain assurances or have the charges dropped (Gary McKinnon is another case to think about). If you set the process going then trying them in their absence would be convenient for the state but not fair to them.
cromulent 16y ago
The problem is in defining the "certain situations". Those suspected of terrorism? Hmm. The Confrontation Clause, as embodied in the sixth amendment to the US constitution, is generally regarded as a good thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_S... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

by ugh 16y ago

derrida 16y ago

Because in common law there is a principle of 'natural justice' that is designed to make sure that all parties have equal and uninhibited access to the legal system. A conviction in absentia would be considered by most lawyers to be as bad as a trial that proceeded where the defendant was assumed guilty to be proven innocent.

RainFlutter 16y ago

I suspect that much of the trouble with this is twofold; a) 'very rare cases' has this habit of becoming commonplace in practice, and b) who other than the accused could reasonably determine whether he is being defended to his satisfaction? You could posit "defense" attorneys whose interests lie in subverting the process. In short, you say you don't see any huge problems, but that sounds a little like Fermat saying he can't fit a proof in the margin. I suspect that if you look further you'll start seeing problems :p

hnhg 16y ago

If the accused is afraid of unfair treatment, like Julian Assange after the treatment of Bradley Manning, then it would be reasonable for them to want to stay away from that country until they received certain assurances or have the charges dropped (Gary McKinnon is another case to think about). If you set the process going then trying them in their absence would be convenient for the state but not fair to them.

cromulent 16y ago

The problem is in defining the "certain situations". Those suspected of terrorism? Hmm. The Confrontation Clause, as embodied in the sixth amendment to the US constitution, is generally regarded as a good thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_S... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause