Understanding our criminal justice system requires appreciation for it’s fundamental precepts, which in turn calls for knowledge of its evolution. Following will be an abbreviated history of that evolution, in multiple parts. (Caveat: This is copyrighted material, and any reproduction without proper acknowledgment is prohibited.)
Our system of criminal jurisprudence is predicated on two presumptions. First, goverrnment’s power over the individual is limited to that authority expressly conferred it by the citizenry, through the Constitution. This presumption recognizes the supremacy of the individual vis a vie the government. In contrast, the Constitution was created to provide for an orderly society. This second presumption acknowledges the right of society to limit the freedom of the individual. Thus our system is one of equipoise between facially contradictory goals.
The rule of law, meaning resort to objective standards rather than arbitrary and capricious excercise of authority, requires two components to maintain this balance. Substantive statutory regulation of conduct (codified definition and proscription of criminal conduct); and rules for orderly, just, resolution of breaches of regulated conduct (due process).
There must also be a forum in which these two components can be resolved. Our system holds as a core principal that this forum must be independent of the authority of the government to prosecute criminal conduct. The sole function of this forum is to assure that in prosecuting crimes, the government itself follows the law. Illegal conduct by the government in uncovering, and prosecuting crime is no more acceptable in an orderly society than is the illegal conduct of the criminal. Rule of law means everyone - individual and government - abides by the rules. With that in mind, we begin our trek through history.
We will start with the most famous criminal trial in antiquity - the prosecution and conviction of Socrates for what we would today call sedition. Unfortunately, the truth of that prosecution is largely misunderstood, because the most well-known rendition of that event has come down to us
from Socrates’ disciple Plato - who was hardly an unbiased source. Plato’s spin on the subject is that Socrates was the victim of nothing more that suppression of free speech.
Fortunately, there are other more reliable sources of what occurred. These reveal not only that Socrates was clearly guilty of the crime or which he was charged, but that he himself acknowledged such - and that the Athenian government was justified in its prosecution. The late iconic gadfly I.F. Stone makes the case for the prosecution in his book The Trial of Socrates.
For our purposes, Socrates trial illustrates one vital component of our own system - that the guilt of the accused is decided by the citizenry, after a public trial, not by government officials. What is often forgotten in the Socrates saga - particularly by liberal-biased high school teachers who
assign Plato to students - is that Socrates was given a fair trial before, and convicted by, a jury of his peers!
Illigitimati non carborundum - The State
Our system of criminal jurisprudence is predicated on two presumptions. First, goverrnment’s power over the individual is limited to that authority expressly conferred it by the citizenry, through the Constitution. This presumption recognizes the supremacy of the individual vis a vie the government. In contrast, the Constitution was created to provide for an orderly society. This second presumption acknowledges the right of society to limit the freedom of the individual. Thus our system is one of equipoise between facially contradictory goals.
The rule of law, meaning resort to objective standards rather than arbitrary and capricious excercise of authority, requires two components to maintain this balance. Substantive statutory regulation of conduct (codified definition and proscription of criminal conduct); and rules for orderly, just, resolution of breaches of regulated conduct (due process).
There must also be a forum in which these two components can be resolved. Our system holds as a core principal that this forum must be independent of the authority of the government to prosecute criminal conduct. The sole function of this forum is to assure that in prosecuting crimes, the government itself follows the law. Illegal conduct by the government in uncovering, and prosecuting crime is no more acceptable in an orderly society than is the illegal conduct of the criminal. Rule of law means everyone - individual and government - abides by the rules. With that in mind, we begin our trek through history.
We will start with the most famous criminal trial in antiquity - the prosecution and conviction of Socrates for what we would today call sedition. Unfortunately, the truth of that prosecution is largely misunderstood, because the most well-known rendition of that event has come down to us
from Socrates’ disciple Plato - who was hardly an unbiased source. Plato’s spin on the subject is that Socrates was the victim of nothing more that suppression of free speech.
Fortunately, there are other more reliable sources of what occurred. These reveal not only that Socrates was clearly guilty of the crime or which he was charged, but that he himself acknowledged such - and that the Athenian government was justified in its prosecution. The late iconic gadfly I.F. Stone makes the case for the prosecution in his book The Trial of Socrates.
For our purposes, Socrates trial illustrates one vital component of our own system - that the guilt of the accused is decided by the citizenry, after a public trial, not by government officials. What is often forgotten in the Socrates saga - particularly by liberal-biased high school teachers who
assign Plato to students - is that Socrates was given a fair trial before, and convicted by, a jury of his peers!
Illigitimati non carborundum - The State
