Spending a total of 28 days in a quarantine hotel was definitely a novel experience. What's better to do than catching up with the lengthy reading list, besides hours on Netflix everyday.
Since trials gradually took place in Hong Kong among thousands of arrests happened since the 2019 protest, many questioned the justice system, and fairness of the trials. On top of that, for many that are unfamiliar with how the justice system work, there have been discussion circulating whether defendants should plead guilty (in more extreme cases, criticism towards those who plead guilty as if they gave up voicing out and "shifted side")
I personally have zero background in law, so I had to spend quite some time to learn the basics about criminal justice in Hong Kong and how the whole legal process work. Throughout the process - the same question repeatedly popped up - "what is justice anyway?", and I question how much the current practices is actually leading us towards a better society versus simply creating fear among the public. The "research" process also sparked my interest into understanding more about law and justice beyond political crimes.
"The Secret Barrister " and "Fake Law", among a few other books on the topic of law and justice, are 2 books that do quite a good job on explaining various concepts and reality behind courtrooms and bars, in particular, there are a few that got me into thinking more deeply :
1. Which party is responsible for finding the truth, under the adversarial system (what Hong Kong follows)? It may be intuitive to think that the truth is revealed in a courtroom when defendants plead guilty, or through trials if they don't - all the witness questioning, revealing evidences, and finally the judge decides who wins the case, and that is the truth! In fact, in criminal justice, POLICE is the first party dealing with crime scene, THEY are responsible for collecting evidence, BUT they do not decide whether to prosecute. It is up to the Department of Justice (or the state) to determine whether to prosecute based on the evidence collected.
And here comes the big problem: the imbalance between the resources and power prosecutor and defendant have access to. When police is backed by the state collect and examine evidence, question witnesses, conduct house searches etc, while defendant (and the lawyer it hires), are in a rather passive position - waiting to see what evidence is in place to determine the "game plan". This part alone, before even going to the court, doesn't seem fair in itself.
2. Judges are NOT responsible for finding the truth, court's purpose is only to determine if defendant is guilty (and determine the punishment) or not guilty. In the process of making the judgement, it is very possible for criminals being acquitted and innocence being convicted (in reality it happens more than we would like to), because criminal justice follows these guidelines:
benefit of doubt is given to the accused - in this case, guilty people might be found not guilty
Suspects are found guilty when the jury is "pretty sure" the crime took place (beyond reasonable doubt) - in this case, innocent people might be put in prison
3. When should state prosecute? When there's strong enough evidence, and if it is best for public interest.
In Hong Kong especially on the protest cases, prosecutions are made with the tiniest (sometimes not even reliable) evidence. But I wonder if prosecution decisions under normal circumstances are being considered carefully enough? Knowing that wrongly accusation can have severe consequences down the road:
- Monetary costs to the state to run court rooms and potential trials, prison/rehab costs etc
- Legal cases result in judgments will add to the sum of common law - which will affect how the law is interpreted in future cases
- Compensation needs to be made to the wrongly accused
Speaking of compensation for the wrongly accused, there will never be anything that can compensate for the mental stress that the "suspects went through, the normal life/ job that they might have lost, the time that they spent in custody, the stigma that people around have on "suspect". Before these people can be proven innocent (usually take years?), they might have already lost many things in their lives that cannot be recovered with money compensation.
4. Role of a lawyer
When I was young, I used to always wonder, do lawyers ever feel guilty for defending someone who they know for sure is guilty? How do they live with the guilt knowing a criminal ran away?
Only then I learned that the truth isn't always obvious, regardless of all the evidences and judgement. From lawyers' points of view, suspects are merely clients, while the suspect is expected to share the truth, and lawyers would guide them to do so, it is up to the clients if they want to plead guilty or not. Lawyers "represent" clients, they do not judge. In the most ideal world, people should admit to what they have violated, and not admit to things they have not done. Unfortunately it often doesn't work that way. This probably explains why lawyers might be defending for "criminals", or advicing the innocence to plead guilty based on evidence available.
These are just a few concepts that have stood out to me and really got me thinking about our rights to justice. And I believe it is something that everyone needs to be aware of before we start making comments about the next criminal case that is reported on the news.
Commentaires