The Pensieve Trials

[GlassRoses314]

Hi,

I was wondering why Ludo Bagman and Igor Karkaroff both got trials for their crimes, and Sirius didn't? The way Sirius was explaining to Harry and Co. about Crouch Sr. in the cave made it sound like he was just throwing people into Azkaban just because they were convicted. Yet both Karkaroff and Bagman were let off. Karkaroff only provided one useful DE identity to the Ministry, yet he was still let off. And Sirius didn't even get a trial, it was straight to Azkaban for him, no questions asked. Stupid Crouch. :(

[Reaver]

Perhaps because his crime was so heinous that Crouch didn't feel it neccessary to give him a trial. There was supposed to be witnesses, so he probably thought he had enough evidence. After catching him, there was no doubt so he was just shipped off to Azkaban.
Karkaroff and Bagman weren't thought to of murdered a bunch of people, were they now?

[GlassRoses314]

Well no they weren't convicted of murder, but here was Karkaroff a "reformed" Death Eater, and he not only gets a trial, but he's let off because he gives Crouch one name? That's completely unfair.

Edit: Ah ha! I've found something... Page 588 Chapter 30 "The Pensieve" US Edition:

"Crouch is going to let [Karkaroff] out," Moody breathed quietly to Dumbledore. "He's done a deal with him. Took me six months to track him down, and Crouch is going to let him go if he's got enough new names. Let's hear his information, I say, and throw him straight back to the dementors."

Now why on earth would they release a man who they've been tracking down for 6 months, simply because he gave them ONE NAME! Doesn't sound right.

[Elangomatt]

I think that Sirius did not get a trial because Crouch believed that he had well more than enough evidence to convict Sirius. Remember that the MoM had given Aurors more power during Voldemort's time. The Aurors were allowed to use the unforgivable curses on suspects, and another extra power they were given was probably the ability to send people to Azkaban without a trial.

I am pretty surprised as well that Crouch let Karakoff off for a single name, but remember that our idea of Crouch's feeling about death eaters (he can't stand a death eater going free) was given to use by Crouch Sr's son, who hated his dad very much of course. Also note that that single name that Karakoff gave, could very easily have led the MoM to many other people. The name that Karakoff gave led to the suspician of Ludo Bagman so we can assume that others were questioned or arrested relating to the name of the death eater in the MoM.

[GlassRoses314]

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's only one name. Of course he gave more, but none were of any use being that they had caught them all. Even though the one name he gave was useful, that doesn't mean he should walk free because of it. I think Crouch's head can easily be turned many different ways, and I think the reason he let Karkaroff free was because Karkaroff had given him the name of a Ministry member. And Crouch, seeing as he was trying for Minister of Magic, felt he could use this information to better his career. Crouch is a selfish man who only cares about his own reputation, and I agree with Sirius for despising him.

[Sirius Black]

Ludo Bagman probably was let off because he was soo famous, and they say he was under an imperius curse. This leads me to another question. Was he really working for Voldemort?? And when Voldemort said one has left us forever, did he refer to Bagman instead of Snape?? And he still trusts Snape thinking he's on their side?:??:

[Reaver]

But all in all, was Karkaroff as 'bad' as Sirius was thought to be? No.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by Sirius Black (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=179837#post179837))
Ludo Bagman probably was let off because he was soo famous, and they say he was under an imperius curse. This leads me to another question. Was he really working for Voldemort?? And when Voldemort said one has left us forever, did he refer to Bagman instead of Snape?? And he still trusts Snape thinking he's on their side?:??:


I agree with Ludo being let off because he was famous. Crouch wanted to arrest him, but the jury wouldn't have it. They liked him too much. And your questions are very interesting ones, I too am wondering what Bagman's real deal is.

And Reaver, you have a point. But Sirius aside, Karkaroff should not have been let off.

[Sirius Black]

Maybe in the 5th book, it could be revealed about Ludo.

Karkaroff shouldn't have been let off, I agree. But they let him of probably because they knew he wouldn't help Voldemort back, because he'd betrayed him already. And eventually, he'd be killed by the DEs for betraying them.

[Aramis Diggle]

It said it in the book...straight to Azkaban with no trial.

[EvilMeghan]

What was Ludo actually charged with? They only had a suspicion that he was involved with DE's, but no actual proof. Someone probably pulled some strings to get trials for Ludo and Karkaroff.

[Beatrice Bottbean]

I don't think Bagman would have shown up at the Death Eater's inner circle, regardless. Didn't the book they say at his trial that he was only accused of leaking information, not of being an actual Death Eater?

I have wondered as well about exactly who Voldemort was referring to when he made each comment. I have suspicions, but just no evidence on any of these yet. Mostly I wonder, when he refers to one too cowardly and one who has left forever and will be killed, whether there is a possibility that he is referring to Snape as the former and Karkaroff as the latter instead of what we would normally think, but this is only speculation - no real proof to back it up yet. I leave open the possibility b/c they aren't named specifically and that always makes me wonder...

As far as Sirius's trial goes, this is further evidence that Crouch was no better than those he was sending to Azkaban. He ruined an innocent life. Not only that, but Sirius was the only one who could have alerted the public to the truth about Wormtail, thereby possibly preventing the eventual return of Voldemort. Not to mention his concealment of his son's escape and the fact that if he had spent more time with his son, perhaps Barty, Jr. wouldn't have had to go seek companionship amongst the followers of Lord Voldemort at the age of 17. Lord Voldemort gave him the acceptance and approval that his father never did. OK, I am going to go over the edge for some of you again by sympathizing with Crouch, Jr., but could we really have expected much better of him? Maybe we could hope for better, but I don't think we should have expected it. His father was viewed by many as the ultimate good guy - working tirelessly to put Voldemort's supporters away. Yet Crouch used whatever means he found most expedient to achieve his ends with no thought for justice and the potential innocence of the accused. Look at Crouch, Sr.'s McCarthy-style tactics! He was a wizard who lead the charge in the proverbial witch hunt! How was his son supposed to differentiate between the good and the bad - especially when the bad at least gave him the time of day?

Crouch Jr. hates Death Eaters who walk free. He shows an intense level of loyalty and devotion towards Voldemort. Perhaps what he learned from his father was to seek out power through whatever means you have and Voldemort says that there is no good or evil, only power and those who are too weak to seek it, but I don't think either of these was Crouch, Jr.'s true motivation. Look at what he says to Harry:

"The Dark Lord didn't manage to kill you Potter, and he so wanted to. Imagine how he will reward me when he finds I have done it for him. I gave you to him - the thing he needed above all to regenerate - and then I killed you for him. I will be honored beyond all other Death Eaters. I will be his dearest, his closest supporter ... closer than a son..."

I think that Crouch Jr. found even Voldemort easier to please and earn approval from than his father.

Looking at Crouch Sr.'s actions as a whole, what Crouch did wasn't only not fair but he did as much damage as the worst of Voldemort's supporters ever did. How many people would be alive BUT FOR Crouch's actions? How many more will die because Crouch's ambition and desire for power was as great and unchecked as those who followed Voldemort? He became one of the true villains of the story. Crouch managed to get the public to agree to dispose of as many formalities as possible - nobody was granted a real trial. I think Bagman walked free b/c he was a large enough celebrity that people actually listened to what he had to say. Every "trial" looks more like an episode of The Jerry Springer show than a dispensal of justice. "Barty! Barty! Barty!" - "All y'all shut up! You don't know me! You don't know me! You're not all that, Barty! You're not all that!" - "The Dark Lord's comin' back! Mmmhmm! Yeah, I said it! That's right, I said it!" And in walks Sargeant Raymond to march them all off not to bootcamp, but to a life sentence in Azkaban. It's a complete circus where Crouch is the ringmaster, not a trial with a neutral judge. Crouch's true resentment towards Bagman likely stems from the fact that Bagman managed to steal a bit of his thunder. Those who gave names perpetuated the mania and Crouch needed to let them go in order to provide incentive to others.

These circus-based "trials" are what make it so hard to know for sure who was or wasn't working for Voldemort or where anyone's current loyalties lie. On the flip side of their being free Death Eaters, perhaps there are also still some who were wrongfully imprisoned left in Azkaban. Given the bits we have seen, I can't believe Sirius was truly the only one. I think another interesting question will be what role the other wrongfully imprisoned will play should Voldemort attempt to free the Dementors and his imprisoned supporters.

[JennB]

Hhhm...I've always thought of the Penseive Trials as a parallel to the Nuremberg Trials - a special tribunal to mete out punishment for the crime of the Nazis/death eaters. Thus, the society's normal procedures for justice wouldn't apply. (Although jailing Balck without a trial doesn't say much for the "wizard justice system")

Of course, I'm currently obsessing about the WWII analogies and am wondering if Fudge/DD are actually Chamberlain (the appeaser) and Churchill (the fighter)! So my analogy may be way off base.

[Weatherby]

The nature of Sirius' "crime" was perhaps more serious than anything they could attach to Karkaroff?
And Sirius was punished shortly after Voldemort fell while Crouch Jr. was after everything cooled off.

[Spitf1re]

After what everyone *thought* they saw Sirius do, Crouch didn't really need a trial. Everyone said he was guilty so they might as well have just thrown him to the dementors.
Maybe Dumbledore just didn't put the trial into the pensieve yet. There's a possibility.

[Beatrice Bottbean]

I don't think the Nuremburg trials are at all close to what is being described here. I always thought that Crouch was based on Sen. McCarthy - that's the extreme of his actions in my view. McCarthy is said to have been on a "witchhunt" as was Crouch.

I just don't think there is anything that could ever justify sending a man to jail without a trial. Not even what Sirius did - especially b/c Sirius didn't do it. I suspect many guilty walked free and many innocent were imprisoned. Look at how Karkaroff was released - he provided one new name. They had never heard the name Rookwood given by another. The allegations against Rookwood were then used to levy allegations on Bagman. I don't think we know anything of Rookwood's ultimate fate or the ultimate truth about him. Voldemort never said anything about him in his Circle of Death Eaters. In fact, I think the Lestranges were the only ones he specifically mentioned were in Azkaban. So long as the MoM remains divided from Dumbledore, I worry about Snape's fate if he is returning to spy on the Death Eaters.

If you take away a man's life without allowing him to tell his story, present his evidence, and plead his case, how are you any better than he is? Self-defense is one thing, but deliberate deprivation of the rights of an innocent until proven guilty party is another. If Dumbledore operated like Crouch, Harry would have been expelled and much worse in Book 2.

[JennB]

Interesting...both the Nuremberg and the HUAC hearing were specially convened and NOT the "normal" course of justice, so in that way it's possible that the trials recalled in the penseive were like both of them. Certainly the business about providing names has a very McCarthyite ring to it - or how about "The Crucible" as inspiration - a real "witch hunt", so to speak.

OTOH, it still does seem likely to me that Nuremberg would be more culturally resonant with a British author - the McCarthy stuff is so American in it's nature. And with all the other Nazi type references in the GoF especially - Nuremberg fits that way.

Here's the real question though - what is the normal course of wizard justice? Whether or not the treatment Black received was fair - was it the norm? It would be easier to determine both Crouch's motives and the signifigance of the penseive trials with more insight into the wizard justice system.

[Beatrice Bottbean]

We know that the normal method of wizard justice did not forego a trial - look at how shocked Ron and Hermione are when they find out that Sirius was not given one. They knew the nature of the charges against Sirius, but they still assumed that he had been given a trial. Its in "Padfoot Returns" in Book 4. We are also given lots of other insight into the way Crouch altered the normal laws. Crouch played on people's fears to establish his position - not unlike someone else we know.

[GlassRoses314]

Very good points all of you. Esp. Beatirice and JennB. I love delving into this stuff, it makes the world of HP seem a little more real to me. I agree with the points that Beatrice made, Crous seems a little power hungry huh? Ok alot power hungry. And like Voldemort said... there is only power and those too weak to seek it. What we have here with Crouch Sr. is a bit of an alternate Voldemort.

[JennB]

Crouch is defintely NOT a likeable fellow - that's for sure. Now I'm really annoyed that I can't find my copy of CoS, because I recall Hagrid being sent to Azkaban without a trial - it was more like a "by order of the MoM" kind of thing. And he was freed through the circumstances of the story, not through a legal defense.

[gred&forge4ever]

I thought that Bagman's only crime was accidently passing along information, and that he was let off because he is stupid, not dangerous. But who knows, maybe he is smarter than peopel think

[Alastor D]

It seems Fudge too thinks his own career is more important than justice. Didn't he say he had to jail Hagrid to make it seem like the MoM did something?

Maybe Barty jr got a trial only because his father realised everyone would hate him for throwing his own son in jail without.

"Snape has been cleared by this council" Obviously Snape got his trial earlier.

As for Ludo I have no idea. Maybe he told the truth abt not knowing what Rookwood was up to?

[rotsiepots]

Originally posted by Alastor D (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=182125#post182125))
Maybe Barty jr got a trial only because his father realised everyone would hate him for throwing his own son in jail without.

I think it's more likely that Barty Crouch, Sr put his son on parade so that the greater wizarding community could see how determined he was in bringing Death Eaters, or those suspecting of sympathising with Voldemort, to justice. If he can convict his son without conscience, then he can convict anyone. I think that's what he wanted people to see.

[Beatrice Bottbean]

Regarding Bagman, I think maybe some misunderstood me in my last post as I was not making any absolute claims about his guilt or innocence. I don't think we are given enough information to formulate an opinion on that.

Regarding Hagrid, there is nothing not in conformance with the current U.S. system of justice regarding his arrest - and while I don't know the intricacies of the British system, U.S. law is based on British common law and the friends I went to school with who were barristers (lawyers in Britain) say that the two are relatively similar. The conduct of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement when Crouch was head violated several fundamental principles of justice contained in both the U.S. and British law: innocent until proven guilty, a right to due process, and the appearance of neutrality on the part of the judge who presides over the trial, just to name a few. My personal feelings about Hagrid's arrest aside, there is nothing concerning what we have seen of Hagrid's arrest that would lead me to believe wizards just don't have at least some concepts similar to muggles regarding justice and individual rights in general. In addition, if Crouch's conduct represented normal wizard justice, why wasn't Hagrid I made my case in my last post regarding Crouch, so I won't repeat that or go into any further detail in this post.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND AS YOU READ THIS POST THAT MY POINT IS NOT TO JUSTIFY HAGRID'S ARREST, SIMPLY TO SHOW WHY THE CONDUCT OF THE MOM IN CHAMBER OF SECRETS DOES NOT NECESSARILY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT WE SAW WITH CROUCH.

Whatever else one may think of the current U.S. system of justice, there are generally more technical requirements than there are in most, if not all, other systems - in other words, as it is written, there are generally more hoops in place for law enforcement to jump through than any other. Given what we know about Hagrid's arrest so far, there would be no reason to believe that there is anything unusually egregious about it and no direct evidence that any rights Hagrid would have under the U.S. Constitution were violated. I can tell you as a criminal defense/civil rights attorney in the U.S., that if Hagrid was my client, there would not be much, if anything, I could do in order to get him released or the charges dropped based solely on what we have been shown. I could not say the same about what we have seen of the Crouch trials. While I am by no means saying that the U.S. system should be our ultimate standard or that the system is immune to or could not be swept up by the same mania that gripped the wizarding world or trying to hold up all of U.S. law as the ultimate authority. Whatever your or my feelings are regarding that, all I am saying that Hagrid's arrest is by no means in the same league with Crouch's tactics. If anyone is interested, I have provided in the next paragraph a simple analysis explaining why Hagrid's arrest and detention conforms with U.S. methods of detainment and why if his rights regarding the arrest were the same under the U.S. Constitution, he could be detained in the U.S. by the same method without violating any of his rights. I am doing this quickly, so if anyone else catches something I have missed, feel free to point it out or ask me to clarify something or explain it in more detail.



Why Hagrid's detainment would be legal if he had been arrested under U.S. law:

The granting of a warrant:
Yes, he was taken off without a trial, but everyone in the U.S. who is arrested for a felony is taken to jail without a trial initially. All that is needed to arrest and detain someone is probable cause. All that is required for probable cause is that at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has within their knowledge reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances so as to lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that the individual has committed a crime. Warrants are generally required for arrests taking place at one's home but Dumbledore may have had the authority to allow the ministry to Hagrid's hut. In addition, even when an arrest occurs in one's home without a warrant, the arrest itself is not invalid and the individual charged may still be detained but the prosecution is forbidden from using anything seized during the course of that arrest at trial.

I assume the order from the MoM was like a warrant of some sort where they were required to show whatever their equivalent of probable cause was. Probable cause existed to arrest Hagrid as the standard is not very high. Evidentiary rules, meaning restrictions on what you are allowed to tell/show the jury, do not apply at this stage. You just have to show that your evidence is reliable. The judge granting the warrant determines relevance for themselves. The circumstances regarding the previous attacks would be heavily relied upon because the crimes were committed by the same method or means (m.o. as the police shows say - modus operandi).

Once the warrant has issued and the arrest has taken place, the Ministry would only have a few days to obtain an indictment, which when charged in federal court (and some states) requires that a grand jury find by a preponderance of the evidence that Hagrid was guilty. This means that if the prosecution's evidence is believed, the grand jury thinks that it is more likely than not (51%) that Hagrid committed the crime. Evidentiary rules once again do not apply so everything against Hagrid is admissible and the grand jury determines relevance.

I think that most grand juries would return an indictment based upon testimony that Hagrid has a history of keeping dangerous creatures, there were similar attacks on students in the past, Hagrid was suspended due to his connection with these incidents, the attacks stopped once Hagrid was suspended, attacks are occurring again in the same fashion, and Hagrid is once again present at the location of the attacks. Riddle also implies several times that there were several others who know the whole story (Dumbledore was the "only one" who believed him). Hagrid is not entitled to present evidence in his own defense or testify before the grand jury in most jurisdictions. In states that don't require grand jury hearings, the prosecutor can simply present a written account of all the charges against the defendant which the grand jury must sign off on, thereby creating a "true bill." All of this could have even been done prior to Hagrid's arrest, as there is no requirement that Hagrid have knowledge of grand jury proceedings convened against him.

Once the grand jury delivers an indictment, preparation for a murder trial can take months and even years. While the prosecution is limited as to how long they are allowed to delay proceedings for, Hagrid (and his lawyer) will want to make sure that he has fully investigated all possible evidence and defenses. There will also be various motions made concerning what the jury is allowed to hear and whether the prosecution will be able to meet their evidentiary burden at trial. Given the amount of time between his arrest and release, it would not be at all unusual if a trial had not commenced before Hagrid's release.

The biggest issue with Hagrid's arrest is that he was taken to prison and not to jail, but there is generally little difference between the two. Given that I believe Azkaban already violates several of my ideas regarding cruel and unusual punishment, I am unsure how to assess that one. JKR has said in interviews that Dementors are the personification of depression. Anyone who has spent any time inside a jail or prison would have a hard time finding another characterization for the atmosphere. Though the dementors certainly make the circumstances worse, the prison conditions are another issue entirely as in addition to the general effect that they have on prisoners, there are issues about wizards aligning themselves with Dementors in the first place that are secondary to the scope of my argument.

EDIT: I just saw the post regarding Fudge and definitely agree that his personal motives cloud his judgment. I just don't think his actions have quite sunk to the level of Barty Crouch Sr. - yet, anyways.

[EvilMeghan]

:bigtu: Wow...*rendered speachless*

[1MelissaPotter]

Beatrice Bottbean- WOW your really good!

[sugarquill]

Who remembers the dark haired death eater also on trial with Crouch.She was given special attention by the author, wonder why?

[Beatrice Bottbean]

Thanks so much for all the nice words. I am sure somebody will catch a flaw before too long, though, and I will have to stop blushing. I always miss something.

Good call on the girl! She does seem to think she is pretty important, doesn't she? I wonder if part of it isn't too point out a female death eater - I posted in another thread about how I can't understand why Narcissa is not a death eater. There is probably more to her, though. She is definitely given the only description of the four that sounds kind of creepy.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by sugarquill (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=183181#post183181))
Who remembers the dark haired death eater also on trial with Crouch.She was given special attention by the author, wonder why?


Good point... I wonder what significance she will play in the future, if any. I don't see why Rowling would allow us to pay attention to her, and not so much to the other two guys that was with Crouch Jr., had she not any upcoming significance.


Also, to Beatrice: While your post was quite impressive, I don't really feel the need to go that far into it. But if that's what you felt you had to do in order to state your opinion, then right on! :coolblue:

[sugarquill]

I think Narcissa is a death eater, didnt one of the trio tease Draco about his parents being among the trouble makers at the worldcup fiasco.

[rotsiepots]

Originally posted by sugarquill (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=183181#post183181))
Who remembers the dark haired death eater also on trial with Crouch.She was given special attention by the author, wonder why?


The general consensus amongst fans is that the female on trial with Barty Crouch Jr was the female half of the Lestranges mentioned by Voldemort in the chapter "The Death Eaters" in GoF.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by rotsiepots (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=183323#post183323))
The general consensus amongst fans is that the female on trial with Barty Crouch Jr was the female half of the Lestranges mentioned by Voldemort in the chapter "The Death Eaters" in GoF.


Ahh good possibility. And Perhaps one of the two extra males was her husband?

[Beatrice Bottbean]

Sorry about my compulsive wordiness. Legal stuff is fun for me - and good practice/review. Criminal law AND Harry Potter all at once makes me really happy - but I prefaced the analysis section w/an introduction and heading b/c I know not everyone can stomach it, cares about it, or wondered when they first read about it whether Hagrid's arrest and detention could be legal.

The three in the woods make the assumption about Draco's parents, but Draco never confirms. I thought Narcissa was a death eater as well but then in the death eater circle, Lucius is clearly described as standing to Wormtail's right after Wormtail takes his place in the circle and the space to the left of him being only big enough for two people who Voldemort identifies as the Lestranges. Narcissa is never mentioned. Maybe she stands with Mrs. Crabbe and Mrs. Goyle, but their husbands positions are not as clearly detailed. Wouldn't Voldemort at least ask Lucius why she didn't come when summoned if she wasn't there? Why would they stand apart when the Lestranges didn't? And why is Lucius's presence between two known entities so clearly detailed? Why address only Lucius if Narcissa was also somewhere in the circle and his comments to Lucius apply to both of them? Am I falling for one of those false traps again? I hate that...

In any case, I wasn't aware of the girl when I thought of the original Narcissa question. I was basing my curiosity on Mrs. Lestrange but thought maybe Voldemort was still sexist but would make an exception to a no females role if the husband requested it, but the girl makes the no females rule less plausible for me. Plus that girl is just so rememberable that she probably has another role to play still.

EDIT: Little slow here - doing two things at once of course. I like the Lestrange idea a lot and hadn't heard it before - puts a dent in things again.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by Beatrice Bottbean (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=183345#post183345))
Sorry about my compulsive wordiness. Legal stuff is fun for me - and good practice/review. Criminal law AND Harry Potter all at once makes me really happy - but I prefaced the analysis section w/an introduction and heading b/c I know not everyone can stomach it, cares about it, or wondered when they first read about it whether Hagrid's arrest and detention could be legal.


No need to apologize. Please don't let me influence your posts at all, I was just stating my opinion is all. And you make very good points btw. I'm not sure but I believe I read in your previous post that you are studying to be a lawyer? If so, you will be a very good one.

Keep up the good work, and please continue to post any idea's, opinions, or theories you may have. ;)

[Beatrice Bottbean]

Quick question on the woman again. I had always assumed Barty Jr's co-arrestees were the ones who were supposed to be next to the faithful servant until this post when I looked again and saw that those three were dead. Any reason to believe (some indirect reference in the books) those three could have died in Azkaban? How about the circumstances surrounding the Lestranges arrest? Were they arrested later like Crouch Jr? Or are we not told any more? I know I'm compulsive, but I just love new connections like this.

GR - Thanks so much. People here are just so nice. In response to studying to be a lawyer - yes and no. I finished law school and have a job but I take the bar exam to get my license next week. Hagrid was exactly the kind of essay question they ask incidentally - only it was much for fun to do a practice essay on him than on Joe Defendant from the example sets. I just hope the bar examiners are as nice as you all are.

As for my wordiness, the compulsive Hermione in me will continue to go an extra roll of parchment beyond what's necessary and the Rons and Harrys of the world will continue to roll their eyes and remind me to lighten up - as they should. Just happy that there's a mutual understanding. Rons and Harrys should please feel free if you think I have gone overboard again and want to know the gist without the details to ask for a short summary and I will be happy to provide it. It's not fair of me to ask people to consider my ideas if they are adverse to long posts. BTW - If you want a ten line summary, better ask for only five lines.

Also just noticed we have the same signature, GR. Glad to see someone else loved the quote as much as I did.

[GlassRoses314]

Hmm so Barty Jr's arrestees are dead? I must have missed that one. BTW, I love the Hermione metaphore you just did lol.

And as for the quote; Yes I loved it, it's one of the best quotes in all the books. And it seemed to fit with my little Jason Carter banner lol. Too bad Jason wasn't casted... I'm deeply dissapointed at that :(

But yea, Sirius is right.. look at how he treats his inferiors. Smart man that Sirius. lol

[Alastor D]

Good work Beatrice and GlassRoses!

Why Barty jr's co-arrestees are dead escapes me. I must be a careless reader. I thought they might have been the Lestranges because that's the only place we are told that a DE was a woman. But the Lestranges ought to be alive in Azkaban because Voldie said they will be honoured beyond their dreams. I don't think "entombed in Azkaban" is to be understood literally as dead and buried. He said they were faithful. And Barty jr & co committed their crime after Voldies downfall. That's to be faithful. Isn't it?

For all we know Narcissa, Mrs Crabbe and Mrs Goyle might have been just passive homewives. Or?

[sugarquill]

Hmm why do you think that the woman in the trial was one of the Lestranges? Voldamort points to a space for two people in the circle when he mentions them and in the trials there were three people with crouch, who could have just as easily been the three who he said were dead. (which kills my dark haired lady could play a future part theory,but hey..) Also another twist is, what if the Lastranges were Father and son, not husband and wife, this would explain why there were no women death eaters in the graveyard. Maybe women supporters of Voldamort were'nt required to show up at the gatherings, and that could mean that Narcissa could very well be a death eater.

[martinnyg]

Or the Lestranges could be two homosexual men, that could explain it as well. Maybe Voldemort really is a sexist, and wouldn't allow women at the gatherings. But who says that Narcissa really is a Death Eater, it's possible that she don't know about Lucius being one, or she just don't care that he is.

[EvilMeghan]

I believe someone, maybe Sirius?, said the Lestranges were a married couple.

[Alastor D]

Well I don't pretend I know. Any guess may be as good or bad as the other. I just thought all 4 of them got the same sentence and Barty jr was put in Azkaban. We don't know if any DE died in prison. But "three dead in my service" sounds to me like killed during a mudblood killing event or something. Remember Barty sr had given aurors permission to kill on the spot if needed. "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence" He might have passed a gap in silence too.

[Inkwolf]

Ummm, where does it say they are dead? I'm pretty sure those are the Lestranges, and that they're alive in Azkaban.

Voldemort pointed out a gap in the circle, where three had died in his service, but there was no indication to me that it was these three. I assumed the dead were Wilkes and Rosier (Snape's old school friends who were killed by Aurors) and the fourth, unnamed man on trial with Crouch Jr., since Voldemort said nothing about honoring him when he left Azkaban.

To comment on the original topic, I think that Karkaroff was let off because Rookwood was so important and highly placed...maybe when they arrested him, they discovered all sorts of nasty plots about to be set into action, which would make Karkaroff's one name extremely important.

Oh, and re the arrests and interrment without a trial of both Sirius and Hagrid--something else they had in common was that both of them had been in trouble for a similar 'crime' before and been let off. Maybe wizard law lets people be imprisoned retroactively.

[Jaded_Wanderer]

maybe i've got something really wrong, but in book 3 (i think) didn't dumbledore say something about he'd given evidence at sirius' trial saying sirius was indeed the potters' secret keeper??

[Sirius Black]

He didn't say trial, he just said he gave evidence himself saying Sirius was indeed the Potter's secret keeper. There was nothing else to it.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by Sirius Black (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=185003#post185003))
He didn't say trial, he just said he gave evidence himself saying Sirius was indeed the Potter's secret keeper. There was nothing else to it.


Exactly.

[Sirius Black]

He probably went straight up to Crouch telling him that. Because he thought Sirius deserved serious punishment.

[Zahri Seb Melitor]

Dumbledore would be a very influential witness. If they ever get around to giving Sirius a trial, Dumbledore would help sway the jury.

[lanifiel]

The Trials were for the determination of alliance with the Dark Lord. Sirius was "proven" guilty (and a little insane) when he "killed" a whole bunch of muggles with no regard. As there were "witnesses" to his actions I imagine that it was determined that no trial was required to judge his actions...

[sugarquill]

I think Dd didnt think sirus was guilty.

[lanifiel]

I disagree, if Dumbledore thought he was innocent he would of fought for him. He did not though...

[Sirius Black]

Dumbledore probably was shocked, at how he had no idea of what Sirius had been doing behind his back. So he thought Sirius was guilty, and gave evidence against him.

[Yadiami]

Dumbledore didn't know they changed the Secret Keeper in the last minute. Dumbledore thought it was Sirius, so spoke against him, as any of us would have done in his case.

Do you think we'll see some parts of Snape trial? Either via Pensieve of Dumbledore talking about it.

[Sirius Black]

That's what I've been trying to say. So that's why Dumbledore was shocked that Sirius could've done such a thing and there was no need for a trial.

[Zahri Seb Melitor]

Sounds resonable, as there was really no definitive proof of Sirius' innocence.

Parts of the Snape trial would be very interesting. I feel that Dumbledore wouldn't let Harry see those quite yet, it might happen after something truly traumatising.

[FoolOnTheHill]

Interesting that Dumbledore gave evidence against Sirius, but was quick to believe that he was innocent. I guess it was really shocking since he thought he knew how Sirius was as a person, so once he heard the real story it made more sense. If that makes any sense...

Also- interesting stuff about the Lestranges. Sorry to say I have nothing to add to that conversation...

[MadMagic]

I don't think that Dumbledore would let Harry see Snape's trial with out Snape's permission. And I don't know that Snape would ever give Harry the satisfaction of seeing something so personal about himself. It would be interesting though.

In regards to Sirius, Dumblebore was probably in total shock at what hapened and in his passion and anger he was probably willing to believe anything, even Sirius's betrayal, in order to answer his own questions. After having thirteen years to think about it and sort out the facts and calm down, Dumbledore probably saw Sirius's version of the story making more sense and being more believable, especially based on Sirius's relationship with the Potters.

[GlassRoses314]

Yea that and, Dumbledore's a forgiving man. Sirius's story made sence to him, and seeing that Harry and Hermione believed it so passionately, he went along with it too.

[MadMagic]

Originally posted by GlassRoses314 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=188039#post188039))
Yea that and, Dumbledore's a forgiving man. Sirius's story made sence to him, and seeing that Harry and Hermione believed it so passionately, he went along with it too.

I am sure Dumbledore has better reasons for going along with then story than just Harry and Hermion believing it so passionately. I don't think that Dumbledore would just forget that there is an illeged murderer in the school just becasue some of his students think he is innocent. I am sure he has his reasons that we don't know about. Afterall Dumbledore is a very mysterious, secretive, deep person (or he seems this way).

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by MadMagic (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=188052#post188052))
I am sure Dumbledore has better reasons for going along with then story than just Harry and Hermion believing it so passionately. I don't think that Dumbledore would just forget that there is an illeged murderer in the school just becasue some of his students think he is innocent. I am sure he has his reasons that we don't know about. Afterall Dumbledore is a very mysterious, secretive, deep person (or he seems this way).


I agree, but Harry and Hermione's opinion didn't hurt. And let's not forget Lupin's side of the story either. However Dumbledore made the descision to let them free Sirius before Lupin got to tell his side. So all in all, I think Dumbledore didn't really believe Sirius was a killer in the first place, but really had no choice but to give evidence against him because there was no other visible explination at the time. Then once the events of Book 3 happened his suspicions that Sirius was innocent were proved to be true. Harry and Hermione simply backed it up even more.

Also Dumbledore spoke to Sirius himself, so that's a big factor.


Edit: Let's also not forget that Dumbledore takes the word of his students seriously, he doesn't just dismiss them as silly little kids.

[Severely Snapped]

Originally posted by EvilMeghan (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=184053#post184053))
I believe someone, maybe Sirius?, said the Lestranges were a married couple.


Yes, in the "Padfoot Returns" chapter in GoF, Sirius mentions that Snape was "part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters," and he goes on to list Avery, Rosier, (I think) Wilkes, and the Lestranges, and he adds, "...they're a married couple..."

As for Snape's "trial," I'm not sure he had one. Maybe something much more secretive, like a closed hearing. I mean, it seems to me that a lot of people who should know that Snape was a Death Eater don't--people like Fudge and Arthur Weasley, who work in the Ministry, for God's sake. Or even Sirius, who knows about all these other DE's, has even been in Azkaban with some of them, and yet says to Harry, Ron & Hermione, "But as far as I know, Snape's never even been accused of being a Death Eater." Huh? What's up with that?

[Now Getting Back On Topic] Regarding Bagman, I think he was just the ultimate red herring, and JK wanted us to wonder about him until the end. Karkaroff's a different story...I, too, have often wondered how he slithered off the hook, the name-dropping weasel.

:grumble:

[MadMagic]

Ok, yes. I was justing saying that Dumbledore is more responsible than to just go by Harry and Hermione's passionate pleas that he is innocent. I think that after thinking about it for thirteen years he had come to believe that Sirius could nver have done such a thing. When Harry and Hermione presented him as innocent it just reafirmed something that Dumbledore already suspected. (I think we are basically in agrement GlassRoses)

[GlassRoses314]

Yes MadMagic, I think we are lol.

[Alastor D]

I agree with MadMagic and GlassRoses. Also Dd doesn't approve death sentences or Dementors kisses. So even if he wasn't finally convinced he might have wanted to save Sirius' life. All knew that Sirius would get that kiss immediately without further questioning when McNair arrived with the Dementor.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by Alastor D (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=188529#post188529))
I agree with MadMagic and GlassRoses. Also Dd doesn't approve death sentences or Dementors kisses. So even if he wasn't finally convinced he might have wanted to save Sirius' life. All knew that Sirius would get that kiss immediately without further questioning when McNair arrived with the Dementor.


True. But if he wasn't fully convinced then, I think he is now. He's been writing to Sirius, and with all the events that happened after the Tri-Wizard Tournament, one would be stupid not to believe them. Plus I kinda have the feeling that DD has a 6th sence about things like this. Like he knew that Crouch Jr. hadn't taken his polyjuice potion right after they stunned him.

[Zahri Seb Melitor]

Perhaps he saw, or someone told him, that Moody's appearence had started to change, to 'blur', if you like. When he finally got to Harry, he had put two and two together.

[Yadiami]

Originally posted by Zahri Seb Melitor (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=189127#post189127))
Perhaps he saw, or someone told him, that Moody's appearence had started to change, to 'blur', if you like. When he finally got to Harry, he had put two and two together.


I'm not sure about it, I don't know how DD managed to know about the polyjuice potion, but I doubt it was this way.

I doubt he started to "blurb" when he took Harry, he would have changed, at least, when they reach his office; but instead, he changed after talking to Harry and some time after DD, McGonnagal and Snape attacked him. I guess that may have taken, at least, 15 minutes and I doubt the potion to be that slow.

[EvilMeghan]

We had the same viewpoint as most of the wizarding world...or maybe only a few people...who "knew" Sirius was their secret keeper and turned them over to Voldemort, yet we had no problem believing the truth. It just made so much sense that it was hard not to believe it.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by EvilMeghan (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=189249#post189249))
We had the same viewpoint as most of the wizarding world...or maybe only a few people...who "knew" Sirius was their secret keeper and turned them over to Voldemort, yet we had no problem believing the truth. It just made so much sense that it was hard not to believe it.


Exactly. It was too detailed to be fake...

[Alastor D]

1 Sirius:
"But you believe us. Yes, I do, said Dumbledore quietly" and a little later. "If all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight"
So Dd did believe both Sirius and Buckbeak were innocent.

2 Moody:
"This is not Alastor Moody,.....The real Moody would not have removed you from my sight after what happened tonight. The moment he took you, I knew - and I followed"
So Dd knew it wasn't the real Moody. Did he suspect polyjuice potion or not isn't important. He found the real Moody in the trunk and polyjuice in the hip flask. And then, if not before, he realised that the change into whoever that was had to happen within an hour.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by Alastor D (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=190125#post190125))
1 Sirius:
"But you believe us. Yes, I do, said Dumbledore quietly" and a little later. "If all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight"
So Dd did believe both Sirius and Buckbeak were innocent.

2 Moody:
"This is not Alastor Moody,.....The real Moody would not have removed you from my sight after what happened tonight. The moment he took you, I knew - and I followed"
So Dd knew it wasn't the real Moody. Did he suspect polyjuice potion or not isn't important. He found the real Moody in the trunk and polyjuice in the hip flask. And then, if not before, he realised that the change into whoever that was had to happen within an hour.



Good detective work!

[Sinistra]

As to Sirius and Dumbledore giving a statement: Crouch may have gone around and officially questioned a few peple about Sirius after he had been locked up. Just to make sure if anyone came afterward and looked into the matter. He may have questioned Dumbledore, and Dumbledore not even known what he was being questioned about (an old police trick). He may have asked about the Potters and how they were concealed and who was the secret keeper, and where they lived and lots of other things. The one nugget, Sirius was secret keeper was buried in a whole lot of bogus questions. So if anyone asked, they would be shown Dumbledore's "confirmation" that Sirius was indeed the secret keeper, and therefore who else would be able to betray James and Lily?

As to people being locked up without trial, sadly, it still happens. Not often, but it does. Sirius would probably have "slipped through the cracks" in the commotion of Voldemort disappearing and the Death Eaters coming out of the woodwork, etc.

And the earlier comparison of Crouch Sr. to McCarthy is brilliant. As is Fudge/Chamberlain and Dumbledore/Churchill. And the Pensieve trials to Nuremburg and Army/McCarthy trials. And we wonder why people dismiss Harry Potter as merely "children's" literature.

[EvilMeghan]

Originally posted by Alastor D (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=190125#post190125))
So Dd knew it wasn't the real Moody. Did he suspect polyjuice potion or not isn't important. He found the real Moody in the trunk and polyjuice in the hip flask. And then, if not before, he realised that the change into whoever that was had to happen within an hour.


He probably suspected the Polyjuice Potion, but I don't know if he suspected it was Crouch Jr. I think the book describes Dumbledore's reaction to seeing who it was, but I don't have my book now. The Polyjuice Potion is the only method we know of that can make you look like someone else. It is probably also the most common method. I'm not sure if you can transfigure or charm yourself to look like someone else...

[hermiones mum]

Just thinking of the pensieve, would there be any memories of the Potters in there...could they have given evidence at any of these trials or been on trial.
Will Harry sift a little more through the memories?

[Zahri Seb Melitor]

Dumbledore must have some good ones, especially as he volunteered to be their Secret Keeper... he would have to either know them really well or think they are very, very important. Personally I go for both, though I still haven't figured out why they are so important when they only graduated 3 1/2 years before they died.

[dobbygirl]

As to the original question of why Bagman and Karkaroff got trials, and not Sirius, didn't Moody say that the use of any of the Unforgivable curses meant an automatic sentence of life in Azkaban? Obviously, there is no trial for them then. Perhaps the crime that Sirius supposedly committed had the same sentence.

[Alastor D]

Originally posted by EvilMeghan (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=191190#post191190))
I think the book describes Dumbledore's reaction to seeing who it was, but I don't have my book now.


No. It doesn't. Snape and McGonagall were surprised. I don't think Dd is the type who shows very much of his spontaneous feelings.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by hermiones mum (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=191640#post191640))
Just thinking of the pensieve, would there be any memories of the Potters in there...could they have given evidence at any of these trials or been on trial.



No because the trials of Kararoff and Bagman took place after Voldemort's demise. Lily and James would have been dead and therefore extremely unable to attend those trials lol.

[hermiones mum]

Could the pensieve hold more than those trials we saw? Moody was continually searching for DE during the reign of Voldemort, not just after his demise

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hmm, intriguing thread. Sorry I missed the beginning of it! :) Now, my question to throw into this mix is the effect of a writ of habeas corpus: is there such a thing in the wizarding world?

"Habeas corpus" means "produce the body." It's one of the oldest rights in Anglo-Saxon law. If I get arrested and thrown into jail, my friend (or I through my friend) can demand a writ of habeas corpus, which requires the court to explain why I have been arrested. For a better definition, see the definition by the 'Lectric Law Library here. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm) In Harris v. Nelson the U.S. Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that [t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."

So...this right has never been mentioned in the books, that I can recall, yet it is as critical a part of English law as American law. It seems to me that Hagrid's lawyer should have applied for a writ of habeas corpus, since he was sent to Azkaban without trial. Of course, a trial may have been planned and just taking a long time.

With Sirius, it's a bit different. If he used an Unforgiveable Curse, he would have been sent off to Azkaban without trial. Though actually there still should have been a trial to determine if indeed he did use an Unforgiveable Curse. Again, why didn't he apply for a writ of habeas corpus to force a trial? Even with all the anger surrounding the Potter's death, the whole point of a justice system is to make impartial decisions without being swept up in mass hysteria and anger that often follows a particurlary heinous crime.

[Zahri Seb Melitor]

I don't see Crouch as very impartial, and he was the head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement back then. By the time Sirius could have applied for a writ of habeus corpus, he was in high-security in Askaban. High-security means two dementors at his door day and night. No-one is supposed to be logical and sane after that. If he did apply, they probably would have passed it off as a manman's ravings, as human guards at Askaban would not have been feeling very kindly towards Sirius at the moment.

[hermiones mum]

Fudge was one of the first on the scene of Pettigrew and Blacks duel in the street. Why was he there? Did he appparate, if he did why? Could that be why he was in such a hurry to pack Sirius off to Azkaban the first time without a trial and then as it had no effect bring in the dementors to administer the kiss........what would a Black trial have shown us in the pensieve?

[miri]

Originally posted by Inkwolf (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=184090#post184090))
Oh, and re the arrests and interrment without a trial of both Sirius and Hagrid--something else they had in common was that both of them had been in trouble for a similar 'crime' before and been let off. Maybe wizard law lets people be imprisoned retroactively.


Sirius had been previously accused of betraying friends to DEs/ Voldemort himself and blowing up a street full of muggles? Mneh? Hagrid yes, but SIRIUS????

:??:

edit: Hagrid accused of similar crime as the one he was subsequently arrested for, not Hagrdi made ppl go boom

[miri]

Originally posted by EvilMeghan (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=189249#post189249))
We had the same viewpoint as most of the wizarding world...or maybe only a few people...who "knew" Sirius was their secret keeper and turned them over to Voldemort, yet we had no problem believing the truth. It just made so much sense that it was hard not to believe it.


we also saw Scabbers turn into Peter Pettigrew and heard his cringing.

[LizardLaugh]

Originally posted by JennB (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=180637#post180637))
Hhhm...I've always thought of the Penseive Trials as a parallel to the Nuremberg Trials - a special tribunal to mete out punishment for the crime of the Nazis/death eaters. Thus, the society's normal procedures for justice wouldn't apply. (Although jailing Balck without a trial doesn't say much for the "wizard justice system")

Of course, I'm currently obsessing about the WWII analogies and am wondering if Fudge/DD are actually Chamberlain (the appeaser) and Churchill (the fighter)! So my analogy may be way off base.


I always thought that too... lots of paralells to WWII. Voldie as Hitler (part muggle/Jew)... DD as Churchill... Fudge as Chamberlin... Death Eaters as the Nazis... Mudbloods as Jews.... Goblins as Switzerland (ok, I got that one from another thread).

[hermiones mum]

In the trials we know that four people came in accused of torturing Frank Longbottom and his wife
a thickset man, a thinner more nervous man, a woman with thick shining dark hair and a straw coloured hair boy (Crouch Jnr) After the deatheaters circle is revealed we could assume that the woman and one of the men is the Lestrange...who is the remaining man?

[Zahri Seb Melitor]

Who knows? He wasn't mentioned by name as the Lestranges are, so he might be dead. Harry may ask Sirius or Dumbledore, who would probably know.

[Weatherby]

That's a good question Sherlock Holmes.
I think perhaps Sirius was too shocked and overcome with grief and guilt to think about his rights/defence.
By the time he did it was too late?
On the other hand he seemed very bitter about not getting a trial.

The Mom is pretty scary if they don't even abide to the Habeas corpus.
I'd love to read more about the pensieve trials.
If Rowling doesn't publish them in the HP novels she could always write another schoolbook. That's background info I'd kill a flobberworm for.

I love reading this thread.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I agree, Sirius no doubt wasn't thinking coherently. He'd been under a lot of emotional stress. (duh!)

What bothers me, the more I think about the Pensieve Trials (what a cool name for them...), is that a good justice system is supposed to allow for all of this. Strong emotions in the people in general, a highly upset defendant, even a biased judge. That's why there is such a thing as the defendant's lawyer, to think of things like the writ of habeas corpus. And the jury selection process, to weed out those jurors who have already decided that the defendant (Sirius) is guilty. And if a judge is clearly biased, the defense can appeal the conviction and get a mistrial verdict from a higher court.

Or perhaps the wizarding world doesn't have such an advanced legal system as the muggle world does? The Pensieve Trials sound something like medieval or even Reformation-era trials, which often had the appearance of legality (or even were legal, by the standards of the day), but were kangaroo courts by today's standards of justice.

Sometimes I wonder if the wizarding world is really all that much "better" than the muggle world. In some ways it might not be as nice a world as we have.

[miri]

What i find curious is that when CoS was opened by Tom the 1st time round, Hagrid was only expelled. I dont recall any further punishment, unless his being the groundskeepers' assistant was supposed to be akin to community service? But ppl were actually dying then. 2nd time round, nobody was dying, but he got shipped straight off to Azkaban. Even though they're not mentioned, I was always under the impression that there are other, less soul-destroying places (jails/ prisons without dementors), and Azkaban was the place they sent ppl who were definitely guilty and beyond reform? They thought Sirius was mad and incredibly dangerous, so he went there... DEs convicted of horrific crimes...

I know he'd have been young then, and it was a first time offence but... is there anyone else who thinks this is odd?

I dont think a jury selection process would have helped - everyone who wasnt a DE was terrified of them - including defence lawyers, if they had them - did they? I cant remember. If you were a DE you'd pretend you were afraid too. Fear brings hatred, irrationality...

Also, how many DEs were there? I get the impression the figures could have been as high as a third of the adult population - Voldemort was WINNING before he tried to kill Harry, after all... Even if only 1/3 of the DEs were apprehended, that's 1/9 of the adult population. Once the numbers came out and ppl realised they all knew ppl, had TRUSTED and LIKED ppl, who were guilty of these horrendous crimes, I think it's possible that compassion started going out of the window. Also, everyone would also know ppl who had been tortured/ killed by the DEs. Trying to find even ONE completely unbiased jury would have been impossible, let alone a few hundred...

There is the whole compare-it-with-WWII thing where you can say they were bullied into it, they were only DEs coz they were scared... but the fact that a majority of ppl DIDNT succumb (otherwise Voldemort or not, they'd have taken over coz enough ppl who believed would have continued to propogate the fear) indicates to me that those ppl were few and far between, and didnt have the stomachs to torture etc. They were probably the first ppl to be named by the DEs tho...

I think that with the Pensieve trials, the sheer VOLUME of them could have turned a good legal system into a farce.

[Alastor D]

Hagrid was in his 3rd year when he was expelled. 13 years old culprits aren't usually thrown in Jail.

[miri]

I read in a book that 13 year olds dont have infancy, so understand right and wrong and can be charged as adults.

If not jail, a juvenile detention centre. He wasnt sent to anything like this.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The question remains, why was Hagrid sent to Azkaban, merely on the suspicion that he might have something to do with the strange goings-on at Hogwarts (where no one had yet died)? Hmmm...so far it looks to me that if this is the kind of justice I could expect in the wizarding world, I'll stay a Muggle, thank you very much.

[miri]

I dont think this is something JKR could have overlooked... it's possible that we'll get how this works explained properly.

i think it's the difference between the 1st and 2nd treatments that is so disturbing here, along with the fact nothing was ever proved. It was all circumstancial. The spider would have eaten his victims, the adults should have known this. I think Hagrid freed him before they found out exactly what it was, but i'd expect DD to be on reasonable terms with the centaurs so he could find out.

Maybe after Voldemorts first outbreak, they toughened up a lot?

somehow i think there's a better explanation

[GlassRoses314]

When Hagrid was first convicted, like someone said he was only 13. Plus they really didn't have any evidence against him, only Tom Riddles' account of what had happened. And being that this was before the rise of Voldemort, the legal system must have been a bit more forgiving. Then years later when the Chamber was re-opened, and now that Hagrid was an adult, they took him in as a precausion so that no one else was killed. It was like a second offence, and since the rise and fall of Voldemort, the Ministry now learned to take no chances. I don't think I'd let the quality of the Ministry determine weather or not I'd choose to become a wizard. I think the Ministry had good intentions when it started out, but has since been taken over by people like Crouch, Fudge, and Malfoy. Had Albus Dumbledore taken the job when it was offered to him, the Ministry would be quite different now. And after all, our legal systems aren't all that honest either.

[Alastor D]

I agree with GlassRoses. And the struggle against Voldie was a bit like a civil war, wasn't it? It's often said that in any war the first victim is truth. But isn't usually justice the second victim? and Fudges main concern is his own career, not justice.

[GlassRoses314]

Originally posted by Alastor D (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=194894#post194894))
I agree with GlassRoses. And the struggle against Voldie was a bit like a civil war, wasn't it? It's often said that in any war the first victim is truth. But isn't usually justice the second victim? and Fudges main concern is his own career, not justice.


Thanks :)

And yes Fudge is only concerned about his own career. You remember what he said in GoF? "If I call off the dementors, I'll be thrown out of office." Or something to that effect...

[hermiones mum]

Do they show how quickly the community will revert to "witch hunts" or the fact that sons may not be trusted?
How important the Aurors were in tracking down the deatheaters? How many do we know are still around only Moody and the Longbottoms!

[Weatherby]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=193789#post193789))
The question remains, why was Hagrid sent to Azkaban, merely on the suspicion that he might have something to do with the strange goings-on at Hogwarts (where no one had yet died)? Hmmm...so far it looks to me that if this is the kind of justice I could expect in the wizarding world, I'll stay a Muggle, thank you very much.


I'll second that.
I'll stay an American muggle.. I can have the right to confront my acuser.

[Sirius Black]

But it was like this in World War II wasn't it? No idea what's going on and all. And they were afraid that the dark times might be back. So that's why they did this kind of justice, especially seeing that Hagrid had been acused before. Though he only had a spider, they probably didn't believe Riddle but since there was nothing else and the attacks had stopped, they just did it.

[miri]

I think DD was the only person who didnt believe Riddle; the rest of them felt that the fact Hagrid had been known to smuggle all sorts of creatures (including *dangerous beasts*) into his room to raise as pets kinda indicated that he could well decide to keep a killing machine as a pet. Probably called Schnookums...

[GlassRoses314]

LoL Schnookums, that's great lol.

[Fuchsia]

There are always cracks in the justice system for someone to fall through.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by Sirius Black (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=196876#post196876))
But it was like this in World War II wasn't it? No idea what's going on and all. And they were afraid that the dark times might be back. So that's why they did this kind of justice, especially seeing that Hagrid had been acused before. Though he only had a spider, they probably didn't believe Riddle but since there was nothing else and the attacks had stopped, they just did it.


It's true that there was a lot of confusion, fear, and uncertainty (which is when injustice is most likely to happen), but it's nowhere near the level of fear when Voldemort was around. In the Chamber of Secrets, there isn't a hint of Voldemort's presence until the very end, when he is suddenly revealed in the person of Tom Riddle.

I can understand draconian justice in the middle of the Voldemort crisis, perhaps. Actually I can't understand it, but I can see it happening. But Hagrid's removal just doesn't work.

On the other hand, perhaps we are assuming that Fudge was acting in his capacity as Minister? Perhaps he is also part of the governors of Hogwarts and was acting in this capacity? That would make more sense---don't want to alarm the parents, especially the rich parents. Sending Hagrid all the way to Azkaban instead of just firing him still doesn't make sense, but it's not as crazy as the other way.

[Alastor D]

Fudge is not a school governor. CoS ch. 14: "Oh no see here, Lucius, said Fudge, looking alarmed, Dumbledore suspended...no, no...last thing we want just now... The appointment - or suspension - of the Headmaster is a matter for the governors, Fudge, said Mr Malfoy smoothly."

So Fudge couldn't just fire Hagrid. But he was desperate to show that the MoM was doing something.

[Sirius Black]

Yeah, Fudge is defenitly not the Govenor. But I want to know if all the people knew it was Hagrid? Because if it was, reporters like Rita Skeeter would make a great fuzz about it. And didn't Riddle get caught when he killed his step parents and brother with Avada Kedavra? Not only underage magic, but also an unforgivable curse.

[Sinistra]

I agree with Alastor D, Hagrid was a juvenile, and in a parallel, he could not be treated as an adult (American justice system aside--which can try people as young as 10--in Kansas, I believe--as adults.) however, the crime reoccured, and this time, Hagrid was an adult, and therefore legally responsible. Hence the lockup. Sort of like "rounding up the usual suspects" like in Casablanca. Though without a defense, it seems. They may have tried to make it look legal, but Hagrid had no chance to mount any sort of a defense. Also, it seems in the wizarding world, a person is their own defense attorney. Hagrid himself present's Buckbeak's defense. There is no thought of hiring any lawyer or whatever. This is also a medieval parallel.

So anyhow, maybe Sirius was expected to mount a defense for himself. Therefore locking him up in Azkaban immediately would have really prejudiced his case. How could he do that while under that awful influence? There may be more to Fudge's appearance than we know--yet. I just don't trust that guy at all. Fudge was certainly most interested in covering his rosy pink :censored:

[Fuchsia]

Originally posted by Sirius Black (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=199860#post199860))
And didn't Riddle get caught when he killed his step parents and brother with Avada Kedavra? Not only underage magic, but also an unforgivable curse.

No, I don't believe that he did get caught.
There might have been whisperings but no hard facts.

[Alastor D]

Originally posted by Sirius Black (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=199860#post199860))
But I want to know if all the people knew it was Hagrid? Because if it was, reporters like Rita Skeeter would make a great fuzz about it.


It seems all ppl know that Hagrid was expelled. But that was 50 years ago and the school probably kept the reason for it as secret as possible. As we know all teachers denied that any Chamber o S ever existed.
And also now the MoM perhaps tried to keep it secret and forbade the Daily Telegraph to write anything abt it. Perhaps Fudge really believed Hagrid was the culprit.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by Sinistra (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=199881#post199881))
Also, it seems in the wizarding world, a person is their own defense attorney. Hagrid himself present's Buckbeak's defense. There is no thought of hiring any lawyer or whatever. This is also a medieval parallel.

So anyhow, maybe Sirius was expected to mount a defense for himself. Therefore locking him up in Azkaban immediately would have really prejudiced his case. How could he do that while under that awful influence? There may be more to Fudge's appearance than we know--yet. I just don't trust that guy at all. Fudge was certainly most interested in covering his rosy pink :censored:


Well, just because Hagrid didn't have an attorney doesn't mean he couldn't have had one. Though I agree, nobody suggests that he would do well to hire a lawyer.

No, I don't trust Fudge either. He seems primarily concerned with what will look good for the Ministry, a.k.a. Cornelius Fudge. I don't know that he is "evil," per se, but he's only interested in the "greater good" insofar as that will benefit him and his ambitions. Not a bad man, necessarily, but a petty little man, even if he is the Minster.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Originally posted by Sirius Black (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=199860#post199860))
Yeah, Fudge is defenitly not the Govenor. But I want to know if all the people knew it was Hagrid? Because if it was, reporters like Rita Skeeter would make a great fuzz about it. And didn't Riddle get caught when he killed his step parents and brother with Avada Kedavra? Not only underage magic, but also an unforgivable curse.


Unfortunately, Riddle did not get caught when he killed his father and grandparents [not his parents and step-brother]. If you re-read the chapter about the deaths, the police never solved the mystery.
We were never told if the wizard world ever knew anything about it beyond Voldemort bragging about it to his minions and victims.

[smartypants]

Originally posted by GlassRoses314 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=179756#post179756))
I was wondering why Ludo Bagman and Igor Karkaroff both got trials for their crimes, and Sirius didn't?

My big paranoid theory on this includes Fudge, being amongst the first ones that arrived at the scene, was instrumental in convincing Crouch to not give Sirius a trial. This is becuase he is in fact a Voldemort supporter (but not necessarily a Death Eater).

Another possible (and less paranoid) explanation is that almost nobody got a trial. Karakoff might only got to be a witness after agreeing on telling on other death eaters. Ludo Bagman was very popular and got a trial because of that. Crouch jr got a trial because Crouch needed to show that he had nothing to do with it.

[Goldie]

Just some random thoughts on judicial systems, which may or may not pertain to some of this discussion. If any of it's off-topic, my apologies.

First, until the age of seven, it isn't legally possible to commit a crime, because the courts have generally held that a child that young does not understand right from wrong well enough to be able to form the "intent" to commit a crime. Also, children that young don't always forsee the consequences of their actions or have the impulse control of an adult.

Second, Hagrid was never convicted of anything. He was expelled and his wand snapped, but that's hardly the same thing. When he was sent to Azakaban in COS, it was more of a "protective custody" thing, and because Fudge was worried about being thrown out of office if he didn't do something, even if it meant riding roughshod over someone's rights.

Third, the US Government has decided that there is nothing wrong in holding a citizen indefinitely, without access to an attorney, if the person an "enemy combatant." There has been a US citizen held at the US Navy Brig in Norfolk, VA, neither charged with a crime nor given access to an attorney, after being picked up as a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. He was born in Louisiana to Saudi parents, but went back to Saudi Arabia with them when he was three. Even though he wasn't raised here, or considers himself an American citizen, he is one, nonetheless. The logic in holding him may be that he is only a "technical" citizen, except that there's no such thing - either you are, or you aren't. The only way he might "rid himself" of American citizenship is if he denounced it.

Fourth, unless there's DNA evidence or something just as concrete, most people convicted of crimes are convicted on circumstantial evidence. The fact that the evidence is circumstantial doesn't invalidate it. It's called building a case with what you have to work with.

In the west, until recently, it's innocent until proven guilty, and you aren't thrown into jail without a trial. If Crouch thought he had enough evidence to convict, he should have brought charges and gotten the conviction legally. The fact that he didn't raises the question that he KNEW Sirius was innocent but decided to throw him into jail anyway, perhaps because if he didn't he knew he'd be tossed out of office.

This is a court system that needs a serious overhaul. It doesn't look like you're entitled to attorney to help you prepare a defense (it doesn't even look like there are wizard attorneys) and there is no way to appeal a decision.

Not good.

[Jessica]

Sorry if someone has said this before. . .

I'm not a history buff but it seems likely there is a parallel with the Nazi war crimes trails after WWII.

Does anyone know more about what standards of evidence and proceedings were used for these?

[Goldie]

There are two standards of evidence used in court procedings.

The first is "beyond a reasonable doubt," based on what a "reasonble man" would think. Something this important would probably use this standard. It's tougher to prove, which is the whole point.

The second is "preponderance of the evidence," which isn't as tough to prove. For this standard, a majority, or 51% of the evidence, has to point one way of the other.

PS - I'm not a lawyer, but my father is a retired lawyer. What can I say? You pick up a lot at the dinner table over the course of a couple of dozen years.

PPS - I checked with my Dad, and there's a third standard of evidence. "Probable cause" is used when they're deciding if there's enough evidence to bring charges.

[Barbara Kennedy]

That sounds about right.
I used to work as the office manager in my [retired] husband's law office [in Texas] and I've sat in on many trials too, so I know what I'm talking about as well.

jessicacarstens, you are going into the military justice system there, I'm not sure, but I think it has slightly different rules of evidence, but they are pretty similar to the civil criminal system rules.

[Jessica]

Yeah, I was asking more specifically about the military trials after WWII. I watch enough L&O to be pretty up to speed about what we use now.

I was wondering if they deviated from what we consider to be proper procedure in their zeal to convict Nazis?

[jerb]

I should know this. I learned about it, but that was years ago. Everyone was convicted and sentenced to death. I am sure it was set up a little differently because it was an international trial for war crimes.

OK, I looked up the Nuremburg trials and it doesn't really say much about the procedure. Their were 8 judges, two from the U.S., Britian, France, and USSR. 19 people were convicted and 12 recieved death sentences. Later there were 12 more trails, all were conducted by U.S. judges and out of the 185 defendents about half were convicted. People later pointed out that the crimes were committed by both sides. It also ruled out that receiving orders in an invalid excuss (this was later disproven by a psychologist).

Hope that helps :)

[McKinnon02]

Generally speaking, (At least in U.S. courts,) the Infancy defense can only be used if the child is 8 years of age or younger. It may vary from State to State, but the general average is 8 years of age. I just had Street Law during my Senior year of High School (which I graduated from a few days ago...yay!) so I at least know that much. :)

[smartypants]

Originally posted by jessicacarstens (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=342595#post342595))
I was wondering if they deviated from what we consider to be proper procedure in their zeal to convict Nazis?


Not that I know of, no.

[Sinistra]

Actually the Nuremburg Trials were among the first in history--attempting to mount a proper legal trial for the "losing side". Usually the losers just got captured and shot or imprisoned after a quick military trial in the field. They tried to make it be as fair and impartial as possible. And the idea of an international court was an attempt to show the impartiality.

But the wizarding world seems to operate more on Medieval models, including the court system. I wonder when they abandoned trials by ordeal? That's where the "defendant" was subjected to some sort of physical trial (sometimes ducking or holding a red-hot iron bar) and if successfully managed, was declared innocent, if they still survived.

But there seem to be problems with the wizarding legal system, just as there are with our muggle systems. None are perfect, though some are better than others.

Hagrid got a raw deal, but in the Pensieve Trials and with Hagrid, there was no mention made of defense attorneys. Dumbledore spoke on behalf of Snape, but that's the closest it comes.

[GlassRoses314]

The wizarding world don't seem to use lawyers. Basically the people who want to speak on behalf of the defendant are allowed to, and the jury analyzes the evidence given. That's how it seems to me anyway.

[januarystars]

Ludo Bagman probably was let off because he was soo famous, and they say he was under an imperius curse. This leads me to another question. Was he really working for Voldemort?? And when Voldemort said one has left us forever, did he refer to Bagman instead of Snape?? And he still trusts Snape thinking he's on their side?:??:
Thst's a really good thought. Did Bagman ever show up in OotP?

[persian85033]

Well, I'm not gonna say that what Mr. Crouch did with Karkaroff was right, I would've just send him back to the dementors. I think that Mr. Crouch went about things the right way, giving the Aurors new powers, and ordering harsh measures against the DEs. I would've done the same things. Only I would've made them suffer even more. By tricking them, too, I'd tell them I'd let them off if they gave me all the names they knew, but throw them straight back to the dementors after they'd given me the evidence. Just what they deserve.

[jordmundt6]

Bagman ran for it because he was about to have a few dozen very angry goblins looking to cook him for stiffing them on his gambiling debts. He's a lightweight.

[GlassRoses314]

I really want to know where Karkaroff and Bagman have run off to. I have a feeling they'll show up later. And Persian, that wouldn't work for long...Soon the DE's would catch on that you won't be letting them off and wont give you the least bit information. I say we Veritaserum the heck out of'em!

[januarystars]

I say we Veritaserum the heck out of'em!That works. Or they could promise to let them go, and then arrange for an "accident" before they get very far. Of coure, they'll catch on to that, too.

[Jill]

Hi,

I was wondering why Ludo Bagman and Igor Karkaroff both got trials for their crimes, and Sirius didn't? The way Sirius was explaining to Harry and Co. about Crouch Sr. in the cave made it sound like he was just throwing people into Azkaban just because they were convicted. Yet both Karkaroff and Bagman were let off. Karkaroff only provided one useful DE identity to the Ministry, yet he was still let off. And Sirius didn't even get a trial, it was straight to Azkaban for him, no questions asked. Stupid Crouch. :(

It sounds as though someone snitched on Sirius and told lies about where he was that day. One possible person that springs to mind is the one and only Snape. He hates Sirius that much, that I would not put it past Snape to actually tell false words to Crouch in an attempt to just get him out of the way. In fact Snape probably would have prefered Sirius to have the kiss of death administered, I mean he would not listen to reason in PoA and was all for telling Crouch about every little detail back then. So it makes sense that Snape told on Sirius back then and perhaps was even let off during his trial for doing so. Perhaps Crouch had heard enough evidence to slam Sirius into jail without a trial as he is the kind of person to do such a thing. At the time not even Dumbledore would comment on the wrongs or writes of what was going down in the courts. All I can say is that Ludo Bagman and Igor Karkarkoff get whats comming to them and soon, no doubt they will.

[dog star]

For once I've done a successful search! Yay! :rotfl: *revives post*

What strikes me as odd about the fact that Sirius was sent to Azkaban without a trial is the fact that in pretty much any developed country's justice system, it wouldn't matter how much evidence pointed directly at the accused, he would still be entitled to a fair trial, regardless. If they had tried Sirius, given him Veritaserum, etc., they would have found out the truth. But then I guess the plot for PoA never could have happened, eh? ;) So I'm willing to bet it was just a convenient plot device on JKR's part, although it does showcase the injustices and sometimes even corruption that is taking place in the Ministry of Magic.

[smartypants]

Sirius explains this in Book 4. When Voldermort rose to power the result was something like a civil war. Civil rights was thrown out the window in an effort to win the war and Sirius (and many outhers presumably) got caught in the middle.

After Voldermort disappeared, there obviously WAS a fair bit of trials. and in one, Barty Crouch Jr was shown to be a death eater. After that Crouch Sr lost the possibilities to become minister of magic, and Fudge because minister instead.

Now, and here comes the interesting part: The trials seems to have ended around at the same time! Did Fudge STOP the ongoing trials? And if he did, why?

Bacuse he is evil, that's why!

[Mark Harrison]

Voldemort's appearance effectively threw the whole wizarding world into panic. I think we'll see a similar sort of thing in books 6 and 7, depending on who is Minister of Magic, I guess.

Also, there was widespread certainty about Sirius's guilt. I agree that it seems a bit strange that Fudge would not try Sirius at all though, considering the notoriety of the death-eaters that were tried.

[SquibOnline]

Yes sirius reveals in GoF that Crouch sent him to Azkaban without a trial

[Prof.Blink]

Sirius certainly wasn't going to get a fair trial with Crouch and the MOM up against him, anyway. Even if he did, all the known evidence at that time suggested that Sirius had blown up Pettigrew anyway. I think the result would have been the same. Dumbledore would still have given evidence that Sirius was the secret keeper, pettigrew would have still appeared to have been blown up and all of those witnesses would have pointed the finger at Sirius. All that evidence, plus the fact that Crouch and the MOM were at this point becoming very ruthless themselves, would have led Sirius to be in the exact same situation, if not worse...

[hotharry]

Okay, I was thinking about Azkaban and this question popped into my mind. Does everyone get a trial before they are sent to Azkaban. I know that Barty Crouch's son got a trial before he was sent. Sirius also was put on trial before he was sent to Azkaban. But in the CoS Hagird is sent to Azkaban without a trial. Why is it that everyone else received a trial and Hagrid did not? It does not seem fair even if they think that Hagrid did open the CoS last time, not to give him a trial.

If they thought that Hagrid had opened 53 years ago, why did Hagrid decided to open it now?

[Pure_Light]

They must have thought harry had something to do with it. I'm sure Hagrid would have had a trial if Mr Malfoy had not been involved (he's on the school board) but then he may have not even been put in there of it wasn't for him.

[hotharry]

Fudge came to get Hagrid and Malfoy came for Dumbledore. I'm sure that Malfoy had some say what happened to Hagrid, but still he would be afforded a trial at least. Why skip it and just send him to Azkaban with no proof?

[Nicole]

Sirius says he did not get a trial.

[Lucybird]

Sirius was sent without a trial he said in GOF when they were discussing Crouch. Hagrid I think they didn't give one to because he had already been found guilty the first time so they presumed he was this time too

[justXslightly]

1) I thought Sirius didnt get a trial...I believe in the Fourth book when explaining Crouch to Harry he said something like "Hes the man who gave order for me to be sent to Azkaban without a trial

2)Hagrid may have ha a trial before, and reacting to calm the public down, they took him straight to Azkaban convinced that he had done it again, not worthy of another trial. Its not fair but it wasnt fair to Sirius either

3) I think a majority of the people who have done something to be sent to Azkaban do get a trial, except for extreme cases

[hotharry]

If in extreme cases they don't get a trial like we saw people like Siruis were sent to Azkaban and were innocent. So do wizards have a law that you must have a trial or do they skip that in extreme cases. Sorry, I thought that Siruis did get a trial. I guess that I was wrong.... But why did Barty Crouch's son get a trial and not Siruis. There was plenty of evidence against his own son. It would have been in his best intrest just to send his kid to Azkaban and not bring up a family scandal.

[Lucybird]

I guess it was for Crouch's wife... she was upset he probably had a trial to try and comfort her

[hotharry]

That makes sense to me. But then my next question is..(Sorry people, I'm full of questions. :eyebrows: ) does the Wizarding world have a law about being sent to prision without a trial. I know that we do here in the US and true I've never lived anywhere else where they don't have laws. Yet it would seem strange to me that they wouldn't fight for their right to a trial. What kind of laws does the wizarding world have?

[Lucybird]

Who knows Crouch has lots of power... maybe he just bent the rules (like Bush has)

[Pure_Light]

Sirrus must have had some sort of trial because Duboldore gives evidence against him telling them that he was the potters scret keeper. Sirrus may have not been with him present but they must have had something to force him to go to azkaban.
Or am i barking up the wrong tree.

[Lucybird]

That's true... Dumbledore did say he gave evidence... but Sirius said he didn't have a trial... maybe DD just d=gave a statement and it never came to court

[arcanus]

Well, it seems to may that back in the first war getting a trial when being accused to be an DE or at least in league with Voldemort was an exception rather than the rule.

"Oh I know Crouch all right. He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban - without a trial.
...And I wasn't the only one who was handed straight to the dementors without trial"

It seems as though there is a functioning legal system in the wizarding world since there are trials. Fudge didn't dare to punish Harry without a trial and even if that was quite exaggerated he had a formal wizengamot session.
It could be possible that they had some kind of martial law in place to quicken the legal process. Everybody was afraid of anybody else he/she didn't know so the ministry have followed the rule arrest now ask questions later.

[hobbitseeker]

Sirius does say he did not have a trial:

GoF, Pg. 526, Chapter 27: "Oh I know Crouch alright," he [Sirius] said quietly. "He was the one who gave the order for me to be sent to Azkaban--without a trial."

And in Hagrid's case this is what Fudge said:

CoS, Pg. 261, Chapter 14: "Look, Albus," Fudge said uncomfortably. "Hagrid's record's against him. Ministry's got to do something--the school governors have been in touch--"

So maybe the Ministry and the school governors have a say in whether a certain person is to have a trial or not. Perhaps when Dumbledore gave testimony as to Sirius being the Potters' secret keeper, he was talking to the Ministry or the school governors.

[Nicole]

Dumbledore was the Supreme Mugwump of the Wizengamot (except for a chunk of OotP). The Wizengamot is present for the trials (and votes on guilt). Sirius could therefore been discussed by the Wizengamot, with Dumbledore reluctantly admitting that Sirius was the secret-keeper, guilt was determined by a vote (with Sirius already rotting in Azkaban) without the prisoner being present. No one bothered to inform Sirius that they had 'conducted' a trial without questioning him or allowing him to speak in his own defense. [That mad laughter described by Fudge may have had many thinking Sirius was on the verge of (or already pushed over to) insanity anyway.]

We have yet to meet the equivalent of a Muggle lawyer in HP. Dumbledore turns up at Harry's trial as a "Witness for the defense.", but seems to act the way a lawyer would....

[Lotario]

That makes sense to me. But then my next question is..(Sorry people, I'm full of questions. :eyebrows: ) does the Wizarding world have a law about being sent to prision without a trial. I know that we do here in the US and true I've never lived anywhere else where they don't have laws. Yet it would seem strange to me that they wouldn't fight for their right to a trial. What kind of laws does the wizarding world have?


Good point! They seem to have a legal system, but not a very good one. In a state founded on the rule of law (like every Western Democracy) no-one should be sent to prison without a trial.

And a political leader (minister or president) shouldn't be allowed to be judge - he might misuse a trial for his political ideas (like Fudge tried in OotP).

[hobbitseeker]

Dumbledore was the Supreme Mugwump of the Wizengamot (except for a chunk of OotP). The Wizengamot is present for the trials (and votes on guilt). Sirius could therefore been discussed by the Wizengamot, with Dumbledore reluctantly admitting that Sirius was the secret-keeper, guilt was determined by a vote (with Sirius already rotting in Azkaban) without the prisoner being present. No one bothered to inform Sirius that they had 'conducted' a trial without questioning him or allowing him to speak in his own defense. [That mad laughter described by Fudge may have had many thinking Sirius was on the verge of (or already pushed over to) insanity anyway.]

We have yet to meet the equivalent of a Muggle lawyer in HP. Dumbledore turns up at Harry's trial as a "Witness for the defense.", but seems to act the way a lawyer would....

Good points--I should have said Wizengamot in my previous post, not just Ministry.

Also, I wonder about the lawyer thing too--it seems the Ministry is quite corrupt when it comes to fair trials--just look at Buckbeak's case. As an aside, I think Hermione would make a great lawyer--she's all about equal rights and has the book smarts to make solid arguments.

[hotharry]

So wait, if Siruis didn't have a trial, how did Dumbldore know to step forward with that information. And why did Dumbledore know who was the key keeper anyways? Okay, now I'm going sort of off subject. But at the same time I'm always curious. I guess my real quesion is though, who has the right to overthrow a trial and just send people to Azkaban?

[Lotario]

I don't think that the minister (or a head of a department of the MoM) has the right to send someone to Azkaban, when he was acquitted in a trial. They have to accept the decision of a judge. Crouch sen. was disappointed, when Ludo Bagman was acquitted. And even Fudge accepted the decision of the Wizengamot.

[Nicole]

I merely speculated that Sirius did have a trial, but he wasn't present for it and doesn't know it happened (he was already in Azkaban). I don't know that, though. It could also have been something like 'behind closed doors'--just some Wizengamot members discussing Sirius' actions and guilt/innocence over a pot of tea and deciding the evidence against him was overwhelming , why bother with a formal trial?

However, in PoA, Dumbledore says this, "...we have no chance of overturning Sirius' sentence." A bit later he says, "But I have no power to make other men see the truth, or to overrule the Minister of Magic." [The 'sentence' from the first quote seems to be referring to the Minister deciding Sirius can be handed to the Dementors for "the kiss", but maybe it refers to the original sentence of life in prison.]

Dumbledore also said, "A street full of eyewitnesses swore they saw Sirius murder Pettigrew. I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been the Potters' secret keeper." (The eyewitnesses were Muggles who had their memories erased after giving testimony. I seriously doubt any of them were hauled before the Wizengamot to give their evidence. It would have to have been gathered by whatever Ministry officials were on site, and Fudge was one of those on site. He was a Junior Minister in the Department of Magical Catastrophes and one of the first wizards on the scene.) It seems evidence can be gathered without a formal trial--this happens in Muggle society prior to a trial in expectation of one...

[Cine]

And why did Dumbledore know who was the key keeper anyways?

I think James and Lily told Dumbledore that they would be using Sirius for the Secret-Keeper, but then, afterwards, Sirius convinced them not to use him after all and you know how it went from there.

Anyway, everybody supposed that they would use Sirius, even Voldemort, since he was the Potter's bestfriend, the godfather of their kid, and everything.

[shaggydogstail]

The Wizarding justice system leads alot to be desired, to put it mildly.

There appear to be no defence lawyers, nor even prosecution ones, the prosecution being put forward by the Ministry Official presiding over the trial, which is hardly fair. Sirius is sentenced to life in Azkaban without a trial, later sentenced to the Dementor's kiss without a trial, Crouch Jnr is sentenced to the Dementor's Kiss without a trial as well. It appears that the Minister of Magic can order what amounts to summary executions and that the Head of Magical Law Enforcement can dispense with the need for people to have a trial and give permission for his employees to use unforgiveable curses (which undermines the names somewhat :rolleyes: Maybe Unforiveable unless you are an auror in which case they are Minstry approved Curses just doesn't have the same ring. :evil: )

Anyway, that's my rant over!

* Dumbledore could have given evidence to the Ministry that Sirius was the Potters' Secret Keeper at an inquest into their deaths or while helping them with their enquiries. I'm pretty sure Sirius wasn't given a trial.

Nicole - the Wizengamot may have discussed Sirius' case but if he wasn't there, it can't be called a trial (even by their lax standards...)

* I think the Ministry is a bit haphazard in it's approach to giving people a trial. At the start of OotP Harry only gets a trial (or disciplinary hearing) after Dumbledore intervenes - he'd earlier received an owl from the Ministry saying he was expelled from Hogwarts and his wand would be destroyed.

* I had thought Hagrid was sent to Azkaban in CoS to await trial, in the same way as some muggle suspects are put on remand, but I might be wrong. In any case, there wasn't enough evidence even to detain him while awaiting trial in my opinion!

I agree with hobbitseeker - Hermione would make a cracking wizarding lawyer! I think she'd do a pretty good job of shaking up the whole system given the chance.

[avbearcat85]

If in extreme cases they don't get a trial like we saw people like Siruis were sent to Azkaban and were innocent. So do wizards have a law that you must have a trial or do they skip that in extreme cases. Sorry, I thought that Siruis did get a trial. I guess that I was wrong.... But why did Barty Crouch's son get a trial and not Siruis. There was plenty of evidence against his own son. It would have been in his best intrest just to send his kid to Azkaban and not bring up a family scandal.
it says in the GOF that crouch only gave his son a trial to show how much hatred he had for him. he gave him a trial that wasnt really even a trial. it was like he brought him in there to show that he would not break the rules even for his own son. i really have no idea how they decide who gets a trial and who doesnt. anyway those are just my thoughts.

[Sprout1962]

I always figured Sirius' trial was done with him in absentia, or absent.... At that time, he was believed to be Voldy's most devoted servant according to Fudge, had just (supposedly) killed twelve or thirteen people with a single curse, and had stood there laughing his head off when the Ministry enforcers got there. Personally, I think Fudge was afraid to have him anywhere in the Ministry!

I think they packed him off to Azkaban, got info from the Muggles and wiped their memories clean, took evidence at the Ministry, and decided everything without Sirius knowing anything about it.

[Nicole]

The Wizarding justice system leads alot to be desired, to put it mildly.

There appear to be no defence lawyers, nor even prosecution ones, the prosecution being put forward by the Ministry Official presiding over the trial, which is hardly fair. Sirius is sentenced to life in Azkaban without a trial, later sentenced to the Dementor's kiss without a trial, Crouch Jnr is sentenced to the Dementor's Kiss without a trial as well. It appears that the Minister of Magic can order what amounts to summary executions and that the Head of Magical Law Enforcement can dispense with the need for people to have a trial and give permission for his employees to use unforgiveable curses (which undermines the names somewhat :rolleyes: Maybe Unforiveable unless you are an auror in which case they are Minstry approved Curses just doesn't have the same ring. :evil: )

Anyway, that's my rant over!

* Dumbledore could have given evidence to the Ministry that Sirius was the Potters' Secret Keeper at an inquest into their deaths or while helping them with their enquiries. I'm pretty sure Sirius wasn't given a trial.

Nicole - the Wizengamot may have discussed Sirius' case but if he wasn't there, it can't be called a trial (even by their lax standards...)

* I think the Ministry is a bit haphazard in it's approach to giving people a trial. At the start of OotP Harry only gets a trial (or disciplinary hearing) after Dumbledore intervenes - he'd earlier received an owl from the Ministry saying he was expelled from Hogwarts and his wand would be destroyed.

* I had thought Hagrid was sent to Azkaban in CoS to await trial, in the same way as some muggle suspects are put on remand, but I might be wrong. In any case, there wasn't enough evidence even to detain him while awaiting trial in my opinion!

I agree with hobbitseeker - Hermione would make a cracking wizarding lawyer! I think she'd do a pretty good job of shaking up the whole system given the chance.
Oh, I agree with you, shaggydogstail, I don't think Sirius had a trial. Was just trying to brainstorm how Dumbledore came to give his info to the Ministry.

I did not get the impression that Hagrid was expecting to be tried. However, I also don't know who would have had the role of divulging that kind of info. Dumbledore was gone, the students weren't likely to know (except maybe Susan Bones, but she wasn't exactly on speaking terms with Harry in CoS--I guess he could have overheard her telling it to someone else...), McGonagall doesn't like upsetting students....I don't recall Snape making jabs at Harry's friendship with Hagrid, so he has no motivation for telling, even if he knew. In PoA, Hagrid is the one who updates the trio about Buckbeak's trial and appeal.

I think Fudge was looking for any way to get Dumbledore and Harry discredited. Umbridge was happy to assist in that quest. He has gotten quite the taste for power in the last four years. I think he has become a "the end justifies the means" man. He has become adjusted to people jumping when he says "jump". He was asserting authority he did not have. But the disciplinary hearing was set in the same letter telling Harry his wand would be snapped and that he was expelled.

I, too, agree that Hermione would make a great lawyer. Just doesn't seem the Wizarding world has any at this time...I do see a career in politics for her, though! :cool:

[Lotario]

The Wizarding justice system leads alot to be desired, to put it mildly.

There appear to be no defence lawyers, nor even prosecution ones, the prosecution being put forward by the Ministry Official presiding over the trial, which is hardly fair. Sirius is sentenced to life in Azkaban without a trial, later sentenced to the Dementor's kiss without a trial, Crouch Jnr is sentenced to the Dementor's Kiss without a trial as well....

Harry's trial is typical: Fudge was Prosecutor/Judge at the same time. He choose the court - the normal procedure would have been a hearing at the Office of Amelia Bones, but he choose the Wizengamot, which seems to deal normally with crime like murder. The time of the hearing was changed at short notice - a "defense lawyer" wouldn't have a chance to get there on time.

But it's not only their justice systems which seems to be "rotten" - Fudge has too much power. He is in control of everything and we don't know, if there is someone or something (like a parliament), who or which has some control over him or beside to him. And look at Azkaban: under the guard of the dementors it was nothing less than a 24-hour- torture- prison.

[elperuaan]

I think the legal system is, like everything in their world, a bit behind.

During the first war agains voldemort however, you can't blame them for locking up everybody they think might be bad. It's just the times, they have to in order to survive. The wizengamot probably did come together to argue about the cases, because well, they still have a job. We also know that, during the war, or better, shortly after voldemorts disapearance, people were interrogated by the legal system. And if they gave enough names, they were free (or when they were popular, right mister Bagman) anyway, the word neurenberg springs to mind.

Afterwards, it didn't get much better. But I do believe there has been some improvement. I think everybody gets trials now, unless the ministery is after them, like Harry, or they're escaped convicts. I guess giving the order for the dementors kiss is like adding 'alive or dead' to a wanted sign, still crude, but something that can be done without a trial.

Hagrid was send to azkeban, as I understood, as 'just a precaution' and he would be 'free the moment it's all over'. So not really send as a prisoner, but more like a safety measure, which would ultimately show whether or not Hagrid was guilty. That doesn't make it right, or makes you feel any better when you're Hagrid.

Anyway, it was clear there were no lawyers, but, Harry had the right to defend himself and even call witnesses! That's what Dumbledore said, anyway. So I guess you're your own lawyer in that world.

Buckbeak was tried by a committee, being an animal, he didn't get a 'humans' trial

[Eilonwy]

Good point! They seem to have a legal system, but not a very good one. In a state founded on the rule of law (like every Western Democracy) no-one should be sent to prison without a trial.

It seems to me that in extreme circumstance, like when they're at war with a dark lord terrorist, they circumvent the normal "due process", etc. Maybe it's harder for the Ministry to skip trials in peace times?

[Lotario]

It seems to me that in extreme circumstance, like when they're at war with a dark lord terrorist, they circumvent the normal "due process", etc. Maybe it's harder for the Ministry to skip trials in peace times?

That's possible, Sirius was arrested in war times. But they don't seem to skip a normal procedure of a (fair) trial only in war times - the pricedure of Harry's trial was unfair. And Hagrid was sent to Azkaban by the order of the ministry - without a chance to argue his case.

[Schames]

I dont think their law process was especially good. Chief judge and prosecutor the same person, usually no defence lawyer. Very little examination of witness and no examination of evidence - the accused normally in totally unegual position, alone and bound.
Half of the law process seems to be who is shouting loudest and can show off to be most angry....
No, the world of wizards was often a surprisingly dark world.

[rotsiepots]

Hi hotharry,

I'm going to merge your thread with an existing topic called The Pensieve Trials (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=6089).

Please conduct a search (http://www.cosforums.com/search.php) if you're ever unsure whether a topic has been discussed previously.

Thanks.

[Lawrence]

Doesn't the wizarding world have truth drugs?(like the drug Snape threatened to slip into Harry's pupkin juice and Umbrige put in his tea) Since they do, shouldn't they have used it to make sure criminals were guilty before they sent them to Azkaban? I suppose it might have side effects, but isn't that better than locking up a person for his whole life with the dementors?

[phoenixgrl]

I too think it was because Sirius' alleged crime was so brutal and also because he kind of went mad at the time and didn't try to defend himself. There was no proof of wormtail, there were witnesses that placed him at the scene of the crime, and he was found laughing in the midst of the rubble. It is also possible that the DE that were brought in were not caught in the act of anything. They were turned in by other DE's and the trials they had were to prove that they were involved with witnesses and questioning.

[shaggydogstail]

Doesn't the wizarding world have truth drugs?(like the drug Snape threatened to slip into Harry's pupkin juice and Umbrige put in his tea) Since they do, shouldn't they have used it to make sure criminals were guilty before they sent them to Azkaban? I suppose it might have side effects, but isn't that better than locking up a person for his whole life with the dementors? Yes, it's called veritaserum. Arguably they could also use legilimency or a penseive. There are a few reasons why these might not be used;

1 - They aren't completely accurate. We haven't seem enough of any of these methods to be sure about how accurate they are. Perhaps they are like lie-detector machines - of a certain amount of use in discovering the truth, but not accurate enough to be used in a court of law.
2 - The Imperius curse argument - a person might truthfully confess to committing criminal acts, but they shouldn't really be convicted if they were acting under the imperius curse (which we know caused real problems for the Ministry, deciding who was and wasn't under the curse)
3 - The defendent's mental state. These methods show what the defendent believes to be the truth, though that might not actually be the truth. The defendent might be delusional.
4 - The "5th amendment" argument - that a person should not be forced to incriminate themselves (this one seems unlikely given the pitiful consideration given to the defendent's rights by the Ministry!)
5 - They can be fought. (This relates to reason #1) We know that occlumency can be used to combat legilimency, so perhaps there are ways a skilled wizard can combat the effects of veritaserum, or manipulate the thoughts placed in the pensieve?

NB - The above is pretty much pure, unadulterated speculation, so don't blame me that there's no canon for it! :p
Originally Posted by Eilonwy
It seems to me that in extreme circumstance, like when they're at war with a dark lord terrorist, they circumvent the normal "due process", etc. Maybe it's harder for the Ministry to skip trials in peace times? Most of the abuses we have seen have happened in peace time though. In any case, I don't think extreme circumstances are any excuse to skip due process. Democracy and the rule of law are never more important than we you are fighting to preserve that way of life.