Excellent discussion of the McCloskey firearm prosecution in St Louis

[Schlegel]

It's been understood to be fundamental for some time. Haven't you ever seen the bit in a western where the sheriff faces off against the angry crowd and vows that the obviously guilty hombre is going to get a fair trial no matter how much they want to hang him right now?

The delegitimization of private justice (aka "protectecting the criminal from the victim") is central to governmental administration of justice.

[motherjuggs&speed]

A bit off topic here but if anyone's interested in what criminal justice looked like in early 20th century America, I recommend The Man From the Train by Bill James. Basically think what battlefield surgery was like in the Civil War*, only a lot worse, since the doctors were presumably at least trying to save the patient and sometimes succeeded.

*It irritates me that it's called that all the time. It was not a civil war, where different factions compete for control of a nation. It was a war of another type, not sure the correct term for it, but not really a civil war.

[Bennyonesix1]

Well that's a fair point. And if that's what they mean fine.

But I put that in the "protecting the merely accused" or "establishing guilt" or "protecting civil liberties" or some category like that.

I took "criminal" to mean "the guy who actually did it" not "the guy we're not sure did it".

And if the mob was right and the dude had done the crime, then it was about protecting the King's monopoly on dispensing justice.

Especially because the penalties were almost always death.

I'll have to think about it though.

[Bennyonesix1]

The delegitimization of private justice (aka "protectecting the criminal from the victim") is central to governmental administration of justice.

The delegitimization of private justice is exactly right historically.

I've just never seen the purpose for doing it framed as "protecting criminals from victims".

[Schlegel]

You think of it as protecting the "guy who maybe did it" because of the presumption of innocence in the Anglo-American legal tradition. This presumption is not universal in history, and is still not universal now.

[johno]

You think of it as protecting the "guy who maybe did it" ...

It's a big step forward in civilization to try the accused. To refrain from immediate justice in favor of testing the truth. And to have the luxury of the time & wealth to indulge in such lengthy affairs. Subsistence civilizations can't afford that shit. And they can't afford three hots and a cot for inmates, either.

I imagine the progression: family revenge -> clan/village revenge (lynch mobs; they didn't always get it wrong) -> deferring to a respected authority (village wise man/lord) -> deferring to a legal system.
With the advent of trial by social media we may be backsliding a little. Emmett Till would be disappointed.

[Bennyonesix1]

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was one of the greatest advances for humankind. It was the birth of civilization (and probably money). Because obviously before that as everyone has been saying it was more than one eye for each eye lost. And the limitation also obviously presupposes a third party (king or group) who can and will enforce the limit.

I think the pattern is in general, that one man imposes his will on a group and then depending on his organizational ability and ambition and luck that new group grows or gets taken over by another. That ruler rules by direct force and to an extent dependent on his personality and ability. But theoretically the power is total and only with him even if he delegates. Police are a delegation of that power. I can see a lot of reasons why the ruler would want to have police, but protecting the criminals seems like not something the ruler would care about. As the ruled are his property and crimes against them are crimes against him on the theoretical level.

Transfer of that power to another is the next hurdle....

[Bennyonesix1]

You think of it as protecting the "guy who maybe did it" ...

It's a big step forward in civilization to try the accused. To refrain from immediate justice in favor of testing the truth. And to have the luxury of the time & wealth to indulge in such lengthy affairs. Subsistence civilizations can't afford that shit. And they can't afford three hots and a cot for inmates, either.

I imagine the progression: family revenge -> clan/village revenge (lynch mobs; they didn't always get it wrong) -> deferring to a respected authority (village wise man/lord) -> deferring to a legal system.
With the advent of trial by social media we may be backsliding a little. Emmett Till would be disappointed.

Njal's Saga is about this. And a cool book.