1. You are accused of a crime. Which House(s) would you hire a lawyer from to defend you? To prosecute you? To be the judge? Please tell me why.
I'd hire a Slytherin to defend me. They're out to win - no matter what. It wouldn't matter to them if I was innocent or guilty, because winning my case would be about their own personal triumph - and therefore, they'd devote all their energy into my case. Cunning, charismatic, manipulative, and driven - those are all traits I'd want on my side. And I feel like they'd be far more prone to stick to the rules of civil procedure than say, a Gryffindor. Unquestionably, a Ravenclaw would be an ideal judge. You want a judge who is unbiased, well-versed in precedent cases, and analytical, above all else. They provide jury instructions, listen to motions, and hand down the final judgment (among other things). I'd want this done by the most-analytical and least biased person of all to be sure I was getting a fair trial - and if guilty, a fair and proportional sentence. I feel the other houses would all be led too strongly by their own passions, sympathies, or ambitions to ensure that. As for who I'd want to prosecute me - I'd have to go with a Hufflepuff, because I think they'd be the most fair and sympathetic. It wouldn't be about winning for them, it would be about what was right and just. Chances are, if I was actually guilty of a crime, it would be for something stupid and harmless, like trespassing and skinny dipping, or file sharing (which one of my friends is on trial for right now). Or if I committed an actual serious crime, I'd have a damn good affirmative defense for it. I think a Puff would be much more sympathetic as opposing counsel, in either allowing for a reasonable settlement or pursuing a lesser charge.
2. You're on the jury for a murder case. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that the defendant is guilty, but the police have mangled the case and there's no hard evidence to put him in the room at the time of the killing. The other jurors want to convict so they can get back to their lives. What would you do? Also, what would you say?
This is tough here, because there are two sides of me that would be screaming in opposition. The sympathetic, compassionate side of me would say there's a ton of evidence here, even if its circumstantial. This defendant took a life, and if we don't convict him, how many more are we putting at stake? What of the family and the friends of the victim who need justice and closure? In contrast, the other side of me would remember that one is innocent until proven guilty. And that, to find one guilty, especially in the case of murder, guilt must be proven without a doubt. This would likely dominate. To convict someone of murder solely on circumstantial evidence is just so contrary to our justice system. And I'd argue this with the rest of the jury, not caving simply because of their desire to end the trial. If they still refuse to change their minds, a hung jury would force a mistrial. And by then, perhaps, maybe the prosecution would have found some actual hard evidence to present.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-18 05:39 am (UTC)I'd hire a Slytherin to defend me. They're out to win - no matter what. It wouldn't matter to them if I was innocent or guilty, because winning my case would be about their own personal triumph - and therefore, they'd devote all their energy into my case. Cunning, charismatic, manipulative, and driven - those are all traits I'd want on my side. And I feel like they'd be far more prone to stick to the rules of civil procedure than say, a Gryffindor. Unquestionably, a Ravenclaw would be an ideal judge. You want a judge who is unbiased, well-versed in precedent cases, and analytical, above all else. They provide jury instructions, listen to motions, and hand down the final judgment (among other things). I'd want this done by the most-analytical and least biased person of all to be sure I was getting a fair trial - and if guilty, a fair and proportional sentence. I feel the other houses would all be led too strongly by their own passions, sympathies, or ambitions to ensure that. As for who I'd want to prosecute me - I'd have to go with a Hufflepuff, because I think they'd be the most fair and sympathetic. It wouldn't be about winning for them, it would be about what was right and just. Chances are, if I was actually guilty of a crime, it would be for something stupid and harmless, like trespassing and skinny dipping, or file sharing (which one of my friends is on trial for right now). Or if I committed an actual serious crime, I'd have a damn good affirmative defense for it. I think a Puff would be much more sympathetic as opposing counsel, in either allowing for a reasonable settlement or pursuing a lesser charge.
2. You're on the jury for a murder case. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that the defendant is guilty, but the police have mangled the case and there's no hard evidence to put him in the room at the time of the killing. The other jurors want to convict so they can get back to their lives. What would you do? Also, what would you say?
This is tough here, because there are two sides of me that would be screaming in opposition. The sympathetic, compassionate side of me would say there's a ton of evidence here, even if its circumstantial. This defendant took a life, and if we don't convict him, how many more are we putting at stake? What of the family and the friends of the victim who need justice and closure? In contrast, the other side of me would remember that one is innocent until proven guilty. And that, to find one guilty, especially in the case of murder, guilt must be proven without a doubt. This would likely dominate. To convict someone of murder solely on circumstantial evidence is just so contrary to our justice system. And I'd argue this with the rest of the jury, not caving simply because of their desire to end the trial. If they still refuse to change their minds, a hung jury would force a mistrial. And by then, perhaps, maybe the prosecution would have found some actual hard evidence to present.
*continuing for #3...*