Forum:Wizarding Lawyers

Wizarding Lawyers
Hi guys, it's SoA here. So recently I made a character, Aretha Harkness and myself and some of the users were discussing what the canon position on Wizarding Lawyers are. For clarification, we may refer to the HP Wiki:


 * A third-party with legal knowledge may speak on behalf of a defendant, fulfilling a similar role to that of a modern barrister. However, no wizarding lawyers seem to exist, and the practise of having a spokesperson on behalf of a defendant appears to be rare.

The Issue
So there are a few ways in which this definition is controversial and unhelpful, to be frank.


 * The definition is speculative. It doesn't work on absolutes. "No wizarding lawyers seem to exist." and "having a spokesperson...appears to be rare." are just a couple of examples of how the definition doesn't necessarily provide us with a concrete answer. Canon, by definition, must be absolute.
 * The argument is circulus in probando. The reasoning is circular and fallacious. It says that wizarding lawyers do not exist, however the representatives they have in court are equivalent to barristers. A barrister, by definition, is a lawyer. So what is the truth? Do we take barristers to mean lawyers or are they not? If we decide these representatives are not barristers, they still must have some legal knowledge and courtroom etiquette, so why would we not name them as Lawyers?
 * The definition is based off limited premises. In the HP books, we have three cases of a Wizengamot trial. These are as follows:
 * The Trial of Igor Karkaroff (sometime after October 1981), where he bribes the Wizengamot to release him in exchange for names of Death Eaters
 * The Trial of Harry Potter (12th August 1995), for use of the Patronus charm in the presence of his muggle cousin. NB: This was a disciplinary hearing rather than a trial.
 * The Trial of Mary Cattermole (2nd September 1997), for 'stealing' her wand from a witch.

Now the last point is important when assessing this situation, because the problem I face is that we have so little subjection to courtroom etiquette in the HP series, so we cannot know whether using a barrister is as rare as the HP wiki would have us believe. Out of these three cases, the only time a barrister was present was the 1995 Potter trial. If we consider the presence of Dumbledore in this trial, it is highly unlikely that Harry would have walked out freely and gone back into Hogwarts. The reason for this is because regular citizens will not have the knowledge of the justice system to defend themselves in court. This poses the question: how can we have a fair trial without a legal representative present?

The Solution
Now, you could say that trials could be done with Veritaserum, and job's a good'un. However, besides it being expensive and not always practical, we all know the truth can be manipulated, by direct or targeted questioning. So the other option remains us using legal representatives in the name of Lawyers to represent defendants.

I would argue that Lawyers can be used, independent of the Ministry, and employed privately to represent people who are to stand in trial before the Wizengamot. The lawyer would involve building up a defence, arguing it infront of the Wizengamot (who in this situation would act as the jury) for them to vote on an outcome. This way we're not necessarily breaking canon, but working around it.

The Wizengamot
This is a tricky one. If we're to use my proposed system for wizarding trials, we need a functioning Wizengamot. I would argue that this would be fairest structured like so:
 * Chief Warlock (to act as a judge and mediator)
 * Dept Heads of the Ministry (wizengamot members/jury)
 * Auror head/Aurors (the role of the prosecution)
 * Lawyer (the role of the defence)

My Proposal
I propose we put this to a vote. So now, if there was to be a trial, it would work in the way I outlined above. Please feel free to add any comments or ideas below, as we're always looking for ways to improve the way we RP! 14:29, July 10, 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I don't know how long to put the vote/vote parameters so if an admin/crat wants to decide that? Thanks. 14:29, July 10, 2017 (UTC)