Dahlia Lithwick reminds us that civil and criminal trials provide justice writ large, not always immediate justice of the sort we want for the victims, using a politically charged civil case and a tabloid criminal case as examples. I say a few words here. One thing that stands out is that the victim (alleged) does not just lose out either. If the prosecution is based on bad evidence, convicting the wrong person isn't going to help the victim.
And, even if they lose, victims often appreciate a fair shake via a proper trial process. One point of said process is to provide a mechanism where two sides (at times more) can offer conflicting arguments using a general standardized and objective system of procedures. I often desire this to be in place when the issues of the day are discussed. I can disagree with one side, but if that side is rude or provides cheap arguments, it annoys me. This is true (if a bit less) if I actually agree with the side using such techniques. However, some issues are so emotionally charged, that arguing past each other seems like the fated result.
I was watching Democracy Now! recently and they actually had two sides on to debate the question of investigating/trying Bush officials (up to the top) for torture. The very fact two sides were on is unusual on the show, which tends to put forth a consistent alternative point of view, an appreciated but still incomplete approach. Unfortunately, the "anti" side here had stock replies, oh so tiresome. Is this the "Catholic University" approach? Talk of "antiwar left" (people who supported the war in Afghanistan?), suggesting "torture" is just to hard to define and the specter of political trials once new parties come in office (so, NO one can be prosecuted in such cases? is that a serious claim?).
So hard to have common ground. I am reading a book where some of those on opposite sides are related by blood or marriage. This and other ways to have some basic bond that requires some understanding is necessary to reach some common ground here, if only on the mechanism of debate and conflict.
And, even if they lose, victims often appreciate a fair shake via a proper trial process. One point of said process is to provide a mechanism where two sides (at times more) can offer conflicting arguments using a general standardized and objective system of procedures. I often desire this to be in place when the issues of the day are discussed. I can disagree with one side, but if that side is rude or provides cheap arguments, it annoys me. This is true (if a bit less) if I actually agree with the side using such techniques. However, some issues are so emotionally charged, that arguing past each other seems like the fated result.
I was watching Democracy Now! recently and they actually had two sides on to debate the question of investigating/trying Bush officials (up to the top) for torture. The very fact two sides were on is unusual on the show, which tends to put forth a consistent alternative point of view, an appreciated but still incomplete approach. Unfortunately, the "anti" side here had stock replies, oh so tiresome. Is this the "Catholic University" approach? Talk of "antiwar left" (people who supported the war in Afghanistan?), suggesting "torture" is just to hard to define and the specter of political trials once new parties come in office (so, NO one can be prosecuted in such cases? is that a serious claim?).
So hard to have common ground. I am reading a book where some of those on opposite sides are related by blood or marriage. This and other ways to have some basic bond that requires some understanding is necessary to reach some common ground here, if only on the mechanism of debate and conflict.