June 12, 2014
Page 213 Book 5: The War Diaries
In before poop-storm.
So what we can relate Lying’s diatribe here to most clearly is the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, which basically laid out how we treat war criminals and human rights today. Now, the actual on-paper consequences of those trials are fantastic to have and the whole Geneva Convention that followed codified and clarified them even better. The trouble is the people involved.
The bulk of the trials proceeded according to American protocols and the countries involved later went on to form a large section of the Security Council of the United Nations. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that any of those nations are evil or shouldn’t be there, but their presence at the trials aided tremendously in the later political maneuvers to start up the UN, essentially granting them greater influence and power by sheer virtue of just having been there “from day one”. This is not really a problem in the system, but in the users. That is, the humans involved cause this problem because they’re prideful, egotistical, greedy, etc. etc. and it’s just human nature for stuff like this to happen.
Which brings us then to the next bit of social commentary that Lying is throwing around here: Trials. Specifically, judges and jurors.
The jury system is one of my favourite legal doctrines, I love that it takes the evidence and examines it from multiple viewpoints to determine the proper course of action to take, but the big flaw is the judge and the jurors. We have statues in place for most nations with the system that prevent people being assigned to either position if they have some predisposition to argue one way or the other (a “conflict of interest”), but that still means we’re relying on the general public to advise the legal expert.
The general public are very stupid. Like, seriously, total idiots. They are violent, hateful, spiteful, morons and we let them run the country here most of the time due to the otherwise-great system of democracy.
Now, imagine we have a case like Lex’s, where there is a big and notable and easily-recognisable public figure on trial. More or less everyone already knows what he’s done and have their numerous reasons to hate him. It will be basically impossible to eliminate bias from the jurors and the judge. So everyone already knows “how” the case should end and, should it somehow end otherwise, will be outraged and protest and generally hurl poop everywhere. There’s just no way to calmly and reasonably hold a trial for people like him.
The trouble with human civilisation is that the humans have to be civil. So in cases like this, it’s best for things to be settled quietly in the shadows.