Essay - Does a fair procedure justify any result?

Write an essay in which, using journal articles and other sources from the field of
law and philosophy, you will try to answer the question of whether a fair trial
justifies any result (even one that seems unfair from the public's point of view - for
example, the release of an alleged murderer to freedom or an excessively severe
punishment for socially less dangerous crimes) as long as it is carried out on the
basis of the law.

Justice is based on the observance of the rights of any person. As the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights puts it, “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of
the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

When a person is brought before a court on charges of a criminal offense, he is

confronted by the entire state machine. The treatment of the accused is a clear
demonstration of how the state respects the rights of the individual and the rule of
law.

Each criminal trial is a test of the state's readiness to provide justice and respect
human rights; scrutiny, even more stringent if the defendant is accused of crimes
against public safety, such as acts of terrorism, crimes against humanity, war
crimes or crimes against the security of those in power.

Every government has an obligation to bring the perpetrators of crimes to justice in

independent, impartial and competent courts in accordance with international
standards of fairness.

Whatever the crime, if the trial is unfair, justice is not done for the accused, or the
victim of the crime, or for the whole society. When law enforcement officers
torture or ill-treat people, when courts are blatantly unfair and procedures are
marked by discrimination, trust in the justice system is lost. The state fulfills its
duty and copes with the duties assigned to it only when human rights are respected
at the time of arrest, and in the police station, and in the interrogation room, and in
the pre-trial detention center, and in the courtroom, and in the prison cell.

As stated in "AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, A GUIDE TO FAIR TRIAL"

Second Edition:

The right to a fair trial is a human right. This is one of the widely used guarantees.
It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on which the
international human rights system is based and which was adopted in 1948 by the
governments of the world. Since the right to a fair trial was recognized in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has become legally binding on all States
under customary international law. The fundamental principles of fair trial must be
applied at all times, even in times of emergency and armed conflict.

Consider the case of «Lingens v Austria»:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57523%22]}

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the libel conviction of a journalist
who criticized a political figure violated his right to freedom of expression.
Austrian journalist Peter Lingens accused Mr. Kreisky, then chairman of the
Austrian Socialist Party, for his condescending attitude towards former Nazis who
continued to take part in Austrian politics, among whom was the chairman of the
Liberal Party. The European Court of Justice has ruled that because of their
position in a democratic society, politicians must show a greater degree of
tolerance for criticism. Moreover, the Court noted that the journalist was covering
political issues that were of great public interest to the Austrians, and that
censorship of such articles would have deterred other journalists from participating
in the public debate.

The main thing is not to forget that censorship, allowing at times unforeseen
interpretations, can isolate the reader from the author of the work, under the
influence of censorship, the meaning of what the author really wanted to convey to
readers can change to the diametrically opposite one.

Due to the fact that the journalist covered political issues that were of great public
interest to the Austrians, I consider the decision of the court to be quite fair.

As the old English proverb says, justice must not only be done, but seen to be
done. And in this situation - it really was implemented.

Nevertheless, today the dictum supports a requirement for judicial recusal for the
appearance of bias that extends beyond the common law world at both national and
international levels.

There are social and other benefits that result when judges observe procedures that
are widely regarded as fair, especially in criminal trials. Empirical studies in social
psychology show that when legal authorities treat people in ways that accord with
“lay” procedural expectations, they are more likely to view the authorities as
legitimate, to co-operate with them, and to obey the law out of an internalised
sense of obligation rather than out of force or threat. Relating to people in ways
that are widely perceived to be fair is a way to engage people’s moral sentiments
and to enliven their virtuous capacity to put aside considerations of self-interest to
do what is right.

This dynamic provides a sound moral foundation for courts to concern themselves
with perceptions of justice.

Britain’s proverbial reasonable man, “the man on the Clapham bus” was created by
the courts and the question is often asked, “What would the man on the Clapham
bus think?”. Perhaps the Kenyan reasonable man could be “the man in a shuka
carrying a rungu in a matatu on Jogoo Road”!

And Kenyans are asking whether it is only poor people who are jailed while the
wealthy get away with onerous bail terms. That is the perception. Perception is our
new reality.