They might invent their own language? Huh? What evidence do you have to suggest that as a possibility?
This isnt exactly what he meant, but I think it is close enough to make the same point. Languages can ‘spring up’. Anyway, it isnt hard to imagine some loon teaching his child something like Esperanto instead of a natural language - there are several people in the world who have Esperanto as their first language, for whatever perverse reasons.
It would be immoral (altruistic) to give a criminal defendant preferential treatment
What is a ‘criminal defendent’?
because he is ignorant, incompetent, or irrational.
Or indeed, “doesnt speak your language”.
So in these cases, the defense attorney should have a choice of either proceeding without the defendant’s help or asking for a delay until the defendant is able to help
If an existing government demands that we delegate to it our right to retroactively punish crime, it has the duty to make sure it peforms its task properly. Refusing to give people fair trials becasue they dont speak language X does not qualify.
During such a delay, the defendant would treated as if he were guilty,
With what justification?
It is not tantamount to a duty because one is not penalized merely for not knowing a language nor for failing to try to learn it.
Then what is one being penalized for? Not knowing a language and being accused of a crime?
But to require the State to provide translation is unreasonable when the State did not create the linguistic deficiency.
The state has a duty to provide a fair trial to everyone accused of a crime. This is why we bother having one instead of anarchy.
The state has a duty to provide a fair trial to everyone accused of a crime. This is why we bother having one instead of anarchy.
This doesn’t entail providing a translator, beyond a basic level where the accused is informed of the charges and his plea is entered. The right to a fair trial does not mean the right to an unlimited share of taxpayer wealth to pay for his attorney, helpful investigative work, and translators. If you’re suggesting that the state needs to pay for translators in order to be “fair”, you should also think the state should pay for any required lab work and for a decent defense team. Do you?
This doesn’t entail providing a translator, beyond a basic level where the accused is informed of the charges and his plea is entered. The right to a fair trial does not mean the right to an unlimited share of taxpayer wealth
No, but it means the right to the basic amount required for a fair trail which certainly includes being able to speak (and be understood) in court.
you should also think the state should pay for any required lab work and for a decent defense team. Do you?
It depends what kind of lab work you mean.
With regards to the defence team, I’m not even convinced that allowing ‘private’ lawyers into court is necessarily a good idea. I have no firm opinions on this yet, but maybe having all lawyers provided by the state would be a better approach. I’m not sure how practical that would be though.
In any case, I would say the state has a duty to appoint _some_ lawyer if the defendant cant afford to pay, yet would like one. The “legal aid” system in Britain does just that - I’m not sure whether there’s an American equivalent.
No, but it means the right to the basic amount required for a fair trail which certainly includes being able to speak (and be understood) in court.
That part is covered by my previous comment on the necessity for the ajudicator to understand the testimony given in court, so if the defendant testifies in some other language, it should be translated (on the court’s dime). That’s where it end.
It depends what kind of lab work you mean.
Shucks, I actually thought you’d say “No, of course they don’t have a right to a free forensics lab”. What principle would limit the defendant’s right to free lab work?
With regards to the defence team, I’m not even convinced that allowing ‘private’ lawyers into court is necessarily a good idea. I have no firm opinions on this yet, but maybe having all lawyers provided by the state would be a better approach. I’m not sure how practical that would be though.
If you’re interested in a practical solution, a more European system could be what you’re looking for. The police could write up a report and submit it to the judge, who could ask appropriate questions of witnesses including the accused, and then make a decision. That would be much cheaper, among other virtues. You may decide whether there are vices in that approach.
In any case, I would say the state has a duty to appoint _some_ lawyer if the defendant cant afford to pay, yet would like one. The “legal aid” system in Britain does just that - I’m not sure whether there’s an American equivalent.
Indeed, we have the same requirement here. Why does the state have such an obligation? And why that obligation? Why, for example, do they not have the obligation to provide free attorneys for all accused? And if we take my suggestion and move from an adversarial system to an inquisitorial one, there is no need for any attorney, just a judge.
Requiring payment after the fact is not likely to be sufficient, since many defendants will not be able to pay.
There are two types of defendants after a trial: the convicted and the acquitted. (For purposes of this point, a mistrial is functionally equivalent to an acquittal unless a guilty verdict is eventually reached in a later trial.)
If a defendant is acquitted, then whether he is able to pay doesn’t matter. He shouldn’t have to pay any court costs if he’s acquitted.
If he is convicted, then I propose the same thing I propose for all defendants regardless of finances: they should have to pay the costs of trial and incarceration. If they can’t afford to, then they should be required to work while in prison for an appropriate wage until they have paid the state back.
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
I mentioned Esperanto in my previous message [Post #20]. I would like to clarify my relationship with it. I studied Esperanto for a few months. Then I quit because:
(1) It is not as rational a language as it is advertised to be.
(2) Virtually all of its support comes from far-out leftists, especially communists.
(3) Like “Newspeak” the imaginary language described in “1984” by George Orwell, Esperanto seems to limit one’s ability to describe abstractions by using metaphors.
… [government] has the duty to make sure it performs its task properly. Refusing to give people fair trials because they don’t speak language X does not qualify.
No one, including government, has any duty, except to refrain from violating the rights of other people.
But fulfilling your duties is not the whole of morality. You must go about the business of living. And to live, you must avoid excessive costs; and that means taking risks in some cases. One of the risks you must take is the risk of violating the rights of other people – you drive a car even though that risks striking another person and thereby violating his rights. Government must risk punishing the innocent in order to fulfil its function of punishing the guilty.
If the cost of providing translation is greater than the cost of compensating a person wrongly convicted because of lack of translation, then translation should not be provided.
People are not brought to trial arbitrarily. Trial is merely the final check to make sure that the person really is guilty. If defense counsel chooses to delay the trial, this should not leave the defendant free to enjoy the fruits of his crime and commit additional crimes.
No one, including government, has any duty, except to refrain from violating the rights of other people.
No: the government has an active obligation to protect the rights of those whom it governs. The government cannot morally sit back and do nothing, failing to fulfil its purpose. If individuals in government feel that they cannot carry out their proper function as government agents, they should leave the government immediately. The necessity of government doing its job is the fundamental principle underlying the monopoly right of the government on use of retaliatory force.
People are not brought to trial arbitrarily. Trial is merely the final check to make sure that the person really is guilty.
This is an unfortunately true fact. Conviction rates of those prosecuted is in the range of 90%. A reasonable man would conclude, based on this fact and even before hearing any evidence, that any particular accused is almost certainly guilty. The trial serves to confirm (or perhaps disconfirm) this foregone conclusion. This works fine if prosecutors have the protection of individual rights as their sole purpose. However, securing convictions is actually the primary function of a prosecutor, and rights protection is rather far down the list.