Justice and the Courts
The Right to Justice is the principle that underlies all laws everywhere on Tear. The notion is simple; it is that the state, the public, the victim, the accused, and any persons connected directly to an illegal action have a right to justice. The state has the power and the obligation to protect that right. Thus, the state is empowered to suspend the other rights of persons as needed in order to properly investigate, prosecute and punish illegal acts and to make reparations as needed.
This concept helps clarify the powers and obligations of the state and its agents - including judges, juries, civil and private militia and many others. It also clarifies what the rights of responsibilities of individuals may be, including witnesses, suspects, the accused, and the members of the public.
Jurisdiction
Which authority or authorities possess the right and obligation to impose justice over a specific crime depends on a number of factors, including where the crime was committed, who it was committed against, and who it was allegedly committed by. In general, a state has jurisdiction over any crime committed within its borders, even if that crime is committed by stateless outsiders against stateless outsiders.
In the wilderness, outside the recognized borders of any state, a state will generally seek to have jurisdiction when once of their citizens, residents or tenants is the victim of a crime, or is accused of a crime. This can lead to jurisdictional disputes between states if their citizens, residents or tenants commit crimes against one another in the wild.
For crimes committed in the wilderness by or against outsiders, a state will usually not actively seek jurisdiction. That said, certain crimes that might be committed against outsiders engaged in labour might be considered crimes against the citizen, resident or tenant for whom they labour. In such cases a citizen or resident may petition to the state to extend tenency rights to the outsider if they are otherwise eligable, thereby making them a tenant to the state and granting them the rights of a tenant.
Obligation to Truth
It is generally held that the right to justice cannot be upheld by the state unless the state knows the truth. In most places on Tear, 'truth' means some recipe of provable objective fact combined with subjective statement, and often mixed with religious or philosophical doctrine. Broadly, however, the obligation to truth means that the state has the right to compel people to provide truthful statements with respect to the Right to Self.
Right to Self
The Right to Self, often described as the right to bodily and psychic integrity, is the foundation of humanoid rights and is generally recognized everywhere on Tear. The Right to Self is what makes it a crime to injure or kill others, and it is the right that protects individuals from torture or from psychic invasion or manipulation. Note that while outsiders have the Right to Self, in wilderness areas, outside the jurisdiction of any state, no one has the duty to enforce the Right to Justice on behalf of an outsider.
Victims
Victims are required to faithfully and accurately report all information they have about an alleged crime to the authorities promptly. Technically they can be detained until such statements are provided, thought usually this is not necessary. Failure to report a crime, withholding information, lying or refusing to provide statements or testimony is a crime. False accusations are a crime.
Witnesses
Witnesses to a crime are required to faithfully and accurately report all information they have about an alleged crime to the authorities promptly. They can be generally be detained until such statements or testimony are given. Failure to report a crime, withholding information, lying or refusing to provide statements or testimony is a crime. Bearing false witness is a crime.
Suspects
Those suspected of committing a crime will be detained until they provide statements or testimony that either absolves them, or leads to an accusation. Under the Right to Self, in most jurisdictions, torture or psychic intrusion to compell the truth are generally forbidden, though suspects can agree to submit to psychic intrusion as a means to show their innocence. While refusal to do so cannot be used as evidence against a suspect, someone who knows they are innocent and who submits themself to the Truth or Telepathy spell can generally demonstrate that innocence very quickly.Suspects Lying, withholding information, or refusing to provide statements or testimony is a crime.
Accused
Formally accusing an individual of a crime generally suspends some of their rights, including their right to liberty and to some extent even their Right to Self. At the same time, a formal accusation must normally be made a matter of public record (there are exceptions in matters of state secrecy).
Practically speaking this means that those accused of a crime will be detained until a trial is concluded. Unless they are a citizen, they will also likely be compelled physically or psychically to make statements or give testimony. Lying, withholding information, or refusing to provide statements or testimony is a crime (in addition to the crime one might already be accused of). Unless one is a citizen, whose rights are generally protected against physical or psychic violation, the interrogation of an accused person usually amounts to torturing them for a confession or compelling them to reveal the truth by the use of magic.
Presumption of Innocence
The obligation to truth does not include necessarily the notion of presumption of innocence for the accused. In fact, while some states grant the right of presumption of innocence to citizens, many legal scholars have argued that the presumption of innocence (or of guilt) is an impediment to truth. The presumption of innocence for citizens is often criticized by scholars as an injustice and in a practical sense it often is; citizens have so many more powers and rights than non-citizens that placing the burden of proof on the state in many cases amounts to citizens being nearly untouchable.
Right to Representation
In most places on Tear there is a distinction between the right to seek legal representation and the right to have legal representation. In general, citizens have both, while non-citizens only have limited right to seek legal representation.
Citizens
For citizens with the right to seek and to have legal representation, this generally means they cannot be compelled to make statements or give testimony to authorities without a lawyer present, regardless of whether they are a witness, a victim, a suspect or the accused. Additionally, the right to have legal representation means that if a citizen afford a lawyer (which is rare), the state must provide one (usually the least expensive one).
Non-Citizens
Those who are not citizens usually will not have the right to have legal representation present even if they are being detained for questioning. Because detaining victims, witnesses or suspects for the purpose of gathering statements and testimony does not normally need to be made public, this technically means that in most cases non-citizens can be detained and questioned against their will without anyone even being aware of it.
Once a person is formally accused of a crime, which normally must be a matter of public record, their detention can no longer be kept secret and they will certainly receive offers from lawyers hoping to represent them. Non-citizens can accept these offers, provided they can afford the fees.
Right to Public Trial
Almost everywhere on Tear, citizens and non-citizens alike have a right to a public trial. This is because state justice is necessarily performative, and it is in the interests of all parties - the state, the accused, the victim and the public - to witness justice being enacted. It establishes the authority of the state, gives the public confident in the state, and it also ensures fairness to the victim and to the accused.
Trial by Judge
On Tear, most trials are adjudicated and decided by a judge, who also imposes sentence. Because generally most citizens are entitled to a trial by jury, trial by judge is for non-citizens, and is therefore more efficient - usually only lasting a few hours or a day at most.
A trial by judge involves the accused being brought before the public court, and the lawyers for the state and the accused (if they have lawyers) presenting evidence and testimony. Because most accused non-citizens who arrive to trial have already been compelled to confess by torture or magical means, and because they do not have the right to presumption of innocence, quick conviction and expedited sentencing and punishment are the norm.
Trial by Jury
In most places on Tear, only citizens have a right to trial by jury. Because citizens generally benefit from more rights than non-citizens; such as the protection from bodily or psychic violation, the presumption of innocence, and the right to appeal, these trials can be much more complicated and can take a long time.
In these trials, the accused is brought before the judge and the jury in the public court, and the lawyers for the state and the accused present evidence and testimony. While the burden of proof is on the prosecution, victims, witnesses and non-citizens complicit in a crime may not have the same protections against torture or psychic violation that the accused citizen does, and often the quickest path to concluding the trial of an accused citizen is to gather proof from the compelled testimony of non-citizens with fewer rights who know the truth.
Trial by Combat
In most places on Tear, an accused person can request Trial by Combat instead of Trial by Judge or Jury. Usually this involves the accused engaging in mortal combat with a volunteer champion who must be chosen and agreed by the state and the victim (or their family). The state will usually have a champion they will offer, but if the kin of the victim volunteers - even if they are foolish to do so - the state will almost always agree to this. If the accused wins the combat, they are considered innocent, and if they lose, they are considered guilty.
While such trials are usually to the death, this is not necessarily so, and the state's champion will be given guidance by the judge based on the potential punishment for the crime. For example, if an appropriate punishment for the the crime is to have one's hands chopped off, then the champion might be instructed by the judge to offer the accused a chance to surrender if a limb is severed.
Most often, Trials by Combat are requested by citizens who know they are guilty, and whose guilt will likely be uncovered by magical or physical interrogation of witnesses. These requests are usually only accepted by victims (or their family) who are overcome with rage or a desire for revenge, and who believe the rights and powers of the citizen will allow them to get away with their crime.
The classic example is of a citizen who has murdered an enemy, and who knows that someone witnessed the murder and could be compelled to provide damning evidence. If the accused citizen thinks the angered kin of his enemy would irrationally volunteer to take up a Trial by Combat, and the accused was confident they could win that combat, then it might be in their interest to request it. This is always a gambit, as if the victim's kin does not volunteer, the accused citizen may have to face the state's champion (who is probably very capable).
Secret Trials
In some cases, specifically in matters of state secrecy, the state may abrogate the rights of the accused to a public trial. Such an action is rare, and is generally reserved for accusations of treason against citizens where long public trials and compelled testimony from non-citizens might compromise state secrecy.
Summary Judgement
In some cases, a trials are not warranted. Usually this is in the case of minor crimes, or in the case where the state authorities are generally empowered to impose state authority on the spot due to overwhelming evidence.
Minor Crimes
For minor crimes it is usually not in the interest of the state or the people to conduct a trial. Examples include minor violations of curfew or trepass, or infractions against minor or discretionary laws against such thing as disorderliness or gambling. In these cases, if the typical punishments are beating or fining, the authorities may be permitted to 'dispense punishment' or to collect a fine on the spot.
Witnessed Crimes
For larger crimes, such as significant theft or damage to property, the authorities may be permitted to impose summary judgement provided the criminal is 'caught red-handed' and provided there are other witnesses - usually at least one other member of the civil authority and a civilian (a citizen, resident or tenant) must be present. A thief caught in a public square picking the pocket of a wealthy merchant might find the civil militia chopping off their hand on the spot without need for trial. Having been caught red-handed, surrounded by witnesses is usually enough to permit summary judgement being enacted.