The Formation Quest & Society
The Moral Trial within the Trial Court

In brief, the Moral Trial...
	would be an official-to-citizen transaction within the trial court within which officials would have custody of the equal rights of all individuals as citizens of their own or another social contract. The logic enabled from within our one humanly-common formative source would provide the custodial terms for judgment where and when the word-analogues of language would reflect  that thoughtful process and source first within their constitution and/or next within the statute law which their moral legislative branch provides.
	That logic applies to make all officials custodially responsible to the citizens whose standardized "primary rights" they must respect. This applies for them while they participate with "secondary rights" of their own, doing so as multiple jurors, a moderating judge, one or more bailiffs, and a court-employed media expert to transcribe the procedings at minimum. An auditor and/or other media experts from the executive branch and/or an auditing legislator from the legislative branch also may attend in the primary interest of all others better to know how their custodians performed within what ultimately forms socially to be their own standardized "event of custodial judgment."
	Because it is, bailiffs as the court's police also must admit them directly to witness trials disinterestedly on a first-come, first-served or lottery basis. Unlike them, others who may appear purposefully are custodial. These include the "eye" and "alibi" and expert witnesses relevant to the standardized "initiating event" as it would relate to the charge. Those who problematically are "expert" include the investigative police and technicians from the executive branch as among those who'd interpret the physical evidence from the scene as well as the likely mental states of the participants therein.
	A logical plaintiff must appear and a logical defendant charged by that plaintiff may, only the former purposefully as a custodian. Each equally also has the applied right to legal representation within the trial because language requires expertise where and when its use would apply to them as equal adversaries. Thus, at their election, legal counselors may appear as provided either from legal services within the executive branch without financial cost or the private sector. Regardless, none custodially would represent the "state" because no moral self-interest logically accords to make that amorphously-abstract word-concept a litigant either way.
	It's then that the jurors actively would participate within custodial judgment, the judge but a personnel manager who'd preside through the court's administrative law within the process. They'd question all the participants, themselves included. They'd also judge them all as their custodial roles logically would bear on the initial charge and their own roles in adjudicating it.
	They'd independently judge all these and the initial charge itself morally through applied standards. That is, their findings against the legal charge or any custodial individual wouldn't necessarily exonerate any given individual, as discussed at greater length on the trial-court page. Yet the charges against any individual equally must apply as well. This means there only could be one moral charge as relevant to one act having a demonstrable consequent within the initiating or custodially-secondary event.
	Only then truly could we honor the rule of moral law. For instance, this would prohibit such "trumped up" charges as "resisting arrest without violence" and redundant ones as "reckless driving" which we bundle with that of "driving under the influence." Our rulers as men within police and legal and judicial interest groups at least tacitly know that these extra charges conveniently serve only their own individual interests as instituted, that they are disposable only to make themselves and the system upon which their own self-interests depend look good to defendants and society at large.
	Two other applications also standardize. One is that while people violate rights, their acts to impair their own abilities isn't a chargeable crime itself. The other is that any custodial individual- a police officer included- must act as a logical plaintiff in his or her own equal behalf unless the unenfranchisable are at exigent risk or an enfranchised other first represents himself or herself as that plaintiff. These converge upon the charges mentioned above to mean that "driving under the influence" of alcohol or other legal or "illegal" drugs, as under the less-likely ones of being narcoleptic or short of sleep, isn't a valid charge while "reckless driving" or "manslaughter" may be.
	That within many social contracts our rulers as men diminish even our conceptually-"equal" rights by calling some "privileges," as for the act of driving itself, further evidences their top-down control. The jury and all other participants must proceed from a differing hierarchical ordering- a formatively-moral one. Only then could we all truly exist on a level playing field.
	The moral trial within a trial court must evidence this. As it is, we only have the moral alternative civilly to disobey those who'd not custodially act judgmentally in our interests. Socially, our moral defense requires this or for us to accept what otherwise we could change. Please join us in that disobedience if only as yet through language or- as jurors- by hinging your final judgment of the accused upon these moral standards as best you can. In many societies at least, you won't suffer the penalty of law if you do. Yet if you serve as a juror and don't, also please know that you, too, politically will have acted to be criminal yourself.

 

Home    Contents    Communication    Top     Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest Last modified on October 15, 1999