This morning the JSBP students set out towards Corvinus to hear Péter Hack speak about how exactly the Hungarian government operates. I briefed up on some history about the man before today and I was impressed to read that Péter holds a JD and PhD from Eötvös University Budapest. He has been involved within the Hungarian Parliament, but now teaches at the Budapest Law Faculty. Since I want to become a lawyer in the future, I was extremely excited to hear about the Hungarian legal systems operation. I completed an internship last semester at a private criminal defense firm, where I learned each step throughout the legal process within America. I also went to court multiple times throughout the semester, where I discovered the specific operations of a trial. I was anxious to hear the difference between the legal systems within Hungary verse the United States. In the end, I was extremely surprised at how different they actually are.
Péter Hack walked into the room and jumped right into his discussion of the Hungarian government. He discussed the steps during a pre-trial and continually compared the Hungarian legal system with the American one. The first thing I found intriguing was when he mentioned that the initial procedures of a legal case are much more important within Hungary, than in America. I wonder why this is? The pre-trial steps within a case seem to be some of the most important. Gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and building a discovery is exactly what a case needs, but Péter Hack explained that this process is much more involved in Hungary when compared to America. I find this an important aspect of Hungarian government.
On the other hand, something I find negative within the Hungarian government is that the judge researches and knows all parts of the discovery and other materials used within the courts before the trial occurs. This must produce bias, which as a psychology major, I know is never a good thing. It seems completely unfair that a judge who is ultimately going to decide your sentence can know every part of the case before it happens. In Hungary the judge plays the role of an active participant within the trial, rather than the referee. The judge can jump in and speak at anytime throughout the trial. For this reason, it makes sense that the judge must know more about the trial before it begins, but it still seems unfair to me, especially for the defendant.
Another aspect of the Hungarian government I do not enjoy is the lack of individual privacy. I find it extremely terrifying that police can search your home, car, and other property (such as phone bills or bank statements) at any time they want. Wouldn’t police take advantage of this and really invade people’s personal rights? I can only hope that the Hungarian police are respectful and only do this when they have a reasonable suspicion. In addition to the police, there are two other investigators involved within the legal process. These include the National Tax and Customs Office, as well as a Prosecutor. This was very interesting, but also strange. I don’t understand how the Prosecutor General gets elected from Parliament for six years and no one can really question his or her competence and knowledge. This seems unlawful to me because of the issue of bias again. This prosecutor works on so many cases for so many years and he or she must build up some type of bias against certain criminals. This is ultimately leading to an unfair trial, which, wanting to be a lawyer myself, I am not fond of.
The legal processes within the Hungarian government would frustrate me greatly if I was a more permanent citizen of the country. Péter Hack explained that in his opinion the system is extremely far away from the public, meaning that the average Hungarian does not know much about the court system. This does not seem good within any society, let alone a large city, such as Budapest. He explained that most people do not even understand what is happening during their own trial. He has witnessed and heard of defendants not knowing if they are guilty or not, even after the trial is over! They have to consult with their lawyer after the trial to ask! That seems not only ridiculous but also extremely frustrating as a citizen of Hungary. From my own experiences, it is a wonderful aspect within America that the defendant is fully active during the legal process, from the pre-trial to the final verdict. Depending on the person, they normally have some knowledge of the legal system before hand, but the individual’s lawyer normally guides them along the rest of the way.
Lastly, another aspect I found extremely unhelpful and frustrating within the Hungarian government is how they deal with juveniles within the legal system. Péter Hack explained that currently, no one under the age of fourteen is punishable. My concern is, what happens to the children under fourteen who are involved in crimes? They are not prosecuted? I have learned that crime within Hungary is MUCH lower than in America, especially violent crime, which may be a reason for such a statement regarding children below the age of fourteen. Bringing this argument further, I do not like that if a fourteen year old commits a crime then their trial judge, prosecutor, and teacher (all present during juvenile trials), are not much different from the members of adult court. This is horrible! Children, criminal or not, deserve to be dealt with much differently than adults. For instance, within America there are victim advocate programs who focus strictly on children. At these institutions, forensic interviewers, specialized in the field, keep the child calm and feeling safe. They help the child (whether the defendant or complainant) explain their story. This is a recently new phenomenon in the American legal system, but I believe it is one that should be adopted everywhere. A child should not have to tell their story hundreds of times, no matter what side they are on, if they are feeling overwhelmed by their surroundings. Within Hungarian court systems, a child being treated as an adult and therefore unfairly seems inevitable.
Overall, I really loved Péter Hack’s presentation. It opened my eyes to an entirely different type of legal process, one of which I am glad I am not a part of. I feel more passionately now about the American legal system then ever before. Believe me though, I do understand that the American legal system is far from perfect, especially with the ever-growing population of prisoners, but I do believe that the process of the trial and court system itself is much more efficient than in Hungary. Individual rights, avoiding bias from judges and other deciders, as well as children’s protection from the harsh system are all extremely important to me which is why I have found so many faults within the Hungarian government.
Thank you Péter Hack for your excellent presentation and opening my eyes to something I would have never known.
A video from 2010 I found it below...
Peter Hack discuss the Nazi Legacy in 2010 - First video on website
Péter Hack is towards the end of this video - he states the following...
Former Hungarian member of European Parliament Peter Hack says Nazi ideology is becoming popular because European governments are not taking a strong enough stance – and people know little about fascism’s history.
“People in Eastern European countries do not know enough about their own past,” Peter Hack says. “I’m teaching university students and I realized that they have very limited knowledge about what happened during WWII, what happened with the Hungarian Jewish population, what happened under Hitler in Germany. They have some ideas but not enough knowledge how this ideology grew up.”
Peter discusses how many young people today do not understand what happened to the Hungarian-Jewish population during WWII, which is why this legacy lives on and Nazi ideologies continue. He basically states that there is a lack of knowledge and a lack of proper political standing. I think this is an issue for many countries around the world. There is continually not enough knowledge about many issues within society, therefore people make assumptions, which most of the time lead a town, state, country or continent down a wrong path.
Sarah Ransom-
ReplyDeleteyou are going to make in incredible lawyer some day! you know you information so well, and I can sense how passionate you are about the legal system and all the parts in it, fair or not. You have done a great job in pointing out both sides of the story- the pros and the cons. I have to agree with you, I also found several of these faults quite hard to figure out, and left me confused at how they could possibly work!
I feel very strongly about the judge's previous study of the case and how it could produce bias. I pointed out in my blog, that I do not know how this can even be considered fair, or how the judge manages to still have his mind open during court, and not have a decision already made.
I also do not think it makes any sense at all to have juveniles being treated the way they do. Peter Hack mentioned how 13 year olds tortured to death another teenager and were not punishable? That blows my mind! So these kids get away with that, but then 14 year olds are treated on a similar level as adults? It really makes no sense. You seem to know a lot about the juvenile system in America and the plans/solutions you mentioned to punishing or helping these kids seems much more efficient.
You are right, America's system does seem to make more sense, at least for our society. And although it may not be the best system, it does seem to work in most situations rather well.
I hope you pursue your future as a lawyer with great passion and you become very successful! You already know so much! Keep it up! You're gunna go far kid! <3
Thanks for such a nice comment wonderful woman :)
ReplyDeleteSee you tomorrow!