#im sure the 'prosecute a witness' thing is just for game reasons

[lightishlilac]

Ace Attorney is a nightmare for me cause I know law but only _American_ law (and a little British, Canadian, and Mexican) so seeing how Japanese law is handled is killing me 😭 why are lawyers allowed to submit evidence in the middle of a trial why did they abolish juries why can you PROSECUTE THE WITNESS I'm going insane

[ch00mb00m]

i wanted to thank you for your level-headedness about the sentencing yesterday. im sure we were all just ready for it to end, but if he does go ahead with the appeal, hopefully he will get a fairer hearing with a verdict that actually makes sense

Aww thank you! I appreciate that 💖 I hope so too, and if I may, I should take this opportunity to explain as best as I can why the verdict may have ended up like this despite how ridiculous it is.

Let me preface by saying that I’m not a lawyer, nor do I study law, and just like you all, I was in a state of shock and went through all sorts of emotions before overcoming it. But, I have a background in science, so I do like to ask questions and do my own research, and this is what I did to my dad who studied law in the past (he’s not a lawyer either but I guess there has always been this law influence in the family lol). This is my way of getting the most impartial answer possible from him, and I’ve done this alongside briefly researching and analysing current reports and articles which ended up supporting his points.

First, it’s worth pointing out that a military court is a completely different entity compared to a civil court and therefore is essentially a completely different ball game altogether. The reason being is that in military court, it’s not actually run by a judge as you would know, but a really high ranking military officer - a colonel usually. This was the case for that sentencing trial.

Original link:

https://eng.scourt.go.kr/eng/judiciary/introduction.jsp

Original link: https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/08/13/verdict-former-bigbang-seungri-receives-3-year-sentence-in-prison/?fbclid=IwAR2vZaBVFbF2I_6wf6Wi6IuzmhGf6wkyah-xj_d9krFqyX0QazTMXIIolGM

However, what I’ve learnt recently is that in military court, they don’t see the grey areas unlike the civil court - they only see it as black and white. Strategically speaking, this is bad, because depending on the evidences presented, it becomes a make-or-break situation but amped up. This comes from the high influence of morality in the judicial system (Business Mirror also mentions this too in the article I linked) so when you consider what the general stance on issues such as prostitution and gambling are, you get this harsh realisation that they may have already formed a ‘bias’, but much worse if it were military court. This was likely why in spite of all the witnesses that ended up speaking in his favour, it ended up being disregarded in the end, because you also have to take into account that background checks would’ve been vigorously carried out beforehand, which would’ve included finding out their profession, and those things can be major red flags if said profession is not deemed ‘reputable’ (I mean this in the sense that say, if they find out one of them is a prostitute, their credibility is already questioned because of their pre-established stance, though I find this confusing because these witnesses were from prosecution’s side).

This leads into my next point - how did the prosecutors end up winning this? Well, as Business Mirror pointed out, it was mainly down to strategy, especially when you consider the nature of the military court. If you remember, the arrest warrant trials were done in front of civil court, so in front of a judge - and they were rejected twice. The fact that it took place in a military court meant that because of the reasons I mentioned before, the odds were already stacked against him, and the prosecutors may have used this to gain an advantage. As much as the defendant brought in evidence that clearly shows his innocence, this may not have been enough.

For this reason, my dad pointed out that SR should’ve just accepted the arrest warrant at the first instance. This is because if one gets arrested, that is essentially the shortcut to be tried in civil court, which would’ve been dealt with quickly. Arrest warrant is just a way of making sure he doesn’t escape. We know he wouldn’t, but this is strategy we’re talking about. As a result, there would’ve been some possible scenarios: if he ends up forced to go into conscription by then, the lawyer can explain to the judge why he couldn’t make it to trial, and they would’ve either allowed the lawyer to represent him, dismiss the case or have the civil court contact the military and ask them to have him be on trial via video conference etc. The fact that the arrest warrant got rejected twice may sound good, but then having to go into conscription is what made things get complicated and ended up stacked against him in military court.

So what does this mean going forward? Of course, there is a chance to appeal. And there is a reason why some people have said that the moment he appeals, is where he will likely win the case. That’s because should he appeal, the case will likely continue into High Court, which is a civil court, so it’s like starting again on an almost clean slate (though I have been also told that it may not be actually a High Court but High Military Court):

There is also the Supreme Court which is the last step, as it is the highest in court hierarchy, and that is also a civil court.