Whelp, Now We Know Who to Call if We Enter the System!

First of all, Dr. Peter Hack, I would like to apologize for getting up several times during your talk with us, but as I was coughing up a lung, I decided it was probably best to do it not in front of such a highly- esteemed man as yourself, while educating us on the justice system.

On a more serious note, this was an extremely fascinating experience. At least for someone who is interested in law and the justice system, there was an insane amount of learning done in an hour and a half. Dr. Peter Hack presented us with a lot of information, some of it similar to what we are used to in America, and some of it completely astonishing as it was so different. He introduced to us to the criminal procedure in the justice system and told us that the Hungarian system is actually modeled after the German/Austrian judicial system. He took us through, step by step, of the pre-trial and then the trial stages and processes. Much of it was similar to America, but there were of course some differences. For example, police have a much more prominent role in Hungarian procedure. They can decide whether or not they want to start a procedure with the court, if there is enough evidence and they can also make an agreement with the convicted directly instead of a plea bargain. The police collect all the documents/evidence they can for the case and in this system, the relevance of procedure is much higher in Hungarian system than in America. We also learned that there are 3 investigative bodies: 1) Police 2) National Tax and Custom Office 3)Prosecutor. All prosecutors are headed by a chief prosecutor who is elected by Parliament.

This is a drawing Dr. Peter Hack did of the comparisons between the set up of the American court room versus the Hungarian/European set up in a court room. As you can see, in an American court room the judge is prominently sitting in the front with the witness stand to one side. The jury is diagonal to the defense bench so they can watch the defendant. The prosecution is next to the defense on the opposite side, both facing the judge. In a Hungarian court room, the judge(s) sit in the center of the room again, with the prosecution bench on one side and the defense on the other. There is no jury or witness stand, the the accused person sits separately across from the judge in the very back of the room.

There were a few things that I personally was most interested by and stood out the most to me.
First of all, the fact that searches do not require permission astounds me. If law enforcement has reason to believe they can find evidence, they can search anywhere they like. Whose discretion defines "reason" in which they can search? That seems like a loosely defined point to me, and if I know anything about America, it is that everyone exercises all their constitutional/individual rights as often as they can. And with a loosely defined term like there, there would be serious chaos in the states. It just shocked me that with a policeman saying he has reason to believe... he can invade your home at anytime, and even search your neighbors property.

Another thing that really stuck out to me was that in this entire year in Hungary, there have only been 154 murders. Now if this doesn't open your eyes to a different canvas of crime, I don't know what will. 154 murders in one year isn't even a fraction of what we see in America on a rather often basis. The fact that these people live in a place where the murder rate is insanely low, makes me wonder what they recognize as a serious crime or a serious conviction. Then again, I have to ask myself, is America just unruly high in its crime and places such as Hungary are normal? Or is Hungary just unusually low? This is something that really struck my interest and I would be very interested in knowing what a key player in this field would say about this comparison. I also could not believe that currently, only 23 people are serving a life without parole sentence in Hungary. What defines a crime here to land you life without parole? Comparing these statistics to those of the United States make you think where things really are on a scale and whose numbers are actually high and whose are not. What's normal? Then again, who is to decide?

Through all of the lecture, and all the learning we did, I found there was only one piece that I felt I had some controversy with. That was hearing that before each case appears in court, the judge has previous knowledge about the case. The judge knows everyone's name in the case, what role they play, every detail from top to bottom as he has studied the case extensively. This is an INSANE idea to me. I do not understand how the judge has time to do this? Are they just constantly cramming, or do they only focus on one case at a time? Does this increase or decrease the accuracy of the ruling on the case? I would be most concerned about the legitimacy of this process and the fact that there could definitely be a bias so when the case actually appears in court, a decision has already been made because of his previous studies. I guess it just doesn't make sense to me because it seems it would be possible to make up his mind before he even interrogates and asks his questions, which would be unfair. It is just quite interesting to me that the judge gets to know the case before it hits the courtroom. I would be quite interested to hear the opinions of several judges and lawyers from both Hungarian Court and American Court systems.

Our wise friend Dr. Peter Hack. Thank you google images for capturing his intelligence in a photo. 

Overall, I learned so much in this hour and a half. I have interests all over the place in the justice field, whether it be law school to the FBI. Regardless, every time I meet someone with such merit in a field, who loves their job and loves to share what they do, it brings me one step closer to learning more about what will fit for me. I am very appreciative to have had a chance to hear from Dr. Peter Hack.