grundlinien.de

224

Just as the public promulgation of the laws falls under the rights of subjective consciousness (§ 215), so too does the possibility of knowing the actualization of the law in the particular case — namely, the course of external actions, of legal grounds, and so on — since this course is, in itself, a universally valid history, and, while the case, according to its particular content, concerns only the interest of the parties, its universal content, the right within it, and its decision, concern the interest of all — the publicity of the administration of justice.

Deliberations among the members of the court, among themselves, concerning the judgment to be rendered, are expressions of still particular opinions and views, and are thus, by their nature, nothing public.

DE ES

Comments

2 responses to “224”

  1. Eduard Gans (Additions) Avatar
    Eduard Gans (Additions)

    The publicity of the administration of justice is demanded by the plain sense that people have for what is right and correct. A great reason against it has always been the exclusiveness of the lords of the court, who do not wish to show themselves to everyone and who regard themselves as guardians of a right into which laymen ought not to intrude. But it belongs to right, in particular, that the citizens have confidence in it, and it is this aspect that demands the publicity of adjudication. The right to publicity rests on the fact that the purpose of the court is right, which, as something universal, also belongs before the universality; but then also on the fact that the citizens gain the conviction that right is truly being spoken.

  2. Hegel (Simple) Avatar
    Hegel (Simple)

    § 224: Courts are public

    Everyone must be able to know the laws. We already know that. In the same way, people must be able to know how the court applies a law in the single case.

    Why?

    The single case concerns only the parties. But it is about right. And right concerns everyone. So hearings in court are public.

    What speaks against it?

    In the past, mainly the pride of the judges. They did not want to show themselves to everyone. They saw themselves as guardians of a right that no layman should enter.

    What speaks for it?

    Common sense. The trust of the citizens belongs to right. They should be able to see for themselves that the courts really do justice.

    A limit:

    When the judges discuss the case among themselves, they still voice their own opinions. So this discussion is not public. The procedure and the judgment are public.

    Summary: Right concerns everyone. So hearings are public. Only the discussion of the judges stays among them.

Leave a Reply