Harry Potter and the Due Process Clause
Don’t worry, no spoilers here.
I stayed up way past my bedtime last night finishing the final Harry Potter book. I found it very satisfying. But this is a law blog, and I am a geeky law professor, so the phenomenon I will note is how extensively these books develop the theme of procedural fairness — a marvelous lesson for the children who are its target audience.
Time and again throughout the series, the Ministry of Magic that rules wizards in England falls far short of what we would consider the minimum of due process. There are repeated sham hearings that have the trappings of even-handed court proceedings, but they are rigged and hollow. In an earlier book (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, also the movie currently playing in theaters), Harry himself is accused of an infraction against wizarding rules; the Minister abruptly changes the time for his hearing before the Wizengamot — a sort of legislature with judicial functions, it seems — hoping that Harry’s principal advocate, the wise Albus Dumbledore, will miss it. The same phenomenon happens constantly at Hogwarts, the wizarding school. Various teachers and headmasters make arbitrary and capricious decisions and issue unjust punishments.
Sometimes this sort of unfairness is perpetrated by the clear bad guys, the evil followers of the story’s villain, Voldemort. More often, however, leaders of the Ministry of Magic or of Hogwarts are simply acting bureaucratically. They may not support Voldemort at all, but they treasure form over substance and obedience to the letter of the rules rather than any adherence to its spirit. Most of all they seek to preserve their own power against perceived threats — often petty threats far less serious than the real dangers posed by Voldemort’s followers. The fact that there is an official hearing, an examination of witnesses, and a vote provides no guarantee of substantial fairness.
Early in the first semester of my civil procedure course I plan to have the students read the classic procedural due process cases (Goldberg and Mathews) and think about the attributes that do — and should — constitute fair procedure. I think I will use the Harry Potter books as an example.
Filed under: Law School, Media, civil procedure
Bill, have you seen the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated? The appeals process by which a filmmaker can challenge a rating assigned by the MPAA ratings board is shown to be very much the same sort of kangaroo court (and unfortunately, it’s not fictional) — there are “hearings” where “evidence” is presented followed by a “vote,” but the whole thing is essentially pro forma, and the parties aren’t allowed to present seemingly relevant evidence (such as the ratings assigned to prior films with comparable content). It very much makes your point about procedural versus substantive fair play.
Bill, what I like about this example is the emotions associated with abuse of legal process in the Harry Potter books. It’s very clear how unfair and hurtful the abscence of due process is to Harry and his friends – I think it’s an excellent way to take why can be a somewhat dry and abstract topic and make it quite visceral for an audience.
Ethan:
You’re absolutely right — and the phony hearings are offensive not just because of their outcomes, but also because of the sense of hypocricy and mistreatment involved just in the hearings themselves. Unfair process is an injury in itself.
But of course nothing in civil procedure is ever dry or abstract — once you’ve found the right examples to teach it properly!
I am a Brazilian law teacher and I totally agree with your point of view. Sometimes fictional works can be a good entry to teach these subjects.
Thats an interesting assesment. Its one I have truley never thought about before. Due Process started all but dissapearing as the series progressed. I think it more shows the way any government’s rules are easily bended by its elite when there is a perceived security threat.