Philosophy

It is quite hard to imagine that the unjust trial of Socrates took place in Athens. Athens portrayed itself as the bearer of democracy in the East, defender of justice and liberty against the Persian Empire. Yet, Socrates was indicted with false charges. The charges were false because they were both arbitrary and legally ambiguous. And yet, the Council of 500 proceeded with the trial. Socrates was condemned to drink the poison cup, administered by representatives of the Council.
   
In liberal democracies, justice is assumed to both impartial and apolitical. The idea of justice is fairly simple. An individual indicted with legally defined charges has the privilege of defense. The aggravated parties are obliged by the court of law to present evidences against the accused. The evidences presented by parties are examined ad weighted based on priority and urgency. The accuser either loses or wins the case. The political institutions are obliged to respect the decisions of the courts.
   
From an epistemological viewpoint, it is impossible to reach a state of perfect legal harmony because of the following 1) uncertainty of events leading to the charges, 2) human error in interpretation, and 3) inherent flaws in the system itself. In a democracy, the process of arriving at a just decision is dependent on the rigid nature of jurisprudence. Rigidity ensures that processes are properly maintained.
   
From an economic point of view, it is often the wealthy who receives the best legal minds  in short, the most likely to be acquitted. The poor, having nothing to spare, are often found guilty. This is true in most democracies. Democracy promotes economic and individual freedom. Consequently, wealth is a factor of legal power.
   
It is therefore impossible to establish a just system of jurisprudence in a democracy.