Romanoffia for Justice

Greetings!

I am presiding over a case right now that I would like to see out until the end. The current justices are also working out how to reform certain aspects of the court procedure to make the handling and processing of cases go more efficiently. I would like to continue in my part in making that happen.

That said, I actually enjoy being a justice. It's a lot more involved that a lot of other government positions and requires a great deal of attention to detail. And besides, it keeps me busy here. One of the most difficult tasks is keeping one's opinions to one's self when they may conflict with a case or issue under consideration. Of course, those of you who know me know that for me to keep my mouth shut is a daunting task involving nearly super-human self restraint. That alone should be sufficient for you all to vote for me. Just think of it - Roman keeping his mouth shut for once!

At any rate, ask me any questions you want.

In ____ ________ _ailed the _____ ____.

What goes in the blanks?

Eluvatar:

In ____ ________ _ailed the _____ ____.

What goes in the blanks?

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what goes in the blanks, but the letters won't fit -

"Roman doesn't take any crap. You will get justice."

I support you.

Many thanks for your support, McM.

Hi Romanoffia!

I was wondering how you feel about the current broken justice system in TNP. What proposals or actions would you take to reform a justice system that takes our region's brightest legal minds and slowly grinds them into dust?

Ash:

Hi Romanoffia!

I was wondering how you feel about the current broken justice system in TNP. What proposals or actions would you take to reform a justice system that takes our region's brightest legal minds and slowly grinds them into dust?

Click to expand...

Love your turn of phrase "a justice system that takes our region's brightest legal minds and slowly grinds them into dust?". It about sums it up, I would wager to say.

The biggest and most basic problem is that the entire system, that is, the mechanics of the actual judicial process, is bogged down in the minutiae of the process itself. In other words, how a trial is conducted has become overly complex, with too many steps that result in the whole machine coming to a grinding halt. And the participants expire from boredom and frustration in trying to get anything done. It's gotten to the point that it takes just about as long to try a case as it does to try a case in RL. This leads to disgustingly long trials with too many built-in tools to make a long trial even longer. So long, in fact, that there can be one or more changes of Justices sitting on the case.

What needs to be done is simplify the process from beginning to end so that cases can be adjudicated quickly. This can be done without any constitutional issues as the Court can create its own rules as long as due process and fair trials can be delivered. I've been mulling over a number of ways that trials can be conducted entirely within the millennium in which it started. Perhaps as quickly as two weeks or less. It's the process of the actual trial that causes 99.44% of the delay. And that is really what needs to be fixed.

Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing trimmed down a bit to something like this:

1.) The Prosecutor presents the charges.

2.) The Prosecution presents its case.

3.) The Defense presents its case.

4.) Prosecution rebuts; Defense rebuts.

5.) The Presiding Justice renders a decision in the form of a judgment or dismisses the case with or without prejudice.

6.) An appeal based upon the 'transcripts' would be made by all three Justices, and an appeal must have a specific set of rational reasons for requesting that appeal.

I'm also sure that if a few of us put our brains together, we can come up with an even more simple and timely means of conducting trials.

I firmly believe in adjudicating cases based upon evidence and not legalistic arguments concerning procedure or who forgot to dot and "i" or cross a "t". I also firmly believe that cases need to be adjudicated primarily upon the merits of the case and any mitigating circumstances.

What role should "evidence" play in the trial process?

How long do you think should be allowed for the presentation of evidence and the deposition of witnesses?

Your 6 step process doesn't mention these two things and they both seem critically important to the trial process.

mcmasterdonia:

What role should "evidence" play in the trial process?

How long do you think should be allowed for the presentation of evidence and the deposition of witnesses?

Your 6 step process doesn't mention these two things and they both seem critically important to the trial process.

Click to expand...

Aye, there's the rub. We need to determine the time spans allowed for each step.

Evidence plays the ultimate in the trial process, of course. Primarily, it is presumed that the Prosecution has sufficient evidence to prosecute in the first place.

Deposition of witnesses largely consists of providing information to the Prosecutor and Defense Council so that they do not violate the prime directive that 'one never asks a question for which one does not already know the answer". If Prosecutors and Defense Councils paid attention to that one little rule, trials would go a hell of a lot quicker.

It would be presumed that depositions would have been taken prior to and in response to steps one and two. The problem is that in the context of TNP, we cannot entirely base our court procedure upon RL court and legal procedure or trials could last for years (or nearly so as history has shown, or hath shewn as you like). If you wanted to follow the RL procedure one would presumably have to hold trials in real time on IRC (for example) and that would lead to major confuddlment and even more delay.

The trouble with our system of justice in TNP is, as Flemingovia also earlier expressed, is that trying to translate RL legal processes into the context of TNP is inviting a lot of clusterf*ckery and unnecessary complexity to an already complex system. We also tend to try to 'burn the witch' rather than resolve the problem.

Evidentiary rules are independent of court procedure, per se and are dictated by logic and reason.

Thank you for your answer

You're welcome.