Pre-Trial Ejections

r3naissanc3r:
punk d:
It does the exact opposite for Court procedures, however.
Click to expand...

This bill eliminates the structure within the legal code for criminal procedures meaning the RA gives up what little rules around criminal procedures that were in this bill.

That seems entirely antithetical to what you're trying to accomplish with the delegate and banjecting.
Click to expand...
Procedural matters like how much time a defendant has to enter a plea or how long discovery period lasts are best left to the court rules. That's why we have them after all. Furthermore, the current court rules already adequately cover these issues.

I think that change is very straightforward, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Click to expand...
I think the details being left to the court are fine, but I do/did like the wording of the present/soon-to-be-past law.

As I said, if the court wants to restructure oversight within this area, I find it hypocritical that the court would seek to remove what procedural oversight does exist within the legal code. It's like saying that to your friend to watch her weight as you stuff a couple of bon-bons into your mouth.

Doesn't pass the sniff test to me, and further I thought that provision was necessary especially the part about plea timing/defaults.

Consider with the removal of the following:

Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
Click to expand...

this means the court can create a procedure wherein if a defendant does not show or refuses to enter a plea, the court procedures could call for a plea of "Guilty" to be issued. Not saying this court will or has thought of doing so, but I am saying that removing this section of the legal code is not trivial.
 
Given that such an action would be blatantly against the Bill of Rights ("In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence"), I cannot imagine a Court ever doing so, nor failing to be recalled if it tried.

Edit: And like I said before, that particular section of the legal code has been interpreted as only having legal weight when the defendant is preemptively removed from the RA or region. If there is concern that the Court might decide that the default plea is Guilty, that concern exists regardless of whether that section is in force or not.
 
No, b/c as you said in the other thread, if the justices are RA members :P and they break the law - in this case, the section about to be removed - it constitutes a criminal act.

The thing is you're making excuses to remove the oversight on the court and yet proposing more oversight of the delegate in this case. Can I get an H followed by y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?
 
You could try, except that's a silly accusation when I've said I'm not opposed to RA oversight on the Court. It's just that this section doesn't provide that, and this bill isn't addressing that issue.

Removing this section of the law doesn't remove the ability to prosecute justices for imposing guilty pleas, since that is covered by the bill of rights. Moreover, keeping it doesn't add the ability to prosecute it, because the Court has (apparently always) interpreted that section as not applying as a general rule, so prosecution for violating it is a highly restricted case.
 
SillyString:
You could try, except that's a silly accusation when I've said I'm not opposed to RA oversight on the Court. It's just that this section doesn't provide that, and this bill isn't addressing that issue.

Removing this section of the law doesn't remove the ability to prosecute justices for imposing guilty pleas, since that is covered by the bill of rights. Moreover, keeping it doesn't add the ability to prosecute it, because the Court has (apparently always) interpreted that section as not applying as a general rule, so prosecution for violating it is a highly restricted case.
Click to expand...
Saying that something doesn't do something when it does is a cool trick. I should try it sometime.

The RA legislated this section of the Legal Code. Do you agree that as far as criminal acts go, the court cannot make procedures today that run afoul of this legislation?

In other words, today the court cannot enter a plea of guilty for a defendant who doesn't show up to court?


I'm going to assume you agree with that. That's legislated oversight of court procedures. Your bill removes the legislative oversight and your attempts to say that it doesn't are laughable.

For instance you said:
Moreover, keeping it doesn't add the ability to prosecute it, because the Court has (apparently always) interpreted that section as not applying as a general rule, so prosecution for violating it is a highly restricted case.
Click to expand...

I interpret this as you saying that the court does not care to follow this section of the law and hasn't. That's kinda like the court making up the rules itself beyond the legislative overisght actually written in this bill, no?

You're kinda making my point that this is oversight and if your suggestion is that courts have ignored this section, then in my mind it is something we need additional, not less, involvement in to ensure that the court follows - at least from a high level - protocols that are in step with the spirit of what the RA desires. The answer is not to remove the RA legislated rules.
 
punk d:
Do you agree that as far as criminal acts go, the court cannot make procedures today that run afoul of this legislation?
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree.

That is to say, I agree with the statement but we are not in an understanding about the scope of this legislation. The Court already has rules which violate this section of the Legal Code, if one takes the position that this section of the Legal Code applies to all trials. This violation is not recent - it goes back at least two years, and probably longer, and it is a necessary violation in order to actually allow for a fair trial in which all parties can participate to the greatest extent.

But I don't agree with that interpretation, and I'm not alone. No Court - including ones you served on - has interpreted this section as applying to all trials, because it provides exactly zero leeway for adjustment. "Oh, sorry, your power went out and you can't get online to find an attorney? Tough luck." "Oh, sorry, your dad died and you need a couple weeks to make funeral arrangements? We're continuing this trial without you, no delays allowed." It is necessary for the Adopted Court Rules to reject this approach - our trials are already problematic enough, but they'd be truly outrageous if they could not offer any flexibility.

In other words, today the court cannot enter a plea of guilty for a defendant who doesn't show up to court?
Click to expand...
The Court is unable to do this because the Bill of Rights prohibits it, and because the Adopted Court Rules do not allow for it. This section of the legal code does not come into effect until and unless the defendant has been removed from the region and/or the RA prior to their trial, at which point it is merely a third impediment to the Court doing so.

You're kinda making my point that this is oversight and if your suggestion is that courts have ignored this section, then in my mind it is something we need additional, not less, involvement in to ensure that the court follows - at least from a high level - protocols that are in step with the spirit of what the RA desires. The answer is not to remove the RA legislated rules.
Click to expand...
Again, I am not and never have been opposed to RA oversight of the Court. However, such oversight is not and never has been provided by this section, and as such removing this section is not a reduction in oversight. Fixing oversight is outside the scope of this bill.
 
Oh beloved Speaker, might you be willing to change the title of the Voting thread for this matter to "Pre-Trial Ejections Bill"? I think that is a clearer name than the existing one. :)
 
Hmmm, I just can't figure out why I haven't enjoyed RA discussions of late. I'm usually very enthused by over-complicating simple ideas and seeing legislative boogeymen behind every sensible proposal. It must be a flair up of my TLDRitis...
 
I seem to recall punk making a similar prediction on a relatively innocuous bill a while back, but I can't remember it. I might be confusing him with Roman, who says something to that effect just about every time a bill passes that he didn't vote for...
 
I can be dramatic from time to time, but I try to not to make it too often - that loses the point of being dramatic.

...keeping with the theme...maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday the passage of this bill will come back and we will kick ourselves over it. If I'm wrong - and I hope I am - this won't even be a footnote in the history of TNP but just the rantings of an old fart passing gas.
 
I believe you made that prediction about the bill that removed the WA reporting requirement.

I don't personally see much ruing, a year out. :P
 
SillyString:
I believe you made that prediction about the bill that removed the WA reporting requirement.

I don't personally see much ruing, a year out. :P
Click to expand...
That's probably because you didn't agree with the positives of that bill to start with. :fish:
 
Sure, I'll readily admit that I never saw any benefit to that law being on the books. But I don't see any ruing now from any quarters. Not requiring people to list their WA nation hasn't made TNP any less safe or protected than we were a year ago.
 
Part of ruing the day is that it usually takes time for the ruing to take effect.

...it will happen!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top