*waves*
So, my platform. Where to begin?
Well, we seem to have been suffering a problem of Attorney General burnout. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but the one I suspect is the primary cause is a simple one; workload/difficulties. The AG's office can be a rather overwhelming job when major judicial matters arise, with the total amount of time and effort needing putting into preparing each case being significant. This is hard enough when the AG is familiar with the matter a complaint relates to, but when they are not? I welcome you to try tracking down various IRC logs/screenshots/threads etc to detail exactly what happened, and then try and construct that into a concise and coherent case. Then you have to go through the process of actually gathering the needed testimony, certifying the evidence, presenting the case.... it's a lot of work, and a fairly unforgiving job. It's certainly not a process helped by the fact that the AG lacks any powers to do their job and is reliant on people being willing to hand over evidence of their own free will. Doing that once can be near impossible; when you are expected to do it for all criminal matters it is overwhelming - especially when you have multiple cases at one time - and naturally leads to fatigue.
So, why on earth would I want to do such a shitty job? Short answer; I don't. The AG serves as Chief Prosecutor in TNP - a slight case of misnaming - but if elected I intend to operate in terms of an IRL AG. I do not, except in exceptional circumstances, intend to 'set foot' in the Court room as part of a trial. An AG oversee's judicial proceedings, but is not personally responsible or involved in most of them.
Instead, I will evaluate all complaints the office receives and determine their seriousness and viability, conducting a preliminary investigation to ascertain the broad facts of the matter. I will then make a determination regarding;
Only once I have done this, and should a viable case exist and no settlement be reached, will I seek a prosecutor for the matter. Ideally it would be someone with a great degree of familiarity with the case; often the complainant would be the ideal individual. I will then give them assistance, legally as well as administratively, whilst avoiding direct involvement in the trial myself.
What are the benefits of this? Well, to start I think it's a more viable process. Having one person taking the lead on all judicial matters isn't working for us. Time to end that. Secondly, restoring the AG as a buffer between complaint and prosecution - rather than forcing us to prosecute every complaint - saves the judicial branch a huge amount of wasted time and effort. Thirdly, a firm emphasis on the viability of any prosecution - including charging a lesser offence rather than a more severe one we would have difficulty proving - is eminently sensible considering our historic issues with conviction. Finally, by making plea-bargains and our of court settlements a part of the standard process allows us to try and deal with matters in a more time and stress effective manner.
And that's pretty much it. The AG's office hasn't been working very well. Changing AG hasn't worked before; time to change we run the AG's office.
So, my platform. Where to begin?
Well, we seem to have been suffering a problem of Attorney General burnout. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but the one I suspect is the primary cause is a simple one; workload/difficulties. The AG's office can be a rather overwhelming job when major judicial matters arise, with the total amount of time and effort needing putting into preparing each case being significant. This is hard enough when the AG is familiar with the matter a complaint relates to, but when they are not? I welcome you to try tracking down various IRC logs/screenshots/threads etc to detail exactly what happened, and then try and construct that into a concise and coherent case. Then you have to go through the process of actually gathering the needed testimony, certifying the evidence, presenting the case.... it's a lot of work, and a fairly unforgiving job. It's certainly not a process helped by the fact that the AG lacks any powers to do their job and is reliant on people being willing to hand over evidence of their own free will. Doing that once can be near impossible; when you are expected to do it for all criminal matters it is overwhelming - especially when you have multiple cases at one time - and naturally leads to fatigue.
So, why on earth would I want to do such a shitty job? Short answer; I don't. The AG serves as Chief Prosecutor in TNP - a slight case of misnaming - but if elected I intend to operate in terms of an IRL AG. I do not, except in exceptional circumstances, intend to 'set foot' in the Court room as part of a trial. An AG oversee's judicial proceedings, but is not personally responsible or involved in most of them.
Instead, I will evaluate all complaints the office receives and determine their seriousness and viability, conducting a preliminary investigation to ascertain the broad facts of the matter. I will then make a determination regarding;
- Whether the law has been broken
- Whether the matter is sufficiently serious to merit prosecution
- If so, what charges can a viable prosecution be based upon
- Whether an out of court settlement can be achieved
Only once I have done this, and should a viable case exist and no settlement be reached, will I seek a prosecutor for the matter. Ideally it would be someone with a great degree of familiarity with the case; often the complainant would be the ideal individual. I will then give them assistance, legally as well as administratively, whilst avoiding direct involvement in the trial myself.
What are the benefits of this? Well, to start I think it's a more viable process. Having one person taking the lead on all judicial matters isn't working for us. Time to end that. Secondly, restoring the AG as a buffer between complaint and prosecution - rather than forcing us to prosecute every complaint - saves the judicial branch a huge amount of wasted time and effort. Thirdly, a firm emphasis on the viability of any prosecution - including charging a lesser offence rather than a more severe one we would have difficulty proving - is eminently sensible considering our historic issues with conviction. Finally, by making plea-bargains and our of court settlements a part of the standard process allows us to try and deal with matters in a more time and stress effective manner.
And that's pretty much it. The AG's office hasn't been working very well. Changing AG hasn't worked before; time to change we run the AG's office.
