COE for Justice

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
COE.png

For Justice
FOR GREAT JUSTICE
Composed. Objective. Equitable.​
Elect me and you'll get a justice who will stay active and do the job. Over the 10 months I've served as Speaker, I've become very familiar with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code of TNP. I will endeavor to be an asset to the bench and a loyal servant of justice and order in The North Pacific. Not everyone agrees with all the decisions I've made in the office of Speaker, but I think everyone would agree that my decisions are well thought out and reasonable.

In anticipation of certain questions:
  • As Justice, I would recuse myself appropriately. In particular, if legal questions arose regarding the discretionary policies of the Speaker's Office, I would be obliged to recuse myself, because I wrote most of them.
  • As Justice, I would abstain from authoring legislation and contributing substantively to debates about the constitutionality of proposed legislation, in case such legislation came under legal review.
  • I wouldn't mind serving as Chief Justice, and I think I would be good at it, but I will not actively seek the position.
If I am elected, I am confident that a suitable candidate will run for Speaker. In the interim, the Speaker's Office would remain in good hands. EDIT: I have resigned the office of Speaker. I am confident that a suitable candidate will run for Speaker. In the meantime, the office remains in the capable hands of Zyvetskistaahn.

I welcome your questions.
 
I feel as though if I asked you questions about how you would decide certain cases, it would resemble that of a Supreme Court nomination hearing before the United States Senate. Therefore, I will simply state that I believe you have sufficient command of the Constibillocode to make an excellent Justice of the Court, and I yield back the balance of my time. ;)
 
I am asking this question on behalf of a friend. An anonymous friend. Who wishes to stay anonymous.

What is your stance on including in your rulings an affirmation of Astarial as the rightful Empress of TNP?

My friend is very curious.
 
I would only see fit to include that in my rulings if the matter came under legal review, and the court saw fit to affirm such.
 
I think you will do well in this role.

Would adjusting the court rules be a part of your goal as a Justice?

Do you have anything else in mind that you would do to help streamline the court process?
 
McM, I will answer your question when I have a bit more time to go through the various pieces. This one I can handle tonight:
Iro:
Why do you want to leave the Speaker's office?
Click to expand...
I am proud of my work in the Speaker's Office, and I am proud of the deputies that I have had the pleasure of training over my time in office. I've been there for 10 months, and I feel that it will go on without me quite well - probably better for having some fresh blood in charge. In the meantime, I feel that I can better serve the region on the court.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Would adjusting the court rules be a part of your goal as a Justice?

Do you have anything else in mind that you would do to help streamline the court process?
Click to expand...
I think the court rules regarding trial procedures are pretty good, really. As they stand, a criminal trial may conclude as few as 20 days after an indictment is filed if the defendant is innocent, and as few as 22 if they are guilty. A civil trial can be over within 16 days of an indictment being filed. These are not unreasonable amounts of time, even if the odd extension here or there is allowed. I think the problem is that time limits are being carelessly disregarded, and trial threads are not being opened promptly. I understand everyone has lives, and that the fairness of a trial is more important than the length. When real life is getting crazy, I'm all for appropriate extensions. But real life isn't the only thing that delays trials - sometimes it's just people not paying attention, or not caring enough to put the effort in.

I do think the court ought to have a brief set of rules regarding requests for review, if for no other reason than to set a standard time table for them. I think the court will find that it's a lot easier to get everyone's input and reach a decision when there's a deadline to meet.

Also, the evidentiary rules are probably more complex than they need to be. I think it would be a good idea to go through them and decide what clauses are really necessary, and what ought to be left to the discretion of the moderating justice. I don't think the risk of mistrial would increase substantially if our evidentiary rules were considerably simplified. Some RL attorneys might bristle a bit, but it might level the playing field a bit for our non-lawyer players to have our standards of evidence not be quite so strict.
 
Hi COE! :hello:

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, your question seems very similar to McM's - would you mind being a bit more specific? What aspects of your question are not satisfied by my previous post?
 
It is going to be very strange seeing your name the colour of a Court Justice and not Speaker of the RA. But having read over this thread, and having seen you in action over your service as Speaker, I'm confident that there is no one better to begin fixing TNP's damaged justice system.
 
Honestly, I was asking this question to all the candidates for Justice in the interest of fairness and impartiality. Your previous response to McMasterdonia's questions largely answers my question. I especially appreciate your comment regarding time limits for trials. Have you had a chance to read this thread, and do you have any comments regarding the potential reforms brought up by Flemingovia and Romanoffia?
 
I think the process that Roman suggests in that thread is a little *too* streamlined, and might sacrifice the fairness of a trial for expediency. It doesn't allow time to gather evidence, which is a key point of any fair judicial system. If we simply allow the prosecution and defense to make their case without evidence, then the court will be in the awkward position of just deciding whose word to take, without really *knowing* any of the facts, just going off of the claims of the various parties. That's no way to run a trial, even if it only takes a week.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
mcmasterdonia:
Would adjusting the court rules be a part of your goal as a Justice?

Do you have anything else in mind that you would do to help streamline the court process?
Click to expand...
I think the court rules regarding trial procedures are pretty good, really. As they stand, a criminal trial may conclude as few as 20 days after an indictment is filed if the defendant is innocent, and as few as 22 if they are guilty. A civil trial can be over within 16 days of an indictment being filed. These are not unreasonable amounts of time, even if the odd extension here or there is allowed. I think the problem is that time limits are being carelessly disregarded, and trial threads are not being opened promptly. I understand everyone has lives, and that the fairness of a trial is more important than the length. When real life is getting crazy, I'm all for appropriate extensions. But real life isn't the only thing that delays trials - sometimes it's just people not paying attention, or not caring enough to put the effort in.

I do think the court ought to have a brief set of rules regarding requests for review, if for no other reason than to set a standard time table for them. I think the court will find that it's a lot easier to get everyone's input and reach a decision when there's a deadline to meet.

Also, the evidentiary rules are probably more complex than they need to be. I think it would be a good idea to go through them and decide what clauses are really necessary, and what ought to be left to the discretion of the moderating justice. I don't think the risk of mistrial would increase substantially if our evidentiary rules were considerably simplified. Some RL attorneys might bristle a bit, but it might level the playing field a bit for our non-lawyer players to have our standards of evidence not be quite so strict.
Click to expand...

I regret that I have but one vote to give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top