flemingovia:
Let’s think for a bit about basic principles. Some of these areas go beyond the purview of the court rules, but I think that if we are clear about what we are trying to achieve when a trial is undertaken, we will have a better idea as to what rules we need to achieve those goals:
One: What form of justice are we looking for in TNP? Should the function of the court be to see restorative justice or punitive? What penalties or punishments should the court impose on a guilty verdict?
Two: What is a reasonable and realistic time period that a trial should be concluded in, from the filing of charges to the delivery of a verdict?
Three: We all want to reduce the legalese and the complexity of our system. What is the irreducible minimum that needs to be included in a trial that is FAIR and WORKABLE?
1.) I think we need more of a restorative system of justice for everything except the most severe offenses like couping the region, etc, in which case punitive measures may be indicated.
In a restorative fashion, penalties should not be severe for run of the mill offenses, and such penalties should be restricted to some kind of "Community Service" (that is, require the 'convict' to do some kind of work on the forum or some task that needs to be done for which no one wants to do it), or perhaps requiring them to display a 'convict' badge and have reduced privileges on the board for a small amount of time. Something that isn't intended to drive someone away but rather something designed to correct behavior. Removal from office for officials who commit particularly nasty offenses, or even create a 'convict' group with certain posting restrictions. But nothing intended to drive people away unless it's Cathyy or IP.
2.) I'd like to see trials reduced to about two weeks to 16 days total time. Of course, this would mean that the AG would have to accumulate evidence through an investigation ahead of filing charges. 4 days for discovery, 4 days for defense to construct a defense, 4 days for arguments, and 4 days (if needed) for court deliberation and sentencing if a guilty verdict is obtained (it would seen that the court could deliberate and sentence in 4 days).
3.) I don't have much issue with legalese in terms of court arguments except when the contestants in a case don't quite understand the terms they use (although it can be entertaining when someone shoots themselves in the foot because they get their own argument turned around on them because they didn't quite understand the terms or principles they used). Where I despise legalese is in the actual rules and structure of a trial process.
What we need is a way of properly adjudicating non-criminal matters like slander/libel, etc., that doesn't rise to the level of being criminal.
Slander/Libel has been a big issue in TNP in the past (and present) but does not rise to the level of 'fraud' because it cannot be prosecuted fraud
per se for a number of reasons. And most of the cases the court gets has an element of slander/libel when it comes to charges of "fraud".
Fraud is an actual material criminal act with malice of forethought (
mens rea) and an actual act based upon that malice (
mens acta) and the burden of proof is upon the Prosecution because it is a criminal act in which guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, if we add a specific civil charge of slander/fraud to the legal code it greatly simplifies things.
I say, "you are planning to coup the region!"
That statement is not fraud and cannot be proved as such because my defense would be, "I firmly believe from what I see and have been told that it is true". Fraud, in the sense of TNP Law requires that I make that statement when I know it is false. If I truly believe that it is true, there is no 'willful deception' in the same way that if one believes in God but cannot prove God indeed exists and you cannot prove the non-existence of God because lack of evidence is not evidence of the non-existence of God. You cannot prove a negative.
However, if the offenses that are logically slander/libel are treated as an equity issue in which damages
could be or
have been incurred, the case would go like this:
I say, "you are planning to coup the region!"
You declare the statement to be false and therefore slanderous and file a civil complaint of slander/libel directly with the Court (not criminal, therefore not a matter for the AG).
Your simple justification simply has to be, "I am not planning to coup the region. The statement is false and I have been slandered/libeled" in order to justify slander/libel.
What happens here is thus.
I make a statement that is false and whether or not I believe it is immaterial in terms of slander/libel. You file a complaint of slander/libel. You present your evidence: "That statement is false". What then happens is the rare instance when the burden of proof shifts to the defendant in such a way that I must prove that you actually were planning to coup the region. If I cannot prove it, I am guilty of slander/libel. In that instance, it would become incumbent upon you and ultimately the court to make a decision as to whether or not that slander/libel was an element in a larger issue of 'fraud' and possibly kick the matter to the AG for criminal prosecution.
A lot of TNP criminal law deals with equity issues rather than criminal issues and the difference between the evidence required (sufficient evidence to remove all doubt of guilt versus preponderance of evidence between two litigating contestants). Fraud would be rigging an election by corruption in the Election Commission; Saying someone did something so as to cause them to lose an election would be slander/fraud and would be an equity matter and not a criminal matter.
Hence,
You stole my dog, I want him back, I file charges. You say, "I did not steal your dog. I do not have your dog". I then have to prove you stole my dog if it is a civil matter based upon preponderance of evidence and I therefore must prove you stole my dog. Burden of proof on me. If stealing a dog is a criminal offense, the AG only needs to produce irrefutable evidence to remove all doubt of guilt. In equity cases it is a matter of preponderance of evidence; in criminal it is a matter of absolute and irrefutable evidence. In a civil matter, not rising to criminal levels, it can be adjudicated in a Fiqh manner.
