Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
We need some serious revisions of the Court Rules that can be accomplished in the next month before the end of this term or it may never happen.
My suggestion is we start with Flemingovia's questions:
My comments on the points Flemingovia put forth:
1.) "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?"
A 'restorative' function is more appropriate. If we are to take an objective approach in meeting out justice, we should meet out punishments for guilty verdicts that encourage the convicted to continue in this region, not flee to somewhere else. We do not want to drive away people who are capable of truly contributing to the region. We want to keep people here in TNP, not drive them away except in rate instances when the transgression is so grievous that we would have no other choice.
That said, laws should be interpreted in an objective, rational and logical way that preserves, rather than limits, the rights of the individual. Now here is where it might get a bit controversial. I am of the opinion that laws should be objective and should be enforced with objective goals in mind. That means that the rights of the individual should not be sacrificed for 'the common good'. The object of laws should be to preserve individual freedoms and not turn an individual into a sacrificial animal. Punishments should reflect that objective goal.
2.) "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?"
The answer is that it should take as long as it takes in order to render objective justice, but not allowed to drag on for more than a week or so. This would require the parties to a legal action to make sure they have all their ducks in a row before charges are even filed. My idea of a proper time for a trial is 10 days, tops, with leniency granted to favor the defense. The Prosecution should have its case ready to go from day one. The Defense should have an appropriate time to gather evidence to counter the charges. The Defendant should always be presumed innocent. If the Prosecution presents an indictment that is not sufficient to warrant a trial, the case should be dismissed without delay.
3.) "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?
Easy to accomplish.
In a trial, all you need is:
1.) The Prosecution presents its indictment. It is either accepted or rejected by the court. If accepted,
2.) The Defense prepares its defense.
3.) Prosecution presents its case; Defense presents its case; Arguments follow. Prosecution first, Defense second.
4.) Court renders its decision as quickly as possible; in the event of a conviction, an additional penalty phase is added.
The problem we have is not in the legalese of the arguments presented or the arguments presented in the interpretation of a given law, but in people contorting to skirt around the law. This latter issue is the fault of the tenor of a given court and its justices.
Now, if we really want to make things simple, we take a Civil or Fiqh approach to a case:
1.) Judge asks the Prosecution/Plaintiff, "What happened and why do you think you were wronged and what is your basis in the Law?"
2.) Judge asks the Defense, "How do you respond to this?" The Defense can respond or not, but that is largely immaterial if the charges don't hold water. A refusal to testify cannot be construed as an admission of guilt.
3.) Judge can ask questions at any time in the proceedings or after all testimony is given to clarify the evidence.
4.) Judges says after both parties have spoken and any questions by the Court have been satisfied, "I've heard enough, I'll hand down a decision in 24 hours."
All this 'Discovery' crap is way beyond the pale because we do not need this in the context of RP. Most of the procedure is just an imitation of RL that is not needed nor desired. And to solve the problem of the 'Common Law' issue as a basis of legal reasoning, we just let the Justices base their conclusion on the TNP Constitution, Legal Code, and their own objective sense (By 'objective' I mean what is their logical conclusion based upon their own experience and knowledge - not how they 'feel' about an issue).
Any thoughts on this?
My suggestion is we start with Flemingovia's questions:
My comments on the points Flemingovia put forth:
1.) "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?"
A 'restorative' function is more appropriate. If we are to take an objective approach in meeting out justice, we should meet out punishments for guilty verdicts that encourage the convicted to continue in this region, not flee to somewhere else. We do not want to drive away people who are capable of truly contributing to the region. We want to keep people here in TNP, not drive them away except in rate instances when the transgression is so grievous that we would have no other choice.
That said, laws should be interpreted in an objective, rational and logical way that preserves, rather than limits, the rights of the individual. Now here is where it might get a bit controversial. I am of the opinion that laws should be objective and should be enforced with objective goals in mind. That means that the rights of the individual should not be sacrificed for 'the common good'. The object of laws should be to preserve individual freedoms and not turn an individual into a sacrificial animal. Punishments should reflect that objective goal.
2.) "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?"
The answer is that it should take as long as it takes in order to render objective justice, but not allowed to drag on for more than a week or so. This would require the parties to a legal action to make sure they have all their ducks in a row before charges are even filed. My idea of a proper time for a trial is 10 days, tops, with leniency granted to favor the defense. The Prosecution should have its case ready to go from day one. The Defense should have an appropriate time to gather evidence to counter the charges. The Defendant should always be presumed innocent. If the Prosecution presents an indictment that is not sufficient to warrant a trial, the case should be dismissed without delay.
3.) "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?
Easy to accomplish.
In a trial, all you need is:
1.) The Prosecution presents its indictment. It is either accepted or rejected by the court. If accepted,
2.) The Defense prepares its defense.
3.) Prosecution presents its case; Defense presents its case; Arguments follow. Prosecution first, Defense second.
4.) Court renders its decision as quickly as possible; in the event of a conviction, an additional penalty phase is added.
The problem we have is not in the legalese of the arguments presented or the arguments presented in the interpretation of a given law, but in people contorting to skirt around the law. This latter issue is the fault of the tenor of a given court and its justices.
Now, if we really want to make things simple, we take a Civil or Fiqh approach to a case:
1.) Judge asks the Prosecution/Plaintiff, "What happened and why do you think you were wronged and what is your basis in the Law?"
2.) Judge asks the Defense, "How do you respond to this?" The Defense can respond or not, but that is largely immaterial if the charges don't hold water. A refusal to testify cannot be construed as an admission of guilt.
3.) Judge can ask questions at any time in the proceedings or after all testimony is given to clarify the evidence.
4.) Judges says after both parties have spoken and any questions by the Court have been satisfied, "I've heard enough, I'll hand down a decision in 24 hours."
All this 'Discovery' crap is way beyond the pale because we do not need this in the context of RP. Most of the procedure is just an imitation of RL that is not needed nor desired. And to solve the problem of the 'Common Law' issue as a basis of legal reasoning, we just let the Justices base their conclusion on the TNP Constitution, Legal Code, and their own objective sense (By 'objective' I mean what is their logical conclusion based upon their own experience and knowledge - not how they 'feel' about an issue).
Any thoughts on this?