Piscivore for Justice

[Piscivore]

How's it going? My name is Piscivore, but you probably knew that already.

You know, we're a few days into this campaign, and so far it's going great.
In fact, I don't know why they call it a cam-pain. Because up until now, it's been a cam-pleasure.
I want to be your next TNP Justice. I need something to do to get my dad off my back.
I'm against crime, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I want it.

Come on.

Give me it.
Give me it.
Give me it.

Come on.
Give me it.

Just give me the election.

 

[Syrixia]

Daaaamn, you looked cooler than I thought. XD. Good luck, Mr. Schwarzenegger.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Thank you for being willing to stand for one of the most thankless jobs here in TNP.

I have a couple of questions (that I will be posing to all Justice candidates):

1. What is your legal opinion of the last criminal trial held before the Court?
2. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you agree with?
3. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you disagree with?

Thank you.

Extra points for the Parks and Rec reference but I'm not sure if you have my vote.

 

[Piscivore]

1. What is your legal opinion of the last criminal trial held before the Court?

I believe the decision was incorrect. Even speaking as an enthusiastic supporter of "free speech", it is nevertheless unworkable for speech to be completely unfettered, even in the freest of organizations. Placing a restriction that joining a group or taking an office that one agree to stop publically badmouthing said group or office is not unreasonable, unfair, or burdensome upon an individual; such restrictions are commonplace among armies, companies, and organizations across the world. Indeed, if one harbors such strong feelings against said group or office that one is unwilling or unable to refrain from continued overt public criticism, it brings into question their motivations for joining.

2. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you agree with?

I think the letter of the law was followed, as the justices presiding saw it.

3. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you disagree with?

Ironically, in a free speech trial, the opportunity for the defense to speak was abrogated by a unnecessary and arbitrary deadline. Especially since accusations of coercion surfaced that eventually caused the resignation of the serving delegate, the defendant.

Should have been a mistrial, at the very least.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

1. What is your legal opinion of the last criminal trial held before the Court?

I believe the decision was incorrect. Even speaking as an enthusiastic supporter of "free speech", it is nevertheless unworkable for speech to be completely unfettered, even in the freest of organizations. Placing a restriction that joining a group or taking an office that one agree to stop publically badmouthing said group or office is not unreasonable, unfair, or burdensome upon an individual; such restrictions are commonplace among armies, companies, and organizations across the world. Indeed, if one harbors such strong feelings against said group or office that one is unwilling or unable to refrain from continued overt public criticism, it brings into question their motivations for joining.

2. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you agree with?

I think the letter of the law was followed, as the justices presiding saw it.

3. What is (at least) one thing from the ruling and/or process that you disagree with?

Ironically, in a free speech trial, the opportunity for the defense to speak was abrogated by a unnecessary and arbitrary deadline. Especially since accusations of coercion surfaced that eventually caused the resignation of the serving delegate, the defendant.

Should have been a mistrial, at the very least.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

A followup, if you will: If the letter of the law was followed then how was the judgement incorrect, in your opinion?

Also, do you not support the concept of Court Rules? Just curious because you outlined the deadlines as arbitrary and unnecessary.

 

[Piscivore]

A followup, if you will: If the letter of the law was followed then how was the judgement incorrect, in your opinion?

Also, do you not support the concept of Court Rules? Just curious because you outlined the deadlines as arbitrary and unnecessary.

The reason we need judges is because the law is not infallible nor is it prescient. Justice demands that the law be interpreted according to the situation at hand, not followed slavishly.

I have a similar view towards rules; they can get in the way of justice and fairness as much as they help facilitate them.

 

[SillyString]

A followup question based on the trial under discussion, though with hypothetical details:

If you were the moderating justice in a trial where the defendant entered a plea of not guilty but did not appoint a defense attorney and did not post after their initial plea in the trial thread, despite posting actively in other areas of the board (RP, RA, or what have you), and did not respond to any PMs about the trial but responded to ones about other matters, what would you do, or recommend that the full court do?

 

[Piscivore]

A followup question based on the trial under discussion, though with hypothetical details:

If you were the moderating justice in a trial where the defendant entered a plea of not guilty but did not appoint a defense attorney and did not post after their initial plea in the trial thread, despite posting actively in other areas of the board (RP, RA, or what have you), and did not respond to any PMs about the trial but responded to ones about other matters, what would you do, or recommend that the full court do?

I'm not a fan of hypotheticals, but in such a case I believe the best way to proceed is not to impose deadlines or ultimatums, but to reach out to the individual in an unofficial, personal level and seek to find out what the issue was.

Adversarial, confrontational treatment usually further shuts people down, it rarely convinces them to open up. I feel that ultimatums and time limits may also seem like threats, which may compromise the court's appearance of impartiality.

Not to impugn the court's or Plemb's integrity in any way, but when I read that case I get the unsettling impression that the verdict was foreordained and judgment was rushed to; I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's how it looks.

I want to expand on this further, because I'm not sure I'm saying what I want to get across; I understand the court's time in not unlimited, but what concerns me is that nowhere in any of the proceedings was any challenge to the prosecutions narrative offered, and I don't believe the responsibility to do so lies solely with the defense; justices are interpreters of the law, not slaves of it. It is the court's responsibility not only to determine if a law was broken, but if the law itself in the specific case is just or not. In this case, the judge seemed to be at the service of the AG.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

The presentation of defense is solely within the realm of the defense by definition. I can think of no system in which the prosecution is obligated to present the defendant's point of view. The ability to hold a trial in absentia is for this very reason.

At present, I can see no reason to support your candidacy personally. However, I wish you luck with your campaign.

 

[SillyString]

I'm not a fan of hypotheticals, but in such a case I believe the best way to proceed is not to impose deadlines or ultimatums, but to reach out to the individual in an unofficial, personal level and seek to find out what the issue was.

But again, suppose that no response were forthcoming on that question, regardless of the message(s) that were sent, while ones on other topics were answered promptly. Suppose the defendant were completely incommunicado about their trial in every imaginable way, and in a manner that is obviously deliberate.

How should the court approach the trial?

 

[Piscivore]

I'm not a fan of hypotheticals, but in such a case I believe the best way to proceed is not to impose deadlines or ultimatums, but to reach out to the individual in an unofficial, personal level and seek to find out what the issue was.

But again, suppose that no response were forthcoming on that question, regardless of the message(s) that were sent, while ones on other topics were answered promptly. Suppose the defendant were completely incommunicado about their trial in every imaginable way, and in a manner that is obviously deliberate.

How should the court approach the trial?

This is what I don't like about hypotheticals; one can keep warping the premises until the answer matches what the question is intended to elicit. If you are asking if there is ever a time when I would set a deadline or allow a trial to proceed without a defense being presented, yeah, probably. I'm not omniscient; I don't know what circumstances may present that's why I hesitate to make concrete statements of what I would do "if X".

In the Tomb case, He stated he would be making a defense, appointed a defender, then just went silent; that's some shady shit. As a judge, I'd need to know why that happened. On top of that, the AG was clearly coaching the judge on how to run the trial. Were I a defendant, that would make the proceedings appear biased to me.

 

[Grimalkin]

So just to follow up with some of your statements, and please forgive as I know very little of the actual case aside from basics, but I hope to gain a better understanding of your philosophy through these questions.

You talk about the defendant going inactive after having appointed a defender, doesn't the chosen defender have implicit authority to act completely on the behalf of the defendant when dealing with the court (minus testifying and depositions of course)?

And again, please pardon my ignorance here as I'm well aware that this certainly could have been the case, but as far the appearance of bias, wouldn't part of that fall on the appointed defender for failing to act appropriately to prevent that (ie motions, objections)?

 

[Piscivore]

So just to follow up with some of your statements, and please forgive as I know very little of the actual case aside from basics, but I hope to gain a better understanding of your philosophy through these questions.

You talk about the defendant going inactive after having appointed a defender, doesn't the chosen defender have implicit authority to act completely on the behalf of the defendant when dealing with the court (minus testifying and depositions of course)?

And again, please pardon my ignorance here as I'm well aware that this certainly could have been the case, but as far the appearance of bias, wouldn't part of that fall on the appointed defender for failing to act appropriately to prevent that (ie motions, objections)?

That's one of the things I found fishy about the whole thing. I didn't follow it as it happened, just read it after, but it sure sounds like something fishy went on somewhere and I find it somewhat disturbing that the official record shows the court to be incurious about that.

 

[Grimalkin]

Allow me to rephrase, then.

1) In your opinion, does a defender chosen by the defendant have implicit authority to act completely on the behalf of the defendant when dealing with the court?

2) Does the prosecution bear all responsibility when the defense fails to act accordingly to combat perceived bias?

 

[Piscivore]

Allow me to rephrase, then.

1) In your opinion, does a defender chosen by the defendant have implicit authority to act completely on the behalf of the defendant when dealing with the court?

2) Does the prosecution bear all responsibility when the defense fails to act accordingly to combat perceived bias?

1) Why would they not?

2) No, that responsibility falls on the court.

 

[Grimalkin]

In the Tomb case, He stated he would be making a defense, appointed a defender, then just went silent; that's some shady shit. As a judge, I'd need to know why that happened.

That's one of the things I found fishy about the whole thing.

Why would they not?

Your posts seem to suggest that a defendant "disappearing" while his case is being managed by his defense team is somehow shady or suspicious. What need does the defendant have to appear when his defense team is supposed to be managing the case?

Having reviewed the case, a better question would be, "where did the defense team go?"

 

[Piscivore]

In the Tomb case, He stated he would be making a defense, appointed a defender, then just went silent; that's some shady shit. As a judge, I'd need to know why that happened.

That's one of the things I found fishy about the whole thing.

Why would they not?

Your posts seem to suggest that a defendant "disappearing" while his case is being managed by his defense team is somehow shady or suspicious. What need does the defendant have to appear when his defense team is supposed to be managing the case?

Having reviewed the case, a better question would be, "where did the defense team go?"

I was concerned by the lot of them. When I referred to "the defense" I meant the defendant and his team.