A bill for RA review of court sentencing

[Kondratev]

The need for some measure of judicial reform was discussed on Discord for several hours yesterday. In consultation with members of the judicial branch, I believe many of us came to agreement in support of the RA's ability to review a court sentence. Not the verdict. This is not a bill that allows the RA to pardon those convicted of a crime.

This is my attempt at language for such a provision.

Section 3.4: Sentencing Review
18. The Regional Assembly will review all initial sentences handed down by the Court at the conclusion of a trial.
19. No sentence subject to review will be carried out before the Regional Assembly completes its review.
20. The Speaker will hold a poll on the sentence which will remain open for seven days.
21. Acceptable choices in the poll will be to “uphold” the sentence, to say the sentence is “too harsh,” and to say the sentence is “too lenient.”
22. One option must have a majority of the votes for a review to be actionable.
23. The Court's initial sentence will be upheld if the review is not actionable.
24. If a sentence is deemed either “too harsh” or “too lenient” by the Regional Assembly, the Court will decide upon an alternative sentence which attempts to address the concern of the Regional Assembly.
25. The Court's revised sentence is not subject to further review from the Regional Assembly.

Please note the following:

A "majority" means 50% + 1. A "plurality" means the choice with the highest number of votes.

Clause 19 does not prevent the Delegate from taking urgent action in accordance with Section 3.3.

The numbering of clauses in this bill takes into account the fact that the clauses of Section 3.3 are currently numbered incorrectly in relation to Section 3.2. The final version of this bill will also correct the numbering errors in Section 3.3.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I consider this bill a good idea.

The court has, so far, sentenced only two individuals under the current constitution. One, Empire of Narnia, pled guilty to forum crashing after reporting a bestiality forum to invisionfree, which resulted in it being taken down by the company. He was assured by an unwitting AG that he would face a reduced sentence if he pled guilty. The court did not consider this plea bargain binding, and passed a much stricter sentence, to the outcry of the region. The other, Ravania, was convicting of espionage for stealing information from the NPA and providing it for a foreign military. For this, he was stripped of voting rights for six months, but allowed to remain a citizen. The general consensus was that he was treated much too leniently by the court.

The legal code gives very little guidance on what is an appropriate sentence, and there is very little precedent to go on, so it's no wonder that the court has been missing the mark on sentences. I would further submit that the community at large has more collective wisdom than the court concerning what sentence fits the crime. After all, the entire reason for pursuing criminal charges and obtaining a conviction is that the criminal has been harming the community - not the court. The members of the court may be aware of the harm that has been dealt and they may have even been dealt a portion of it, but the community at large is the only entity that has experienced the sum total of the harm done. Therefore, the citizenry is the body best positioned to evaluate a given sentence.

With that being said, I hope the author of the bill will pardon me for suggesting a bit of a rewrite, which preserves the concept in its entirety, but rephrases it to be more consistent with existing language in the legal code.

Section 3.4 Sentencing Review
18. No sentence will be carried out until it has been reviewed by the Regional Assembly.
19. Each time a sentence is issued by the Court, the Regional Assembly will promptly hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it, reject it for being too lenient, or reject it for being too harsh. The vote will last for seven days.
20. If there is no majority, or a majority votes to uphold, the original sentence will be carried out.
21. If a majority votes to reject a sentence for being too harsh or too lenient, the Court will change the sentence accordingly, and the new sentence will be carried out.

A couple notes on structuring:

1) The number issue in chapter 3 can be immediately fixed by the speaker. The power to do so is granted by the preamble to the legal code.
2) It may be more appropriate for this to be added as a new section to chapter two, which is concerned solely with sentencing.

 

[Midland]

Support.

 

[Eluvatar]

It is not the case that the Court has only sentenced those two individuals. I am aware of a verdict and sentence having been handed down in TNP v Tomb as well.

 

[SillyString]

Good point, Elu - and that raises a separate issue. There are some crimes which have a mandatory punishment laid out in the legal code; for example, Grosse Misconduct requires removal from office if the defendant is a government offiical, and Treason requires removal from the region. The RA's review of sentencing should not be able to override those requirements or force the justices to fail to comply with the law in their resentencing.

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

I'm not inclined to support this. We elect our Justices based on their platforms - which may include "being harsh on criminals". There is an all too likely chance that if we open sentencing to the court of public opinion much beloved figures will use that to ensure that they evade consequences for their actions.

No, this isn't a pardon bill but it isn't exactly difficult with a concerted group of supporters to convince enough people to your side so the result of "too harsh" is achieved.

I would prefer to keep the independence of the judicial branch in matters of sentencing, unless the RA decides fit to pass sentencing requirements, minimum or maximum punishments etc.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Raven, I would counter that the end result is still the determination of the court. In theory, the court could add one day to a sentence and comply with the law. The purpose here is not to institute a court of public opinion - after all, the RA would still have no say whatsoever in the verdict, nor be able to dictate how much harsher or more lenient the adjusted sentence would be. It's simply a way of informing the court in a meaningful way that they may have issued a sentence that is out of line with the severity of the crime committed. If I were on the court, I would appreciate this sort of information, because I would strive to produce a sentence that fit the crime.

 

[Guy]

Judges are far better placed to sentence defendants, being privy to the entire trial, than the citizenry at large.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

What portions of the trial are the judges privy to that the citizenry is not? I can only think that you're speaking of deliberations, but if that is the case then the outcome of those deliberations are really the only relevant part - the court should be justifying its results in any case.

 

[Guy]

What portions of the trial are the judges privy to that the citizenry is not? I can only think that you're speaking of deliberations, but if that is the case then the outcome of those deliberations are really the only relevant part - the court should be justifying its results in any case.

Sure, a perfectly-informed citizen who has read the entire trial.

But there's a reason judges are under obligation to be actively involved in the trial, so to reach the correct decision. They are also bound by oaths of office, et cetera.

I could vote (not) to uphold a sentence because I hate (like) the defendant.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I have major reservations about this, along the same lines as Guy and Raven. I've been unhappy with court decisions before, but so it goes. I think this proposal would lead to Justices actively considering what the feel/general opinion of the public is, rather than what the letter of the law says that they ought to do. Presiding over cases should not be about making a ruling that is the most popularly approved of, but about doing what is right according to law.

I'd rather we specify more clearly what the punishments should be at the lower end, and then at the maximum end, rather than instituting some kind of perpetual public gallery review of a court decisions.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I think this proposal would lead to Justices actively considering what the feel/general opinion of the public is

THIS IS THE GOAL.

I argue that when it comes to rendering a verdict, evidence and argument is all that should matter. But when it comes to punishment, it is the concerns of the community at large that should be paramount.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The numbering of clauses in this bill takes into account the fact that the clauses of Section 3.3 are currently numbered incorrectly in relation to Section 3.2. The final version of this bill will also correct the numbering errors in Section 3.3.

1) The number issue in chapter 3 can be immediately fixed by the speaker. The power to do so is granted by the preamble to the legal code.

I should note, while making the necessary alterations to the Codified Law resulting from the enactment of the Bill amending Section 5.5, I have also made alterations to correct the numbering errors noted here (and also a numbering error in Chapter 10).

 

[Ash]

Based on our discussion on Discord, we all agreed that reform of the court system was necessary. From what I read here, this bill is neither an effective reform nor a needed one. It is adding on an additional bureaucratic layer to an already complicated process.

Sure, a perfectly-informed citizen who has read the entire trial.

Let's be honest here. Do you really think every member of the RA will do so? Or is it more likely that intense lobbying for leniency or harshness will result in them being pulled to one side? I can see a sentence handed down that is fair and impartial, only to have the "democratic process" push for a sentence much harsher than is called for. Bring out the pitchforks!

I'd rather we specify more clearly what the punishments should be at the lower end, and then at the maximum end, rather than instituting some kind of perpetual public gallery review of a court decisions.

Why is it that I find myself agreeing with McMasterdonia? Perhaps because this suggestion is more reasonable and a better fix for the problem than you are attempting to address with this bill. I would be far more amenable to having the RA weigh in on sentencing by specifying maximum and minimum sentences for crimes, which will give the court more guidance in sentencing than trying to discern what the mood of the public is.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think this proposal would lead to Justices actively considering what the feel/general opinion of the public is

THIS IS THE GOAL.

I argue that when it comes to rendering a verdict, evidence and argument is all that should matter. But when it comes to punishment, it is the concerns of the community at large that should be paramount.

My view is that public opinion should be considered in the making and passage of laws, but not in the judicial distribution of punishment. That should be left to the discretion of the Judge when considering the facts at hand and the law. This can include considering what is necessary to protect the community at large, but that is not necessarily the same as considering what the most popular outcome might be, particularly if it is a popular individual (or conversely someone vilified) who is on trial.

 

[Ash]

I'm not inclined to support this. We elect our Justices based on their platforms - which may include "being harsh on criminals". There is an all too likely chance that if we open sentencing to the court of public opinion much beloved figures will use that to ensure that they evade consequences for their actions.

No, this isn't a pardon bill but it isn't exactly difficult with a concerted group of supporters to convince enough people to your side so the result of "too harsh" is achieved.

I would prefer to keep the independence of the judicial branch in matters of sentencing, unless the RA decides fit to pass sentencing requirements, minimum or maximum punishments etc.

I agree with your reasoning here as well. A person that is vilified may have a harsher sentence handed down as a result of lobbying, whereas "much beloved figures" could get off with a proverbial slap on the wrist. This does not make for a fair and equitable system of justice.

Again, sentencing reform would have been a much better way to provide guidance for the Justices.

 

[falapatorius]

I think this proposal would lead to Justices actively considering what the feel/general opinion of the public is

THIS IS THE GOAL.

I argue that when it comes to rendering a verdict, evidence and argument is all that should matter. But when it comes to punishment, it is the concerns of the community at large that should be paramount.

I don't see the need for the RA to be deciding if a mandated punishment is too harsh/lenient. The Legal Code already has set punishments for various crimes:

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
4. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
5. Proxying may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
6. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.
7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.
8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

As you can see, it is only the duration of the punishment that is discretionary. I suppose one could argue that minimums/maximums for those be established, but Clause 1 is sufficient to prevent excessively harsh or too lenient sentences (imo).

Furthermore, the Court Rules allow for joint recommendations on sentencing:

Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.

I think it reasonable to assume the Prosecution and Defense will come to an agreement that suits both sides. The Justice could override them, but I suspect that's exceedingly rare. At any rate, the RA need not interfere in the process (after the fact anyway). At this point, I would vote against this.

 

[SillyString]

I think this proposal would lead to Justices actively considering what the feel/general opinion of the public is

THIS IS THE GOAL.

I argue that when it comes to rendering a verdict, evidence and argument is all that should matter. But when it comes to punishment, it is the concerns of the community at large that should be paramount.

My view is that public opinion should be considered in the making and passage of laws, but not in the judicial distribution of punishment. That should be left to the discretion of the Judge when considering the facts at hand and the law. This can include considering what is necessary to protect the community at large, but that is not necessarily the same as considering what the most popular outcome might be, particularly if it is a popular individual (or conversely someone vilified) who is on trial.

My biggest issue with this approach is that any system in any context requires testing and tweaking and improving to reach a workable state.

Most of the time, in TNP, this gradual approach works okay. We write a thing, we see it in action, we amend it a little bit, then we see it in action again. The kinks get worked out reasonably quickly and the thing works reasonably smoothly.

Criminal trials are... another matter entirely. We have so few of them, relative to everything else that happens, and relative to the time that passes, that we have almost no chance to actually work out any real kinks. The trial going on right now is a critical test case of the most recently written court rules... rules that were written in 2014. There has been one other trial since then, and it was a year ago, and massively fraught with its own issues.

Even then, just because a trial begins doesn't mean it will work its way through to an end... and those that do end do not always (or even usually) end in convictions.

The result of this, as has been pointed out, is that we have exactly three cases where a sentence has been rendered, which is almost no data for a Court to draw on to inform its decisions. This can lead to wildly inflated or deflated punishments relative to what is actually appropriate - and we have no measurement for "appropriate" other than what the TNP community thinks of it.

I support this bill. I think it adds a desperately needed review of sentencing procedures that will greatly assist future courts in what punishments fit what actions. It does not let the RA overturn a verdict; guilty would remain guilty, and justices would remain as free as they are now to make a decision on that question without undue political concerns. And, the RA would also not be able to interfere in any mandatory punishments laid out by the Penal Code. It would only be able to voice an opinion on what constitutes an appropriate duration of punishment, be it loss of voting rights, regional ban, or similar.

I do not think this is unreasonable. I do not think it hamstrings the court. I do not think it would result in wildly inappropriate sentences - especially because the RA cannot set a duration it wants; it would only be able to return the verdict to the court to reconsider.

 

[Barbarossistan]

This bill does not seem a good idea to me. It can too easily turn sentencing into a popularity contest held among RA members who are not necessarily well informed on the full facts of the trial. True, the court can always make a token modification but such a defiance of the word of the RA is nit necessarily easy or good for the courts legitimacy. Moreover, while the bill does not specify that the RA can set an alternative sentence the RA could easily vote on a "suggested" sentence and dare the court to ignore that, thus effectively taking over sentencing

I'd be against

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

If we can't trust the citizenry to be informed enough to produce a good outcome in a vote, then why the hell do we let ourselves write the laws?

 

[Ash]

COE, laws are written in the abstract. When a case is before the court, passion and emotion come to the fore. Especially when, as has been previously stated on this thread, the defendant is seen as a "villain" or "hero".

 

[Eyes that do not Lie]

Can someone please explain me what problem this bill intends to solve?

I would further submit that the community at large has more collective wisdom than the court concerning what sentence fits the crime. After all, the entire reason for pursuing criminal charges and obtaining a conviction is that the criminal has been harming the community - not the court. The members of the court may be aware of the harm that has been dealt and they may have even been dealt a portion of it, but the community at large is the only entity that has experienced the sum total of the harm done. Therefore, the citizenry is the body best positioned to evaluate a given sentence.

This argument doens't make any sense to me. The community is represented by the court, so when the criminal has been harming the community, there's the court to sentence the criminal. If the community has more collective wisdom concerning what sentence fits the crime because the community was the victim of the crime, then why do we have a court in the first place?

Raven, I would counter that the end result is still the determination of the court. In theory, the court could add one day to a sentence and comply with the law. The purpose here is not to institute a court of public opinion - after all, the RA would still have no say whatsoever in the verdict, nor be able to dictate how much harsher or more lenient the adjusted sentence would be. It's simply a way of informing the court in a meaningful way that they may have issued a sentence that is out of line with the severity of the crime committed. If I were on the court, I would appreciate this sort of information, because I would strive to produce a sentence that fit the crime.

(bolding mine)
I think there's nothing wrong with doing the thing I bolded in the quote, but I think institutionalizing this is completely unnecessary. If I'd disagree with a court sentence, I'd just go to Discord or the peanut gallery or whatever and express my opinion. If the bolded part is really the intention of this bill, then this is the epitome of utterly useless TNP bureaucracy.

 

[falapatorius]

First of all, which proposal are we debating? Kondratev's OP, or COE's suggested rewrite?

I support this bill. I think it adds a desperately needed review of sentencing procedures that will greatly assist future courts in what punishments fit what actions.

I disagree. Legislate minimum/maximum durations if it really bothers you that much. I'm really quite surprised you'd endorse a measure which shortens the arm's length between the Legislature and the Judiciary.

especially because the RA cannot set a duration it wants; it would only be able to return the verdict to the court to reconsider.

They may not be able to set the duration, but they can affect it.

Since I'm not sure which proposal is the relevant one, I'll post excerpts from both:

24. If a sentence is deemed either "too harsh" or "too lenient" by the Regional Assembly, the Court will decide upon an alternative sentence which attempts to address the concern of the Regional Assembly.

21. If a majority votes to reject a sentence for being too harsh or too lenient, the Court will change the sentence accordingly, and the new sentence will be carried out.

As mentioned earlier, the Court could just add/subtract a day or two from the sentence. Procedure would be satisfied (well, circumvented really). That raises another point though. If a Justice were to defy the RA, and stick to their original sentencing, would they be committing Gross Misconduct? Subject to recall for doing what they were mandated to do? Bear in mind, again, that the Prosecution and the Defense are really the deciding factor as it pertains to sentencing. If the respective legal teams and the Moderating Justice are in accord regarding sentencing, the RA's opinion matters not (or at least it shouldn't).

If we can't trust the citizenry to be informed enough to produce a good outcome in a vote, then why the hell do we let ourselves write the laws?

I can trust the citizenry to cast a vote, and legislate (well, more or less), but to make objective, informed decisions in criminal matters..? Umm.. no. That's why we have Justices.

 

[Syrixia]

le nvm

 

[falapatorius]

EDIT 2: Following the conclusion of my debate with Kondratev the bill has been further clarified and I switch my alignment to FOR.

Do tell. What revelations did you receive that caused such a monumental shift in attitude?

 

[Pallaith]

Do tell. What revelations did you receive that caused such a monumental shift in attitude?

He didn't understand what it was doing and now he does. It was about understanding the difference between verdict and sentencing.

 

[falapatorius]

He didn't understand what it was doing and now he does. It was about understanding the difference between verdict and sentencing.

Ah yes. So he's been educated then? Yep. Dads are invaluable.

 

[Ash]

He didn't understand what it was doing and now he does. It was about understanding the difference between verdict and sentencing.

Ah yes. So he's been educated then? Yep. Dads are invaluable.

I am interested to know what kind of constructive criticism you have for this bill. What would you change to make it more amenable to the RA?

 

[Syrixia]

EDIT 2: Following the conclusion of my debate with Kondratev the bill has been further clarified and I switch my alignment to FOR.

Do tell. What revelations did you receive that caused such a monumental shift in attitude?

I thought that sentencing times were specific. However, apparently according to the Legal Code they can be within a range of times as given by the Code.

 

[falapatorius]

I am interested to know what kind of constructive criticism you have for this bill. What would you change to make it more amenable to the RA?

None. I thought I made it clear that the RA has no business interfering in Court matters (imo).

I thought that sentencing times were specific. However, apparently according to the Legal Code they can be within a range of times as given by the Code.

Well, no. There is no range of times specified. The Legal Code does have this:

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.

(Emphasis mine). So, I don't understand how this Bill suddenly ameliorates your concern about punishment durations and their application. If you think minimum/maximum punishments (and the duration thereof) are better, then legislate it so.

 

[Romanoffia]

The concept of this proposed bill is somewhat of a double-edged sword:

On one hand, you have the ability to reduce a punishment inflicted by the court based upon what is essentially 'public opinion'.

On the other hand, you would enable the RA to interfere with the independence of the Judiciary which would be, in principle, a violation of separation of powers.


Silly String has a good idea - a 'cookbook' approach to penalties which are run of the mill offences for which the law already prescribes for certain specific categories of offences. This is a perfectly logical approach to sentencing.

Here's my logic on this: if public opinion is that a particular sentence handed down by the Court is 'excessive', then there is nothing in the Law or Constitution that would prohibit anyone from submitting a 'Petition of Redress', or something similar, to the Court. This view is, albeit, an assumption that the theory behind the Constitution is that the Law is designed to maintain an orderly and civil society and that the Constitution has the purpose of limiting the authority of the government (all Rights emanate from the people, not the state, and that enumeration of certain rights do not disparage or deny other rights which belong to and are inherent to the people/individuals).

As stated in the governing documents of the region:

Chapter 2: Penal Code


1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.

This implies in fairly uncertain terms that excessive punishment can be questioned via legal means, legislative means (prohibiting something tantamount to a bill of attainder), or by a 'Petition of Redress' brought by any element of society (the RA or individuals, etc.).

Hence, what the proposed bill does is already existing in the legal code/constitution.

 

[Rand]

Forgive me, I'm not entirely familiar with how things are in TNP, but I think a requirement for the legislature to review each sentence would defeat the purpose of having a court. In general, an authorization for the Assembly to overturn sentences at its discretion would be smarter. A poll on each citizen's opinion of each court case which is legally binding is messy, and it removes the only real authority judges have.

 

[Flemingovia]

There is a bit of me that says that I do not like the prospect of RA review of sentencing. It turns the legal system into a popularity contest.

On the other hand, i think we are already in this situation. Does anyone believe, honestly, that if Lord Ravenclaw, or McM or Asta had sent similar TGs to Ivan as New kenya did that they would be up on charges of Treason, Fraud and Gross Misconduct? Nah. There would have been a quiet chat and it would all have been sorted on Discord.

I have seen it happen a dozen times on NS.

So we already have a judicial system that is neither blind nor impartial. So the objection that it would turn trials into a popularity contest is somewhat blunted.

What this act does is allowes the RA to intervene in the event that the courts return a sentence that is overly lenient or overly harsh. Now it could be argued that the BOR already contains a mechanism to allow this to happen in this clause:

" Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances."

HOWEVER, this clause has never been properly defined, and has never been successfully invoked.

on balance, i tend to trust the RA, and I would rather have sentencing review than leave the courts with no effective checks against excess or favouritism.

 

[Syrixia]

As Roman and Flem have said, this bill has its ups and downs. I have seen arguments from both sides, and both sides have valid points.

For that reason I am abstaining, and that is final.

 

[Flemingovia]

MEh. If you choose not to decide you'll still have made a choice.

We have a legal system where it seems to be OK for the prosecutor to edit evidence before it is allowed to be used by the defence.

My point is that i do not think Regional Assembly oversight can screw up the system more than it is already screwed.

 

[Tomb]

I, for one, support this bill.

 

[Ash]

We have a legal system where it seems to be OK for the prosecutor to edit evidence before it is allowed to be used by the defence.

My point is that i do not think Regional Assembly oversight can screw up the system more than it is already screwed.

Giving Asta the benefit of the doubt, she was forced to intervene in the case after her deputy went AWOL. Of course, from my vantage point I can't quite see everything due to the thick layer of fog that has settled over this case.

Your reasoning regarding the RA is sound. Despite my reservations about this bill, I am more inclined to support it after having let it ruminate in my mind.

 

[falapatorius]

My point is that i do not think Regional Assembly oversight can screw up the system more than it is already screwed.

Oh, I beg to differ. That's the typical flippant comment I've come to expect from you. Why didn't you and your fellow Justices amend the Court Rules when you were a Justice? All you did was add to the Court's being 'screwed up' with this this gem of a decision. Do you even realize that decision sets a bad precedent when it comes to BoR violations regarding free speech? Don't blame the system because TNP sometimes elects substandard Justices (I think Grosse called them chair-warmers iirc).

We have a legal system where it seems to be OK for the prosecutor to edit evidence before it is allowed to be used by the defence.

Again, don't blame the system. Take it up with the Moderating Justice. Unless you'd like the RA to assume that role as well?

 

[Flemingovia]

Oh, I beg to differ. That's the typical flippant comment I've come to expect from you.

And that is the typical snarky comment I've come to expect from you. I suppose I am not on your CHristmas card list any more?

Why didn't you and your fellow Justices amend the Court Rules when you were a Justice?

To be candid, it never occurred to me. If it had done, I would have.

All you did was add to the Court's being 'screwed up' with this this gem of a decision.

I am extremely proud of that ruling which, by the way, was approved by all the justices on the bench at the time, so don't give me all the credit for it. When I stood for office I was elected on a specific platform, which you can read below (i am not sure if everyone can access the thread, so I quote it in a spoiler:

Spoiler

Last time I stood for justice my opponent said I was the best candidate and urged everyone to vote for me and not for him. Naturally, I lost by a landslide. So don't hold your breath this time.

I could do the usual blah blah speech, but you all know the mantra by now. Justice candidates tend to promise the earth and then either prove to be piss-poor or disappear mid term. Well, I know our laws pretty well (I predate most of them) and I will not go inactive. You know that.

So what do i want to talk about?

First, I am not a great believer in the constitutional court. I think it is an absurd system for a game like this. It is better than it was, but it is unwieldy and byzantine. For years I avoided getting involved in a flawed system. But then I thought "well, if this is the system we have, we may as well have people who can at least try to make it work." So here I am.

Blunt Justice. Too many of our justices have been too nice, and have bent over backwards to accommodate any shit-stirrer who decides to play silly buggers. I have taken advantage of that a few times myself. If I am justice, if you make like a toddler and throw a tantrum, you will be told to piss off. If you play silly buggers with the court system, you will be told to piss off. If you beat your breast about how your human rights are being violated, you will be told to piss off. Do you see a theme emerging here.

Precedent I don't mind referring back to precedent, but I would not be a slave to it. If I think previous benches were wrong i would not apply or follow precedent, simple as that.

standing Our rules on standing were adopted to stop people playing silly buggers with the court and tying us up in knots with spurious R4Rs and appeals. Now there are some areas where there is a case that everyone in the RA, or everyone in the NPA etc is affected by a ruling and therefore has standing. This creates a certain grey area. On the whole, I think the court has got it about right so far. So expect little change from me (except I would not take a week to agonize over standing: You would be told to piss off (see above) quite quickly).

Term length Given all that I said above, I would expect to be recalled before the end of the term. Bear that in mind. My term would, at least, be entertaining while it lasts.

Finally, for no apparent reason and without any relevance to the above post, here is a photo of a cat dressed up as a lawyer:

In the ruling, which i am happy to claim credit for drafting, I abided by the platform I was elected on. If you do not like it, take it up with the electorate. Unless you think I should have lied or gone back on my word.

Sometimes people want plain talking and decisive action.

Again, don't blame the system. Take it up with the Moderating Justice.

I have. By the way, Ash, She took over the defence BEFORE she messed about with the SC evidence.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Debate should remain germane to the proposal at hand, that is to say, RA review of sentences. This is not a debate on the case presently before the Court and, while discussion of the Court generally can inform this debate, efforts should be made to ensure that it actually does so, rather than simply being a means to disparage other members.

EDIT: "before" has an "e" in it.