LRW For Justice III: The Thinking

Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Election Commissioner
-
-
-
As I am standing for election to continue being a Justice, a campaign thread is in order. I'll be short here, I'm not much for long statements anyways.

- I have obvious experience as a Justice (being one presently), having both moderated trials and participated in R4R discussions.
- I have additional experience writing and interpreting legal things from both NS (WA and law writing in Osiris), as well as rl things such as Model legislatures.

Any questions then?
 
The general public has expressed concern over what they percive as overaly harsh sentencing in court cases, without breaking court secrecy on past cases, can you explain your approach to determining a proper sentence in a criminal case?
 
Sanjurika:
Favorite Pizza topping?
Click to expand...
Cheese
Dreadton:
The general public has expressed concern over what they percive as overaly harsh sentencing in court cases, without breaking court secrecy on past cases, can you explain your approach to determining a proper sentence in a criminal case?
Click to expand...
In general, just a reasoned comparison of the case to past ones (now that we have a body of past cases sufficient for that purpose), along with the regular looking at factors that should make it longer or shorter. I personally am also interested in making sure that punishments closely fit crimes, for example crimes related to elections receiving a long ban on being a candidate than would otherwise occur (commensurate generally with decreases in any other punishments). Without breaking court secrecy however, I will note that the legal requirement for crimes of conspiracy to be punished less than the full crime does somewhat tie hands, particulalrly when the case that has those for comparison (MJ vs TNP) also has nearly the full possible list of mitigating factors.
 
How involved have each of the other justices been in the decisions that have been handed down this term? How does this compare to your involvement?
 
Consider the following.

You are the newly elected justice. While looking through the court's private files on a recent case TNP v Bobberino, you discover that the court found Bob guilty because he was a fenda, without discussing any of the evidence or anything related to his charges.

1) What do you do?

2) Furthering the above. Two members of the court in question are still on the bench. How to you get the discussion thread declassified to support your charges?
 
In general, I am interested in getting your thoughts for why successfully prosecuting defamation of character cases in the North Pacific has historically proven to be very difficult. Do you believe this to be something that exists in the status quo, and if so, with the abolition of the Attorney General position who would have the best opportunity to bring forth a case about it in a manner for which the Court would be inclined to accept? By asking “do you believe this to be something that exists in the status quo” I’m seeking clarification of if you differentiate defamation of character from things like fraud and slander.
 
Dreadton, I'll get back to your question in a bit, I need more time to think on it.

mcmasterdonia:
How involved have each of the other justices been in the decisions that have been handed down this term? How does this compare to your involvement?
Click to expand...
In a general sense, I would view Zyvet as having been the most involved, partially from experience and partially from being usually the fastest to write an opinion. Speaking personally, I was probably the least involved in indivdual decisions, primarily for reasons of newness and inexperience writing opinions of this nature. I was fairly involved in the editing of the initial drafts Zyvet came up with (and the one Lore did), largely on the punishments since there wasn't really any disagreement with the reasoning, just wording that I can recall on the opinion portions.
Robespierre:
In general, I am interested in getting your thoughts for why successfully prosecuting defamation of character cases in the North Pacific has historically proven to be very difficult. Do you believe this to be something that exists in the status quo, and if so, with the abolition of the Attorney General position who would have the best opportunity to bring forth a case about it in a manner for which the Court would be inclined to accept? By asking “do you believe this to be something that exists in the status quo” I’m seeking clarification of if you differentiate defamation of character from things like fraud and slander.
Click to expand...
From where I sit, difficulties in prosecuting such would primarily come from needing to prove the intention nature of a given defamation of character case, as that is a legal requirement for Fraud (which is what most defamation of character cases would be, going by the legal code). With the abolition of the AG office, the best person to bring for the case is the individual allegedly defamed, as they have the best standing in terms of harm to them. Standing for others wouldn't strictly be more difficult (outside of reasonably proof in the indictment), but may cause trial issues if the individual supposedly defamed disagrees with that assessment.
 
@Lady Raven Wing I must confess, I wasn't sure what to make of you when you first ran for Justice. I am pleased to see how well you have conducted yourself on the Court, and I believe you deserve a closer look. I have a series of questions:

In light of the recently passed AGORA Act, is it your opinion that the Court no longer can resolve matters of ambiguity or clarify legal questions through the normal Court process? If not, what is the best way for the Court to do that? Is that something the Court should be doing?

What is your opinion on setting up a civil procedure for the Court? Is it necessary? Would it work? If you attempted to pursue it, how would you do it?

Is there any criteria you feel would render a legal complaint frivolous or illegitimate? If so, what circumstances do you imagine would meet this criteria?

There have been a series of cases within the last year which featured guilty pleas and advocacy for reduced sentences, and yet the Court rendered what many felt were overly harsh judgments. Looking back at these recent cases, can you identify any which you feel had overly harsh sentences, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Is there any other case previously heard by the Court that you feel was decided incorrectly or inappropriately, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Judicial restraint is something many would consider to be worthy of pursuit. Explain your vision and personal philosophy as it comes to restraint and how this principle would be embodied, or tempered, by your own actions on the Court.

Related to the above, given that the number of cases the Court hears each term may be few and far between and the region's Court precedent slow to develop, do you believe that it is desirable to use the Court to right wrongs or address problems in existing law if given the chance with a relevant case? For the purposes of this question, I am taking it for granted that the Court will not rule on something or expand an opinion beyond what is germane to a case they are hearing.

Considering that Justices are elected in TNP just as officials in the others branches are, do you believe there is an imperative for the Court to defer entirely to the other branches when faced with situations where laws or decisions may be at risk of being overturned or deemed inconsistent with the constitution? Where is the bar for you when it comes to using your judgment to possibly reverse or undo the efforts of the other branches? Are there clear situations where this should or should not be done?

The penal code contemplates sentences that are mostly finite in nature, but in a few situations may be indefinite or permanent. In your view is there a functional difference between an indefinite sentence versus a permanent one in our laws as written? If so, what situations may one form of sentence be preferable over the other?

It has been remarked at various times that the Court does not provide an opportunity for interested citizens to learn the ropes or get acquainted with the region's legal system outside of reading legal documents and case law. Do you believe there is a way to provide such opportunities to citizens, such as a clerk or staff position working under the justices? Is this even something that is desirable or worthy or pursuit? If so, how would you propose going about doing that?

Since you brought it up, I'm curious about a few things:

What would you say are the biggest areas of difference between how TNP approaches the law and how it is done in Osiris? How does that experience inform how you approach resolving legal questions in this region?

The WA is an area of great importance to me as well. Has your time as a Justice enhanced your ability to write in WA resolutions or arguments? How has that experience lent itself to your approach to your work as a Justice here?

Is TNP a great model legislature? Similar to the other questions, how has that experience with mode legislatures affected your approach as a Justice? Would you say that a legislative perspective is a big part of your vision for responding to cases and controversies on the Court? In what way if that is the case?
 
In hindsight, what would you have changed for the original sentencing order in relation to TNP vs. Whole India?
 
Dreadton:
Consider the following.

You are the newly elected justice. While looking through the court's private files on a recent case TNP v Bobberino, you discover that the court found Bob guilty because he was a fenda, without discussing any of the evidence or anything related to his charges.

1) What do you do?

2) Furthering the above. Two members of the court in question are still on the bench. How to you get the discussion thread declassified to support your charges?
Click to expand...
1. The simple method here would be to request the release of the relevant thread(s) as either my own perogative as a citizen, or getting some other citizen to do so. At this point if it's over 6 months then it'd be automatiaclly released, if under it can presumably be argued within the court that such decisions being released is a compelling regional interest.

2. As I see it, there are two ways to go about this. The first is simply to wait for the relevant threads to be older than 6 months, at which point a citizen request can have it released automatically. If either this is too slow or for some other reason, then it'd be optimum to have it run through a R4R (after a prefunctory citizen request, the nature of the scenario is that I'm assuming that would be unsuccessful) on the basis of the 2 justices having a conflict of interest in making ruling about the thread, as they were involved in it.
 
When you first ran for Justice, admittedly I wasn't quite sure of what to expect. I'd previously known of your work ethic from your activity in raiding gameplay spheres, and I'd seen you in the Security Council communicating with authors a handful of times. Aside from that, I knew that you'd worked in the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs and that I knew that you were a member of the Council of Hawks. All of that being said, you've blossomed into quite the fine member of the bench - if I do say so myself. Since then, you've really stepped up and taken everything in stride. You'll be happy to know that I appreciate the approach you've taken to things, and thus you'll enjoy my support.
 
My, quite the series of questions all for me. I'll do my best to answer, but my answers are probably going to be a little bit crunched so that I can actually give you answers before the election starts.
Pallaith:
@Lady Raven Wing I must confess, I wasn't sure what to make of you when you first ran for Justice. I am pleased to see how well you have conducted yourself on the Court, and I believe you deserve a closer look. I have a series of questions:

In light of the recently passed AGORA Act, is it your opinion that the Court no longer can resolve matters of ambiguity or clarify legal questions through the normal Court process? If not, what is the best way for the Court to do that? Is that something the Court should be doing?

What is your opinion on setting up a civil procedure for the Court? Is it necessary? Would it work? If you attempted to pursue it, how would you do it?

Is there any criteria you feel would render a legal complaint frivolous or illegitimate? If so, what circumstances do you imagine would meet this criteria?

There have been a series of cases within the last year which featured guilty pleas and advocacy for reduced sentences, and yet the Court rendered what many felt were overly harsh judgments. Looking back at these recent cases, can you identify any which you feel had overly harsh sentences, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Is there any other case previously heard by the Court that you feel was decided incorrectly or inappropriately, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?

Judicial restraint is something many would consider to be worthy of pursuit. Explain your vision and personal philosophy as it comes to restraint and how this principle would be embodied, or tempered, by your own actions on the Court.

Related to the above, given that the number of cases the Court hears each term may be few and far between and the region's Court precedent slow to develop, do you believe that it is desirable to use the Court to right wrongs or address problems in existing law if given the chance with a relevant case? For the purposes of this question, I am taking it for granted that the Court will not rule on something or expand an opinion beyond what is germane to a case they are hearing.

Considering that Justices are elected in TNP just as officials in the others branches are, do you believe there is an imperative for the Court to defer entirely to the other branches when faced with situations where laws or decisions may be at risk of being overturned or deemed inconsistent with the constitution? Where is the bar for you when it comes to using your judgment to possibly reverse or undo the efforts of the other branches? Are there clear situations where this should or should not be done?

The penal code contemplates sentences that are mostly finite in nature, but in a few situations may be indefinite or permanent. In your view is there a functional difference between an indefinite sentence versus a permanent one in our laws as written? If so, what situations may one form of sentence be preferable over the other?

It has been remarked at various times that the Court does not provide an opportunity for interested citizens to learn the ropes or get acquainted with the region's legal system outside of reading legal documents and case law. Do you believe there is a way to provide such opportunities to citizens, such as a clerk or staff position working under the justices? Is this even something that is desirable or worthy or pursuit? If so, how would you propose going about doing that?

Since you brought it up, I'm curious about a few things:

What would you say are the biggest areas of difference between how TNP approaches the law and how it is done in Osiris? How does that experience inform how you approach resolving legal questions in this region?

The WA is an area of great importance to me as well. Has your time as a Justice enhanced your ability to write in WA resolutions or arguments? How has that experience lent itself to your approach to your work as a Justice here?

Is TNP a great model legislature? Similar to the other questions, how has that experience with mode legislatures affected your approach as a Justice? Would you say that a legislative perspective is a big part of your vision for responding to cases and controversies on the Court? In what way if that is the case?
Click to expand...
1. Thank you, your compliments are much appreciated.

2. So far as I can tell from the AGORA Act, I would say that the Court can longer resolve legal ambiguities through trial processes (or at all). I am not precisely sure what the best method for the Court to resolve legal ambiguities would be, given the difficult nature of attempting such, but I do think that the Court should not be doing so provided that the hypothetical ambiguities don't potentially result in Constitutional conflict.

3. As civil trials to my mind are primarily about arbitration between two parties, which is a worthy goal, but the Court's probably lack of being able to actually hand out any reasonable penalties leaves any potential civil procedure not particularly better than mediation done by another party. If I did wish to pursue it, I would suggest a set-up along those lines of a somewhat more official mediation thing I think, though I can not say for certain.

4. An illegitimate complaint is what that could be properly filed, while a frivolous one is one that can't at all be properly filed.

5. There aren't any cases in particular that I think have an overly harsh sentence for the conditions, or at least not one in the approximate ballpark of what I would say is reasonable (which is to say I can't say for certain that I would consider 45 days vs 50 days to be reasonable and unreasonable, respectively).

6. Not in the recent past (that is, past few years) are there any cases that I feel were wrongly decided, and beyond that I don't precisely have time to look through the earlier cases and still have sufficient time to answer your questions.

7. To my mind, restraint would embody the idea of being a strictly reactive body, and not seeking out cases (or continuing them against the wishes of the prosecution or filer) or R4Rs to do, but rather waiting for them to come to us. Similarly during trials, the role of the Court is to keep the process moving, but not to interfere in any significant way with that, outside of reminders to parties on things they should do (like submit evidence). I believe I have generally embodied this on my time on the Court thus far.

8. At most, the fixing of problems in laws should be limited to contradicting the constitution. However, the Court lacks an ability to independently self-review laws in such a manner (it may be possible in a trial case if an argument is made regarding such), leaving such a point moot to my mind.

9. Can you clarify what you mean here? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about, other than the Court's relationship with the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

10. Indefinite punishments are presumably ones were the ending is left up to the enforcing officer (such as the Election Commission in the case of bans on running for office), while permanent bans can only be overturned by the Court. The former is preferable in instances where the issue with the individual being punished may be one of maturity, while the latter is preferable in other situations (if a permanent ban is actually justified).

11. I don't believe such is possible, primarily because the workload of the Court is usually so small and case law is rather small that any use of them in those senses wouldn't be at all helpful. However, one way to accomplish the same thing would be to allow individuals (suitably sworn in and such) the ability to essentially shadow the Court during the term, and potentially contribute to discussions without being able to vote on the regular Court matters.

12. TNP largely approaches the law from the perspective of a constitution being superior to all, while Osiris at present generally has the Pharaoh being superior to all and the constitution is a matter or standardizing how they are to run the region. I wouldn't say my experience in Osiris particularly informs my approach to legal questions here (since the systems are so very different), but rather my general experience with legal affairs.

13. I believe the prime experience in both directions is the increasing ability to puzzle out implications of laws (or just unclear language) or what loopholes may exist in such a manner.

14. I would say that TNP is a pretty good model legislature (limited that it may be, due to not discussing RL things). I would say that my experience with other model legislatures hasn't really affected my approach as a Justice since they're different disciplines, just that it's benefited my ability to navigate legal affairs.
 
Praetor:
In hindsight, what would you have changed for the original sentencing order in relation to TNP vs. Whole India?
Click to expand...
Remove the reference to images submitted by WI as evidence as a reasoning in the aggravation section of reasoning.
 
Robespierre:
When you first ran for Justice, admittedly I wasn't quite sure of what to expect. I'd previously known of your work ethic from your activity in raiding gameplay spheres, and I'd seen you in the Security Council communicating with authors a handful of times. Aside from that, I knew that you'd worked in the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs and that I knew that you were a member of the Council of Hawks. All of that being said, you've blossomed into quite the fine member of the bench - if I do say so myself. Since then, you've really stepped up and taken everything in stride. You'll be happy to know that I appreciate the approach you've taken to things, and thus you'll enjoy my support.
Click to expand...
I am certainly glad to hear such.
 
Lady Raven Wing:
9. Can you clarify what you mean here? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about, other than the Court's relationship with the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Click to expand...

Sure. Justices are elected just like the Speaker and just like the Delegate, but some people feel the Court should defer to the other branches when there comes a time when something the other two branches did might get overturned. I wanted to know what you felt was the appropriate situation for when you would overturn or overrule something the other branches did. I was looking also for a sense of how you felt about the idea in general of using your judgment (judgment people elected you to exercise) to possibly step on the work of other branches, or if you felt it was unlikely or almost impossible to find a situation where you felt it was appropriate to do that.

I may (probably) have follow up questions, but I don't have time to do that right now. I hope these questions serve as an opportunity or others to engage with you further though, I think you would be up for that.
 
Pallaith:
Sure. Justices are elected just like the Speaker and just like the Delegate, but some people feel the Court should defer to the other branches when there comes a time when something the other two branches did might get overturned. I wanted to know what you felt was the appropriate situation for when you would overturn or overrule something the other branches did. I was looking also for a sense of how you felt about the idea in general of using your judgment (judgment people elected you to exercise) to possibly step on the work of other branches, or if you felt it was unlikely or almost impossible to find a situation where you felt it was appropriate to do that.

I may (probably) have follow up questions, but I don't have time to do that right now. I hope these questions serve as an opportunity or others to engage with you further though, I think you would be up for that.
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. I'm personally inclined I think that overturning a decision of one of the other branches would be within the Court's jurisdiction if it is indeed something that would need overturning. Checks & balances and all that. Where I more see a possibility of deference would be in hypothetical criminal trials for rights violations, perhaps in assuming the good intentions if it was a blurry line (which is less punishment, not none.)

Most appreciated on that front, I'm more or less up for such.
 
Praetor:
Would you have also reduced the original sentence?
Click to expand...
I never really considered the struck portion significant (and significant portions of the punishment was tied to election dates, and thus couldn't really be dropped anyways without missing the point of hitting several elections), so no I don't believe I would have.
 
Your answer and honesty is appreciated. I find it rather confusing though that the struck portion was not significant yet, it was posted in the original judgement. Furthermore, the punishment wasn't only tied to election dates (as seen by what moved when the punishment was reviewed).
 
Not significant to my thoughts on punishment, I can't speak for the other Justices (also, I did say portions of the punishment).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top