Wonderess for Justice: To Defend Justice

Wonderess

"I will be true to you whatever comes."
-
-
TNP Nation
Castle in Confidence
Discord
.wonderess
6hoCg3S.png


Hello all! I wish to offer myself as a choice to serve on the bench this term. I think it is important to uphold the laws of our region and interpret them faithfully in all circumstances. Those who know me understand that I have a great admiration for order, truth, and justice (though of course we may disagree on what these include). I suggest no innovation or change as to be a justice is to represent the law in all cases brought forward. That being said, I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
 
Last edited:
The general public has expressed concern over what they perceive as overly harsh sentencing in court cases, can you explain your approach to determining a proper sentence in a criminal case?


Consider the following.

The current line of succession is as follows.

1. Delegate Steve
2. Vice Delegate Sarah
3. Security Counselor Bill (Border Control Powers)
4. security counselor Bobberino



Its Z day and the world has been invaded by ZOMBIES!!! Once again, TNP is trying to cure the sick and kiss their boo boos. However, several nations want to spread the T Virus to other nations. Vice Delegate Sarah and Security Counselor Bill spend alot of influence kicking out these dirty no good nations. Bill's influence has dropped way below the minimum required to remain a security counselor. Before the Vice Delegate can bring forth a vote to grant Bill an exemption, the Vice Delegate is DoS by the Administration of TNP and NS.

1. Can Security Counselor Bill assume the duties of Vice Delegate without the exemption vote?
 
Last edited:
This is the largest field for a judicial election that I think I've seen, and there are veterans of the court among the candidates. What makes you stand out in the face of these veterans? What do you bring to the table that the venerable justices past and present do not?
 
@Wonderess thank you for taking the plunge once again and running for Justice. It definitely seems like the kind of thing that would play to your strengths, and I know that finding a just and proper solution to problems is something you believe in doing. 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?

This is not your first time running. As such, I would like to know:

What have you learned from your last time running for Justice? Did you have preconceived notions that were corrected during the election? How have you approached this campaign differently from the last one?

Since you last ran, what has occurred in the region that has altered your priorities, thoughts, or plans for the Court, if anything?

I imagine this would matter a lot to you, and it's definitely going to be on the mind of anyone who knows you and considers voting for you, so I have to ask. Do you believe there are principles greater than anything written in our law that should be considered when rendering judgment on the Court? How much weight would you give to the "bigger picture" or the "greater good?" Some would likely not want something outside of the laws or precedent as written guiding the decisions made by the Justices, so if you do give that consideration, how would you balance it with a more restrained or strict approach to making a decision? I recognize this may have been covered with previous answers, but given the Catholic elephant in the room, I would be remiss if I didn't address it directly.
 
Last edited:
The general public has expressed concern over what they perceive as overly harsh sentencing in court cases, can you explain your approach to determining a proper sentence in a criminal case?
I think that punishments are very much a subjective thing given that it depends on the situation, the person, how many crimes they have previously committed, among many other factors. I dont think there is any calculus to it. I'd say a minimal sentence would be not allowing someone to run in the next election or suspending voting privileges for two months. I think there is very much a need for a rehabilitative posture instead of a retributive posture which I think connects to that same desire I have for the community as a whole. It honestly depends case by case and defendant to defendant.

1. Can Security Counselor Bill assume the duties of Vice Delegate without the exemption vote?

My opinion on the matter is yes he can. It is important to note how the wording of the Legal Code is written:

Legal Code:
5. Security Councilors must meet the same influence and endorsement requirements as applicants to the Council, and may be suspended or removed if they fail to do so.

Bill is not automatically removed from the Council when he falls below the stated threshold. This means that the line of succession remains intact, and he is called to fulfill the duties of Vice Delegate. If the SC held a vote to remove Bill from the SC then of course Bob could take over.
 
This is the largest field for a judicial election that I think I've seen, and there are veterans of the court among the candidates. What makes you stand out in the face of these veterans? What do you bring to the table that the venerable justices past and present do not?

Well Sil, I like to think that anytime a new person is elected to the court there is a new perspective added. I think the court should have a diversity of viewpoints which enrich its consideration of the important questions that it has a duty to consider. I do not think I am somehow an alien or completely different individual in TNP, but I do think that my thought process and means of consideration stand out. I believe in a sort of holism when it comes to deliberation. We have a law that must be defended and followed, yes, but there are also situations and realities that the law could never have foreseen which is why people are entrusted to make sense of both law and circumstance. I very much lean towards reasoning that deals with this dichotomy, and I would like to be a part of that here in TNP and serve the region in one of the ways I know how.
 
You’re someone with a strong sense of morality - you’ll often claim how you seek the greater good. That being said, when you speak about defending justice, do you intend for your deliberations to be considerate of technicalities in the law? For example, let’s say that an accused person does something that you, personally, believe to be counterproductive to the greater good. However, due to an unforeseen technicality in the law, they may be able to get off without a conviction.

Does your own approach adjust for that or accommodate that? Is it “defend justice down to the letter” or is it “defend justice as a principle itself and seek out the greater good”?
 
Last edited:
Bill is not automatically removed from the Council when he falls below the stated threshold. This means that the line of succession remains intact, and he is called to fulfill the duties of Vice Delegate. If the SC held a vote to remove Bill from the SC then of course Bob could take over.

Almost. You got closer than I thought you would, but there's some pieces missing. Read Sections 5.2 and 5.3 and try again.
 
Would you have ruled differently on the original sentencing order in relation to TNP vs. Whole India? If so, how?
 
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?
I think a request for review is able to accomplish this sort of action. Clarification of law is an important part of the Court's duty so yes I believe it should be the final say on interpreting and understanding the functioning of the law.

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?
I dont quite know what you mean by civil procedure. I am taking it as the incorporation of a jury or something similar into legal deliberations. If so, then I would say that such would be an unnecessary addition. The process does not need more steps or people involved at this time as it would hamper the process and take more time for cases to be concluded. I trust the three justices can come to a sound and fair conclusion without extraneous input from a formal body. They could approach legal experts if they so wished.

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?
The North Pacific v Bobberino comes to mind. I agree with the verdict, but I do find 5 months of suspended voting rights to be a bit much. Perhaps two or three would have been in order. I dont find precedent to be the final word on sentences. Every circumstance even when a similar charge is brought against two people is different and has unique circumstances. As I said before sentences should be more of a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution.

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?
There are no current other examples that come to mind. It is not my place to again and again critique the court's decisions especially since I know full well that I do not have all the pieces of the puzzle as they do.

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.
I agree that judicial restraint is important. I wish to never innovate on the law but play a sort of respectful referee role. The court is to settle dispute, bring reparation for misconduct within the law, or clarify the law. If there is a question then it must be answered. No more nor no less should be accomplished other than this.

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.
The Court's job is to clarify what is there. I will not legislate from the bench. Problems are the Regional Assembly's responsibility to fix when it comes to fixing loopholes and issues in the law.

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 Court should serve only as an arbitrator and clarifier which means that it has to only act in those circumstances and not take any initiative of its own. In this way it is weaker than the Executive and RA which do take initiative and are the central components to regional governance. Neither of these two branches are known for their infringement on the constitutional rights of the region in current times. Given how specific the Constitution is in regard to government structure so it would have to be a very blatant contradiction with it for me to consider overturning a RA law or executive action. The gist is that I am more likely to very to the point with my reading of the law rather than overly interpretive.

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?
I think this has a great deal to do with the probability of a person being able to ever reintegrate themselves with the region and community. An indefinite sentence may suggest room for there to be change in the future while a permanent one does not. Of course a permanent ruling could be challenged, but there is a difference in posture and expectation that comes with the different uses of those terms. If someone gives away regional secrets, I would consider that more worthy of an indefinite sentence while a coup attempt would warrant a permanent sentence. This reflects the difference in degree of gravity between these two actions.

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?
I think this is a wonderful idea especially now that the AG no longer exists. Our legal system is very complex and it is hard to know all relevant sections when dealing with an issue. I think having some sort of manual that pulls together laws and statutes on a given topic all into one place would be helpful. A staff could help others with legal questions while also helping with this project. How nice would it be to want to find all laws dealing with the Delegacy and find them in one place quoted from the legal code, constitution, court rulings, etc. I think this would be a great idea. Perhaps the court could find volunteers or even entreat TNPU to help with these ideas.
 
What have you learned from your last time running for Justice? Did you have preconceived notions that were corrected during the election? How have you approached this campaign differently from the last one?
I think the most valuable thing is my maturity in the region. I looked at my past campaign thread, and the reality is that I have grown as a person and presence in the region which I am truly happy about. I am here to serve the region and execute the responsibilities of the office, to serve it. That is what is fundamentally important about being a candidate. I think this is a lesson learned since last time.

Since you last ran, what has occurred in the region that has altered your priorities, thoughts, or plans for the Court, if anything?
I dont think anything of that nature has changed. I have no plans for the Court because there is no space for innovation in the capacity of justice. The staff stuff is separate and related but not a change to the fundamental system that is the Judicial Branch.

I imagine this would matter a lot to you, and it's definitely going to be on the mind of anyone who knows you and considers voting for you, so I have to ask. Do you believe there are principles greater than anything written in our law that should be considered when rendering judgment on the Court? How much weight would you give to the "bigger picture" or the "greater good?" Some would likely not want something outside of the laws or precedent as written guiding the decisions made by the Justices, so if you do give that consideration, how would you balance it with a more restrained or strict approach to making a decision? I recognize this may have been covered with previous answers, but given the Catholic elephant in the room, i would be remiss if I didn't address it directly.
I am not here to theologize the law. The only real principle that I would apply is how we treat those that break the law. I think mercy is important both in the confines of the law and also in the community as a whole, and that is often lost to derision and grudges. I am here to read the law and then define it in its context, not my context, not the delegate's context, but the context of the law as written. It is easy to forget that these are people (nations) that we are dealing with and not just automatons that we can apply a law to. The reality has to be fully understood so that a sentence can be rightly found that accomplishes the desired effect. It is the job of the RA to realize the good and make it law. It is the job of the Court to interpret and speak for that written law.
 
You’re someone with a strong sense of morality - you’ll often claim how you seek the greater good. That being said, when you speak about defending justice, do you intend for your deliberations to be considerate of technicalities in the law? For example, let’s say that an accused person does something that you, personally, believe to be counterproductive to the greater good. However, due to an unforeseen technicality in the law, they may be able to get off without a conviction.

Does your own approach adjust for that or accommodate that? Is it “defend justice down to the letter” or is it “defend justice as a principle itself and seek out the greater good”?

Positive law should reflect to the best of its ability the natural law. It is the Regional Assembly's job to make that a reality, but the Court is to interpret the law as written. If someone gets off on a technicality then so be it, it will be up to the RA to fix that for the future, but the Court can't legislate in the moment and therefore must abide by what the law says. I would not take the law into my own hands.
 
Almost. You got closer than I thought you would, but there's some pieces missing. Read Sections 5.2 and 5.3 and try again.
So here are my further thoughts about these sections.

Legal Code:
12. If the Vice Delegate is temporarily unavailable, the Council may task one of its members with performing the duties of the Vice Delegate. The Council may hold a confirmation vote, but is not required to do so.
This clause is irrelevant because this is not a temporary unavailability. Being deleted on sight is permanent.

Legal Code:
14. Whenever any Council member fails to meet the influence or endorsement count requirements to maintain their position without being granted an exemption, the Vice Delegate must promptly warn them. If the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
15. Suspended Council members will remain on the line of succession, but may not assume the duties of the Delegate or Vice Delegate if either position is vacated, nor may they participate in any votes conducted by the Council.

The person in question, Bill, is not meeting the requirements, but there is no VD to suspend him. So I see no reason why these statutes will obstruct him from the office. The SC could vote to remove and send the matter to the RA but that takes time.

legal code:
Section 4.7: Special Elections
35. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to two weeks before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle for that office.
36. Special elections will follow the same procedures as regularly scheduled elections for the vacant office.
________________________________
11. If the Delegate or Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly, their office will be considered vacant.

Bill's position would be temporary anyhow because of these clauses. It seems his not assuming the office would come from some action or power of the VD who is not present. If there is an issue with his ascendancy, I have still not found it.
 
Would you have ruled differently on the original sentencing order in relation to TNP vs. Whole India? If so, how?
I find that the sentence was fair especially since the credit was added for time already served. Fraud is a crime that one can come back from and so the court rightly disciplined Whole India for committing that crime while not being so strong as to damage their ability to reconcile with the community. There is nothing I would have done differently.
 
I find that the sentence was fair especially since the credit was added for time already served. Fraud is a crime that one can come back from and so the court rightly disciplined Whole India for committing that crime while not being so strong as to damage their ability to reconcile with the community. There is nothing I would have done differently.
Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly. You believe that the Court was correct in stating that WI produced doctored images and that that information should be taken into account when rendering judgement? Despite the R4R stating that the Court erred in doing so?
 
Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly. You believe that the Court was correct in stating that WI produced doctored images and that that information should be taken into account when rendering judgement? Despite the R4R stating that the Court erred in doing so?
From your question, I assumed you meant the revised sentence as that was the one I was referencing. I see now that you did ask about the original sentence which was an error in my reading of your question. In the case of the original sentence, I concur with the R4R that the correct procedure was not followed and that the evidence of the doctored image could not be taken into account. It was a slight misstep that ended up damaging the court process but mistakes happen. I do not blame the members of the court for blatantly attempting to be impartial against Whole India. However, a just process was obstructed through error and that had to be corrected.
 
Clarification appreciated.

It is hard to believe I am saying this but you have my vote come this election.
 
I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that you're a very principled person. That combined with your government experience gets you my vote. I think you'd make a fine Justice. Good luck!
 
I don't usually ask questions of other candidates in elections, but since I do not think it has been brought up, what are your views on the rule amendments recently referred to the Assembly for consultation (here)?

EDIT: Bracket
 
Last edited:
Back
Top