- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I've served as Justice a few times before now.
I am now seeking to resume that service. Please judge whether or not I should.
Statement of Purpose
The North Pacific lays a serious but intermittent burden on its court. The Court is tasked with delivering fair trials and with reviewing the legality or constitutionality of laws, policies, and official conduct. Long ago, trials were farcical - trials would invariably end with the prosecution or defense giving up before a verdict could be reached through argument. Court rulings on requests for legal review were delivered erratically, too, and were often unrelated to legislative intent.
Today, things are better. We see convictions in cases where actions break our laws. We have an organized index of rulings on requests for reviews, and past rulings are regularly used as guidance by the court alongside coherent readings of the law in order to seek consistency.
I would seek to keep what we have, through many efforts over a long time, achieved. I would seek to build on it, however incrementally. In order to do that, I believe the justices should not only be available for cases but should also meet regularly and review avenues for improvement, whether through adjustments to the court rules or templates or through improving legal education. (I will attempt to get the other Justices to help me complete a legal manual for TNP.)
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are you running a serious campaign for a joke position?
It's not a joke to me. Our court, while imperfect, is an essential part of our democratic system. The North Pacific needs Justices who will impartially and reasonably read and apply the law.
Will you disappear?
l have no reason to expect that I would. Should Real Life mean I must withdraw from NationStates duties, I will endeavor to resign rather than absent myself.
Are plea bargains okay?
They can be. If the defense and the prosecution have a shared understanding of what a trial could bring, working out a deal can save everyone a lot of time.
Should the Court ignore charges for slight offenses?
Whether an offense is serious can be subjective. The Court should consider (reasonably) whether the factual claim made in a complaint could be a crime, and whether the facts presented give reason to believe the factual claim is true.
When considering if a claimed action is a crime or not, the Court must not limit itself a single definition in the criminal code, but must consider also the relevant parts of the Bill of Rights, legal code, and other legal documents or government policies. The Bill of Rights can protect activities that might otherwise be interpreted as crimes. Past court rulings may contradict the indictment's legal claim, or support its interpretation. Government policy may shape the application of law. Et cetera.
When considering whether the accusation is plausible, factually, the Court cannot expect sufficient testimony to convict. That would render moot the need for testimony and potentially avoid cross-examination. The Court can accept on faith that evidence provided is accurate and make inferences from it to evaluate plausibility. Verification happens later.
Our current system is not geared toward careful consideration of whether or not to accept an indictment, and past processes (like pre-trial motions) brought excessive delay. We depend on the people we choose as Justices to think well on whether to accept an indictment or not. I think I can do that.
Why isn't my question here?
Because you haven't asked it yet. Go ahead, I'll answer.
I am now seeking to resume that service. Please judge whether or not I should.
Statement of Purpose
The North Pacific lays a serious but intermittent burden on its court. The Court is tasked with delivering fair trials and with reviewing the legality or constitutionality of laws, policies, and official conduct. Long ago, trials were farcical - trials would invariably end with the prosecution or defense giving up before a verdict could be reached through argument. Court rulings on requests for legal review were delivered erratically, too, and were often unrelated to legislative intent.
Today, things are better. We see convictions in cases where actions break our laws. We have an organized index of rulings on requests for reviews, and past rulings are regularly used as guidance by the court alongside coherent readings of the law in order to seek consistency.
I would seek to keep what we have, through many efforts over a long time, achieved. I would seek to build on it, however incrementally. In order to do that, I believe the justices should not only be available for cases but should also meet regularly and review avenues for improvement, whether through adjustments to the court rules or templates or through improving legal education. (I will attempt to get the other Justices to help me complete a legal manual for TNP.)
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are you running a serious campaign for a joke position?
It's not a joke to me. Our court, while imperfect, is an essential part of our democratic system. The North Pacific needs Justices who will impartially and reasonably read and apply the law.
Will you disappear?
l have no reason to expect that I would. Should Real Life mean I must withdraw from NationStates duties, I will endeavor to resign rather than absent myself.
Are plea bargains okay?
They can be. If the defense and the prosecution have a shared understanding of what a trial could bring, working out a deal can save everyone a lot of time.
Should the Court ignore charges for slight offenses?
Whether an offense is serious can be subjective. The Court should consider (reasonably) whether the factual claim made in a complaint could be a crime, and whether the facts presented give reason to believe the factual claim is true.
When considering if a claimed action is a crime or not, the Court must not limit itself a single definition in the criminal code, but must consider also the relevant parts of the Bill of Rights, legal code, and other legal documents or government policies. The Bill of Rights can protect activities that might otherwise be interpreted as crimes. Past court rulings may contradict the indictment's legal claim, or support its interpretation. Government policy may shape the application of law. Et cetera.
When considering whether the accusation is plausible, factually, the Court cannot expect sufficient testimony to convict. That would render moot the need for testimony and potentially avoid cross-examination. The Court can accept on faith that evidence provided is accurate and make inferences from it to evaluate plausibility. Verification happens later.
Our current system is not geared toward careful consideration of whether or not to accept an indictment, and past processes (like pre-trial motions) brought excessive delay. We depend on the people we choose as Justices to think well on whether to accept an indictment or not. I think I can do that.
Why isn't my question here?
Because you haven't asked it yet. Go ahead, I'll answer.
Last edited:
