[Private] Possible Amendments for the Court Rules and Procedures

Greetings,

I have been pondering on the possibility of amendments for the current Court Rules and Procedures, and to the behavior of the Court when sentencing.

Chapter 1: Criminal Trials
Section 1: Indictments
[...]
Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure

1. [...]
2. [...]
3. [...]
   • 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. The proposed sentence by the Moderating Justice must be accepted by majority of the Court. 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. Alongside the publication of the sentence, the particular votes of the member of the Court must be added afterwards.

Click to expand...

Proposed amendments are bolded and differentiated in blue.

By this amendment, we ensure a formalization of the common agreement of the Court when it comes to sentencing alongside the Moderating Justice, allowing one of the three members of the Court / THO to be able to express their own opinion as to why they voted against such sentencing in the form of particular votes. Said votes do not have any legal binding.

Not against in principle, but I would change it a bit. What if the Moderating Justice's sentence is rejected by 2 Justices? Should they, together, be able to issue a sentence where the Moderating Justice decides to dissent. In my opinion they should, but the text doesn't reflect this.

I think there's also some changes needed language-wise, but that'd be done once the final draft is ready.

saintpeter:

Not against in principle, but I would change it a bit. What if the Moderating Justice's sentence is rejected by 2 Justices? Should they, together, be able to issue a sentence where the Moderating Justice decides to dissent. In my opinion they should, but the text doesn't reflect this.

I think there's also some changes needed language-wise, but that'd be done once the final draft is ready.

Click to expand...

If 2 justices reject the Moderating Justice's sentence, either the sentence is changed until an agreement is found, or the Moderating Justice changes from the original one to another one. For that to happen, we will need to add to the regulation the selection of the Moderating Justice, stating how the first Moderating Justice is selected by the Chief Justice, and in case of need (for example, in these cases), the Chief Justice should choose a different one.

For that, I will propose this:

Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure

1. The Moderating Justice, chosen by the Chief Justice, will open a trial thread promptly once an indictment has been accepted.
2. When a trial thread is opened, the Moderating Justice will notify the Defendant via a Private Message to their forum account and a Telegram to their nation. Alternate methods of notification may also be used so long as the Moderating Justice has a reasonable expectation that these methods will be more effective than the above options.
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
   • Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
   • Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
   • Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
   • Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
   • 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. The proposed sentence by the Moderating Justice must be accepted by majority of the Court. If such first sentence proposed by the Moderating Justice does not get the aproval needed, a new one must be drafted, or the Moderating Justice can be changed. 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. Alongside the publication of the sentence, the particular votes of the member of the Court must be added afterwards.
4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.
6. The Moderating Justice may, at any time, ask questions of the prosecution or the defense in order to get clarification on relevant issues
7. In case of need, the Chief Justice can change the Moderating Justice with the rest of the Court's consent.

Click to expand...

Proposed amendments are bolded and differentiated in blue.

I would also recommend adding a brand new chapter about the organization of the Court and establish procedures for future amendments.

Vivanco:

If 2 justices reject the Moderating Justice's sentence, either the sentence is changed until an agreement is found, or the Moderating Justice changes from the original one to another one. For that to happen, we will need to add to the regulation the selection of the Moderating Justice, stating how the first Moderating Justice is selected by the Chief Justice, and in case of need (for example, in these cases), the Chief Justice should choose a different one.

For that, I will propose this:

Proposed amendments are bolded and differentiated in blue.

Click to expand...

@saintpeter @Lord Lore What improvements in wording can be implemented?