- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Attempted_Socialism
- Discord
- Kim Philby#9330
First things first. I had not planned to run for a third term at this point. My plan was to step down for a while and do other things. But there can be no doubt that the last month has revealed deficiencies in both how the Court operates and how our general culture both incentivise and pressure us into behaving. So, as I said when I accepted the nomination, reforms are needed.
The Court is a stickler for rules as written and technicalities. That’s inherent in the role. But we should not let that get in the way of evaluating whether the Court is used in good faith and to promote distributive justice where the possibility arises. The recent case has shown that defence counsel is incentivised to treat the Court as a cudgel to be disarmed, which in turn necessitates the weaponisation of arguing technicalities and engaging in shenanigans. The Court should not be a cudgel, but instead aim to become a forum of neutral arbitration (And be seen and recognised as such), and in turn, attempts at shenanigans should be rejected.
This requires an arms-length separation between elements of the Court system. Instead of having a Justice accept an indictment, and give it to an appointed prosecutor who may (Or may not) believe that the evidence provided can lead to a conviction, why not take advantage of the fact that we now do have a bench of Bar members who can take the case? This will allow the Justices to step away from the double role of both organising a prosecution and being impartial in the trial. This move would make the Court less of a battleground between the indicted (And their defence counsel), the person bringing the indictment, and other regional interests. The Justices would still have an overseeing role to ward off prosecutorial misconduct, but would be better freed up to serve as the impartial panel that the Bill of Rights grants to all citizens.
Inspired by the current case before the Court I also want to specifically allow a plea of no contest in the Court Procedures, with a larger degree of deference to the agreement between defence counsel and prosecutor when it comes to sentencing.
We should also seriously consider getting more people engaged with the Court. That was a pet project of mine this term, but sadly one that didn’t go well. I had considered the possibility of opening up some sort of Court Clerk position, but the logistics of that make me doubt the feasibility. We may instead look at other options, such as a published shortlist of people available to serve as Temporary Hearing Officers, so that future Courts can get through the process quickly, and citizens who wish to get involved in the Judiciary have an easier entrance level than running for Justice.
Last, and this is an element that the Court can’t change on its own, we need to think about the legalistic and litigious culture that gave rise to this phenomenon. The Court can apply a good faith evaluation to future submissions, but if a bad faith actor is hidden amongst us, they would most certainly decry a bad faith label as judicial overreach and potentially muck up the work. As long as the Judiciary is elected, the Justices have to consider not just whether the Court – as the abstract entity – is seen as legitimate, but also the specific electoral ramifications of getting into an argument. Rejecting an indictment as brought in bad faith will have to be culturally accepted, for instance, and the Court cannot stand alone in defying judicial shenanigans. We, the broader TNP citizenry, have to consider this in the public sphere, and the discussions that have been ongoing on Discord can only be the beginning of that culture shift.
The Court is a stickler for rules as written and technicalities. That’s inherent in the role. But we should not let that get in the way of evaluating whether the Court is used in good faith and to promote distributive justice where the possibility arises. The recent case has shown that defence counsel is incentivised to treat the Court as a cudgel to be disarmed, which in turn necessitates the weaponisation of arguing technicalities and engaging in shenanigans. The Court should not be a cudgel, but instead aim to become a forum of neutral arbitration (And be seen and recognised as such), and in turn, attempts at shenanigans should be rejected.
This requires an arms-length separation between elements of the Court system. Instead of having a Justice accept an indictment, and give it to an appointed prosecutor who may (Or may not) believe that the evidence provided can lead to a conviction, why not take advantage of the fact that we now do have a bench of Bar members who can take the case? This will allow the Justices to step away from the double role of both organising a prosecution and being impartial in the trial. This move would make the Court less of a battleground between the indicted (And their defence counsel), the person bringing the indictment, and other regional interests. The Justices would still have an overseeing role to ward off prosecutorial misconduct, but would be better freed up to serve as the impartial panel that the Bill of Rights grants to all citizens.
Inspired by the current case before the Court I also want to specifically allow a plea of no contest in the Court Procedures, with a larger degree of deference to the agreement between defence counsel and prosecutor when it comes to sentencing.
We should also seriously consider getting more people engaged with the Court. That was a pet project of mine this term, but sadly one that didn’t go well. I had considered the possibility of opening up some sort of Court Clerk position, but the logistics of that make me doubt the feasibility. We may instead look at other options, such as a published shortlist of people available to serve as Temporary Hearing Officers, so that future Courts can get through the process quickly, and citizens who wish to get involved in the Judiciary have an easier entrance level than running for Justice.
Last, and this is an element that the Court can’t change on its own, we need to think about the legalistic and litigious culture that gave rise to this phenomenon. The Court can apply a good faith evaluation to future submissions, but if a bad faith actor is hidden amongst us, they would most certainly decry a bad faith label as judicial overreach and potentially muck up the work. As long as the Judiciary is elected, the Justices have to consider not just whether the Court – as the abstract entity – is seen as legitimate, but also the specific electoral ramifications of getting into an argument. Rejecting an indictment as brought in bad faith will have to be culturally accepted, for instance, and the Court cannot stand alone in defying judicial shenanigans. We, the broader TNP citizenry, have to consider this in the public sphere, and the discussions that have been ongoing on Discord can only be the beginning of that culture shift.
