[Feedback] Codifying option of 'no contest' pleas

I will start with a bit of explainer this time, because 'nolo contendere' or, in English, 'no contest', is not as straightforward as guilty and not guilty are.
Many crimes, both in real life and in this game, require two elements: An overt act, and a criminal intent (Mens rea, literally translated as 'guilty mind'). The logic behind the two elements is that society should punish people when they deliberately transgress society's laws, and not when they make a mistake or an accident has happened. Thus a person accused of a crime, and where the act itself is not in dispute, can register their plea -- guilty or not guilty -- according to whether they intended to transgress against the law. The prosecution then has to prove the mental state. The usual example in real life is the difference between murder and manslaughter. While exact definitions differ, murder is always the act of killing a person with the intent of doing so, or where the perpetrator knew or should have known that their acts would put the victim's life in peril. Manslaughter is the act or killing a person without the intent to do so. If Alice is accused of murdering Bob by running him over in her car, she can admit to the act itself -- she ran him over and he died -- but still register her plea as 'not guilty' because she never intended to harm Bob, and didn't act in a way where she should have known she put his life at risk.
However, not all crimes require both elements. Some acts are criminal even without any intent. That is true both in real life and in The North Pacific. Following from above example, manslaughter is a crime, and will be punished, even as the accused may never have intended to harm the victim. If Alice admits to hitting Bob with her car, and Bob died, society at large will still punish Alice for manslaughter, even as she lacked the criminal intent.

The same phenomenon is present in North Pacifican law. Take the two crimes of Treason and Espionage:

2. "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution.

Click to expand...

6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.

Click to expand...

I have underscored the part of the definition of treason that deals with intent. A person can, hypothetically, admit to providing material support to a group that then attempts to undermine or overthrow the lawful government, yet plead not guilty due to their lack of intent. The person may claim to be ignorant of the group's hostile aims, have been deceived, or similar. The prosecution would in that case be required to show that the accused had a criminal intent for a conviction. However, the clause on espionage lacks such a requirement of intent. Sharing privileged information is a crime even if the accused had no intention to do so, such as inadvertently sharing screenshots for another purpose, but where the privileged information could be gleaned. A person who does not dispute the act, but does dispute their intent, can thus be placed in the undesirable situation of having to either plead guilty, despite their attestation that they lacked intent, or not guilty, despite the action being a matter of public record or eminently provable.
In such a case real life courts have allowed a plea of 'nolo contendere', no contest. The accused can admit to the factual claims of the prosecution, but maintain that they did not have a criminal intent. The North Pacific's Court has previously accepted pleas of no contest as a replacement for guilty or not guilty, if the alleged crime was one that did not require a criminal intent. No contest is itself contested with good reason, though. The main reason, and the one that concerns us, is the ability of a prosecutor to overwhelm the accused and in effect bully them to admit to actions that are not matters of public record or eminently provable as a part of a plea deal and a diminished sentence. In our community that is not likely to happen for several reasons. First, because our list of defined crimes is so short, only a few select actions are even within the scope of a possible plea of no contest. Second, the rather limited investigatory and prosecutorial resources available to the Government through the appointed prosecutor mean that there is less opportunity to overwhelm the accused and bully them into accepting a plea deal. Third, our principle of having the accused represented by serious counsel is solid, such that a defendant is unlikely to be uninformed of the risks associated.

With that out of the way, I can get to the matter for which the Court seeks feedback. We have discussed the possibility of codifying the option of pleading no contest to charges that do not require criminal intent, as a part of a plea deal. Any plea deal would require some scrutiny and labour to show the public that justice was achieved. Most important, the prosecution would have to produce a statement of facts for the accused to read and decide how to plead, and link those facts through specific actions to crimes in our legal code. Otherwise the defendant is pleading no contest to a blank cheque -- a blatant miscarriage of justice. A public statement of facts is also the easiest avenue for the public to know what transpired and why the defendant is being punished.
Future Courts will have to guard this option vigilantly. No Court should accept a plea of no contest solely because prosecution and defense have agreed to it; it has to be in the interest of both the general public and care must be taken to ensure that the defendant is fully informed and able to consent to the plea deal without duress. The voters must also watch the Court, and make sure that pleas of no contest are not abused to get rid of thorny or delicate trials without public scrutiny.

The option of a plea of no contest only makes sense in the context of a plea deal, which itself necessitates some prosecutorial discretion. This proposal is therefore contingent on positive responses to the Court's earlier request for public feedback on prosecutorial discretion.

We seek public feedback to this proposal, and we will do so for future proposals to come in this term, regardless of whether those proposals can be implemented by the Court alone or requires new legislation. This is done to arrive at the best decision, and also to maintain the Court's impartiality and legitimacy. If we propose something that could jeopardise either, we wish to know sooner rather than later.

Would this also mean that the court would codify the concept of a plea deal? Based on my understanding of regional history, they haven't actually been a thing. We have sentencing recommendations, and sometimes the prosecution and defense agree on the recommendation, but it has been at the discretion of the court whether to follow the joint recommendation or not.

Yes, it would codify plea deals too. Without a deal, no contest is functionally equivalent to guilty, except without any remorse that a court can take into account.

I am in the camp that the simpler the judicial process is, the better. If there is a pre-mediation process of some kind (in a way that amounts to a no-contest plea) that's simpler.

The process of drafting the language has sadly taken a bit longer than expected, so we are too close to the election for this Court to both give the public a fair chance to offer feedback on the proposed language and decide whether to finally implement the changes discussed. As such, the language will be posted for public comment, but it will be left to the Justices elected in the upcoming elections to decide whether the language should be adopted.
Here is the draft language for the codifying of 'no contest' pleas: