- Pronouns
- He/Him
Howdy y'all!
For those that do not yet know me, I'm Wym and I'm running for justice!!
While I am a relative newcomer to TNP's formidable legal tradition, I have a great deal of legal experience in other regions, which I feel would be of great use given the ongoing debate around legal reform. I have served as a Justice in Lazarus for many years, where I have authored a number of legal opinions (indeed, my rulings make up the vast majority of antebellum Lazarene case law) and presided over numerous criminal trials. It is perhaps useful at this point to turn to my general legal philosophy.
I am a keen believer in judicial restraint, the Court of The North Pacific, or indeed any region is not a legislative body and must therefore refrain from acting as one. Therefore the first question I ask myself when considering any request for review is, 'Is the court the appropriate venue for this question, or is it best addressed by another body'. I think that, at times, TNP's unique legal culture sometimes lends itself to a culture of over-litigation and expecting the Court to weigh in on matters where somewhere else, for example, the RA, would be a better place for an issue. This leads to the second part of my Judicial Philosophy, the belief that where the law does not clearly speak on a matter, it is not the place of the court to invent meaning or try to contort existing legislation to fit something it was not designed for. I can appreciate that it is a rather unsatisfying response to state that 'the law does not make any provision for this matter, the RA needs to legislate on this', but that is sometimes a response a court must give. I will finally speak on my general approach to legal interpretation, which combines a textual approach based upon the plain meaning of words with teleological interpretation to allow law to be considered through both theory and praxis. This, in turn, influences my approach to precedent. I feel it is important to note that, while it is not the place of the court to act as a quasi-legislative body, the way we do things as a region has changed over the decades, and prior rulings must be considered in light of those changing practices, rather than clung to.
Regarding the current proposals for judicial reform, I am very much in favour of the proposal for recusal due to absence. I am more cautious about the proposals for codifying no contest pleas and prosecutor discretion. While I am absolutely in agreement with the limiting of nolo contendere to cases which do not require intent (to allow such a plea where intent is required would be iniquitous); I am cautious as to how this proposal would open the door to formalising plea deals. Plea deals, whether formalised or not, are something which I have little time for, I generally believe that they encourage prosecutorial overcharging (both of the vertical and horizontal nature, although the former would be limited by no contest being forbidden in cases requiring intent), and encourage pre-mature guilty pleas by defendants to avoid the perceived risk of a trial. Especially given that a not insignificant portion of cases have historically involved nations new to the region, who may well be intimidated by our complex legal system. I am disinclined towards prosecutorial discretion for similar reasons. That said, I am open to be convinced otherwise on both, as I simultaneously acknowledge the benefits the proposals could bring by simplifying the judicial system, and giving prosecutors an ability to change, or drop, indictments in response to an evolving assessment of the available evidence.
I am happy to answer any questions you have and hope to receive your vote!!
For those that do not yet know me, I'm Wym and I'm running for justice!!
While I am a relative newcomer to TNP's formidable legal tradition, I have a great deal of legal experience in other regions, which I feel would be of great use given the ongoing debate around legal reform. I have served as a Justice in Lazarus for many years, where I have authored a number of legal opinions (indeed, my rulings make up the vast majority of antebellum Lazarene case law) and presided over numerous criminal trials. It is perhaps useful at this point to turn to my general legal philosophy.
I am a keen believer in judicial restraint, the Court of The North Pacific, or indeed any region is not a legislative body and must therefore refrain from acting as one. Therefore the first question I ask myself when considering any request for review is, 'Is the court the appropriate venue for this question, or is it best addressed by another body'. I think that, at times, TNP's unique legal culture sometimes lends itself to a culture of over-litigation and expecting the Court to weigh in on matters where somewhere else, for example, the RA, would be a better place for an issue. This leads to the second part of my Judicial Philosophy, the belief that where the law does not clearly speak on a matter, it is not the place of the court to invent meaning or try to contort existing legislation to fit something it was not designed for. I can appreciate that it is a rather unsatisfying response to state that 'the law does not make any provision for this matter, the RA needs to legislate on this', but that is sometimes a response a court must give. I will finally speak on my general approach to legal interpretation, which combines a textual approach based upon the plain meaning of words with teleological interpretation to allow law to be considered through both theory and praxis. This, in turn, influences my approach to precedent. I feel it is important to note that, while it is not the place of the court to act as a quasi-legislative body, the way we do things as a region has changed over the decades, and prior rulings must be considered in light of those changing practices, rather than clung to.
Regarding the current proposals for judicial reform, I am very much in favour of the proposal for recusal due to absence. I am more cautious about the proposals for codifying no contest pleas and prosecutor discretion. While I am absolutely in agreement with the limiting of nolo contendere to cases which do not require intent (to allow such a plea where intent is required would be iniquitous); I am cautious as to how this proposal would open the door to formalising plea deals. Plea deals, whether formalised or not, are something which I have little time for, I generally believe that they encourage prosecutorial overcharging (both of the vertical and horizontal nature, although the former would be limited by no contest being forbidden in cases requiring intent), and encourage pre-mature guilty pleas by defendants to avoid the perceived risk of a trial. Especially given that a not insignificant portion of cases have historically involved nations new to the region, who may well be intimidated by our complex legal system. I am disinclined towards prosecutorial discretion for similar reasons. That said, I am open to be convinced otherwise on both, as I simultaneously acknowledge the benefits the proposals could bring by simplifying the judicial system, and giving prosecutors an ability to change, or drop, indictments in response to an evolving assessment of the available evidence.
I am happy to answer any questions you have and hope to receive your vote!!
Last edited:
