Posts: 67
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
Trials need to be organized in a more orderly fashion, as the RT trial has shown. We, Mirabellis, propose the following structure, in the event that a suspect pleads not guilty.1. Creation of a thread and the formal listing of charges against the defendant.2. The prosecution's formal case, including evidence and testimony.3. The defense's case, including evidence and testimony.4. The prosecution's rebuttal.5. Instructions to the Jury. The Moderator should explain the charges and inform the jury of how it may choose to convict on lesser charges, should the prosecution include them for consideration.6. The Jury deliberates on guilt or innocence.7. Should the jury render a verdict of guilty, the Secretary of Justice may hear clemency pleas and then decide on a final sentence.------------------In the event that a suspect pleads guilty to specific charges, there is no need for a trial. While the South Pacific has no formal laws, it should at least have a system of punishment clearly delineated, that the Secretary of Justice may choose from, depending on the severity of the crime. For example.:Class A Infractions-Complete and total banning from the South Pacific Region.Class B Infractions-6 months banned from posting at these forums.-6 months banned from running for office.Class C Infractions-4 months banned from posting at these forums-4 months banned from running for office.Class D Infractions-etc.Crimes would be appropriately classified and after being found guilty, or having pled guilty, a perpetrator would be appropriately sentenced.Of course, there will be questions on the impartiality of the Secretary of Justice on sentencing. The duty of sentencing could be formally given to the jury in a trial or given to a jury should the defendant plead guilty. This would be acceptable, but only if the jury has clearly defined charges and punishments to choose from.In the end, Mirabellis recommends the formation of an independent judiciary to act as moderators in trials and for deciding punishment based on the system outlined above.
Very well thought out Mirabellis, we will have to see what Slackervania thinks on this, Thank you for your thoughts, and know that this is only the second Trial for the South Pacific so we are still in the learning process of setting this all up.
Posts: 28
Threads: 3
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Just my 2 cents. I like the first part of you're proposal however, I would say that a jury decides punishment, reguardless of whether or not they plead guilty. As for classifying crimes and pairing them with punishment, that is great for a guideline. However, I'm sure there will be cases where a new crime will come up or there would be extenuating circumstances where the punishment may not fit the crime. So instead of hard and fast punishments, let the jury have the leeway to make judgements on a case by case basis. I think the SOJ's role in the process should be limited to choosing the jury, setting up the trial thread, choosing a public defender, if nesasary, setting sentancing guidelines, and making sure things don't get out of hand between all of the parties. Let the jury be the determining factor in sentances. Like I said, just my opinion.
Posts: 520
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Well, for the most part, Mirabellis, the trials are already run in that manner. The only difference being that the jury instructions are given first, because if they're not people who aren't in the jury are going to try and wiggle their way into having a say in the verdict/sentence. That, and I don't decide the sentence. There are already sentencing guidelines (ejection for 3 warnings, ejection for voter fraud, etc.), but they don''t cover all cases and circumstances, and that's where I feel a jury should decide how to punish.Like brownvillejct said, the jury should be the determining factor in sentences as well as verdicts. Partially because it's highly prejudicial for me to set up the thread, be the prosecution, and then decide the sentence if they're found guilty. Judge, jury, executioner is not my bag. And in this case, the jury was given several options as to sentencing, both by myself and the defense, as well as the leeway to enforce additional conditions provided they were reasonable. My job is to help codify and enforce regional law. It's the job of juries, composed of citizens of our region, to decide the verdict and punishment when a trial is necesary.
Posts: 409
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
To get off topic for a second: This encourages me to see people contributing to the SP. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside...I like the way the trial/jury is set up, but when it comes to sentencing, I have this to say: life does not fit into categories. I think that the sentencing should be solely up to the jury. While separating it into categories is a nice idea, there will always be people on the fence.
Posts: 67
Threads: 8
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
We believe that the rule of law is paramount.Should sentencing be left up to juries, then we will end up with different sentences meted out by different panels at different times. Yes, there may be different circumstances, but a man who robs his rich boss is no different from a hoodlum robbing a poor old lady of her purse.If such a codification of punishments is frowned upon, regardless of such measures in other nations around the world, we would at least submit that past jury decisions be taken into account when future juries are deciding punishments. Judicial precedent is a time honored system that serves as the basis for some of the greatest and best systems of justice conceived by mankind and we should embrace them.We realize that the SP is still progressing through its pangs of birth, but we urge the council to realize that starting off with a firm basis is a wiser course than haphazardly moving forward from incident to incident, making it up as we go.Thank you.
|
