Criminal Procedure Act (October 2020)

[New Rogernomics]

Criminal Procedure Act Amendment (October 2020)

Proposed By: @"New Rogernomics"
​

Preamble​

This act defines the procedure by which the Court shall conduct Criminal Reviews in accordance with Article V Section 7 of the Twelfth Mandate.

Section 1. Petitioning the Court

(1) Petitions to conduct a Criminal Review shall:

a. be submitted to the Court in a public area,
b. identify a Defendant,
c. identify the crimes the Defendant is alleged to have committed and
d. include evidence and commentary thereof in support of the allegations.

(2) The Court shall consider the petition for three days before deciding whether to conduct a Criminal Review by two-thirds vote.

(3) Upon two or more justices deciding to conduct a Criminal Review, the Court shall immediately serve notice upon both the Plaintiff and the Defendant that a Criminal Review has begun and refer them to this document.

Section 2. Criminal Reviews

(1) Criminal Reviews shall be conducted in a public area.

(2) Once the Criminal Review has begun:

a. the Defendant shall be granted seven days to present evidence in their defence and commentary on all evidence submitted to the Court thus far
b. then the Plaintiff shall be granted four days to present further evidence and commentary on all evidence submitted to the Court thus far. After this, the Criminal Review will conclude.

(3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant may each be represented by another person who they may identify at any time. Each of them may be represented by only one person at any given time.

(4) Criminal reviews shall only require two justices to hear a case, except in the case of a criminal review appeal.

Section 3. Criminal Review Appeals

(1) Criminal Review appeals shall be conducted in a public area, with the same procedure as a Criminal Review.

(2) Criminal Review appeals shall be conducted with all three justices, and shall be the final court judgement on a case.

(3) Criminal Review appeals may be dismissed by all three justices if they hold there are no grounds for a criminal review appeal.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I think it would be a good idea to have an appeals process put into the court, and to only require two justices to hear a case, with one reserved for the final appeal.

As for why this is needed:

• It is self-evident in any legal case that either the defense or the prosecution may make a mess of their case, and an appeals process allows for either party to press their case a second time. Unless the appeal is a waste of the court's time, which I've accounted for by allowing the three justices to dismiss an appeal.
• Not every case requires three justices, as some cases may be open-and-shut, and not even require a criminal review appeal. So requiring all three justices to hear the case is a bit much, and may delay a verdict - especially if either party has a flaky case that no appeal could put in their favor, or if one of the justices is time-constrained or absent.
• It is a struggle to have three justices active around the clock, so feasibly it makes sense to only require three for appeal, as in most situations it is reasonable to assume that two justices can discuss a verdict and come to agreement - and the exception when two cannot.
• Having one justice who is objective in a case is a good legal principle for appeals, as they are not party to the first case, but are party to the appeal and have fresh eyes to look at a case - and look beyond the last attempt to push a case.

 

[Mzeusia]

I support this idea and, speaking from experience, I would also like to add that this would speed up a lot of cases, meaning that the defence does not have to sit there for months, unable to give evidence, having their reputation in doubt while also potentially enduring unsolicited accusatory remarks on the RMB or anywhere else, as happened with me.

 

[Debussy]

EDIT: Found my answer. 

I support this.

 

[McChimp]

To be entirely clear, nothing in the current system actually prevents a criminal review from occuring with only two justices.

That said, the amendment seems fine to me, though I think the constitution would also need to be amended to empower the court to change a sentence based upon an appeal.

 

[joWhatup]

Looks fine to me, support.

 

[Debussy]

EDIT: If the assembly can keep its power to reduce sentencing and hear appeals whenever this appeals process fails, I still support this.

 

[New Rogernomics]

EDIT: If the assembly can keep its power to reduce sentencing and hear appeals whenever this appeals process fails, I still support this.

The Assembly can vote to reduce sentence on whatever verdict the court reaches, when the case is completed. That doesn't change because of this act. The assembly has to reasonably wait for the court case to be concluded regardless - which would be presumingly after the final appeal sentencing.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Looks like this is ready to become a proposal.