Okay, the new version is very different! I think this is improved but still have many (many D: ) thoughts to add. Also I would still be game for trying out a non-adversarial system if anyone wants to draft one of those.
Any citizen may publically accuse another citizen of committing a criminal offence defined by law and thus petition the Court of Lazarus to begin criminal procedure.
This is fine. I think public declaration of charges is important for transparency. I would suggest rephrasing it as
Any citizen may petition the Court of Lazarus to begin a criminal case by posting a public accusation against another citizen. Public accusations must follow any requirements established by the Court.
I added the second sentence because it's not great for "I ACCUSE IMKI OF VARIOUS CRIMES" to be a valid basis for criminal trial; the court should have a role in establishing what information needs to be presented in the statement to be able to proceed.
I would also suggest considering whether only citizens
should be allowed to bring charges, and whether only citizens
should
Any citizen within a criminal court not serving as a Justice on that court may choose to be represented by another.
This is awkward, but I think I understand what you mean. How about:
The accuser and the defendant may each choose someone to act on their behalf during a criminal case. They may replace the person representing them at any time.
Citizens may be issued a sentence authored by a permanent Justice of the Court of Lazarus appropriate to their criminal offence in accordance with law if they are proven guilty by testimony within a criminal court and the sentence is confirmed by a two thirds vote lasting three days of the Justices serving on that criminal court.
This seems oddly phrased. Like it's covering stuff it really doesn't need to cover. And it's not impossible for all 3 justices to be temporary and thus unable to sentence someone given how it's phrased now. How about this instead:
The Court will determine a verdict and a sentence by majority vote.
Since the court is three people, a majority is the same as a two-thirds majority - the extra definition isn't required. Leave authorship up to the court.
Those who have been sentenced may make an appeal to the Court of Lazarus to review their sentence and replace it with another sentence confirmed by a two thirds vote of the permanent Justices of the Court of Lazarus lasting three days if:
- Any of the Justices who confirmed their sentence have been found guilty of a crime that calls into question their will to rule justly.
- Any of those who testified against them have been found guilty of a crime that calls into question their will to testify truthfully.
This seems problematic, particularly because it doesn't institute a time limit. If I'm convicted of, idk, treason, 3 years after declaring you guilty of, let's say, being a monkey, is that grounds to challenge your conviction?
I would prefer a slightly different system for appeals. Restrict it to something like "if new evidence regarding their guilt comes to light", and let them petition the Delegate for a rehearing. If the delegate approves, then nobody who was on the court that heard the case can serve on the appeals court. So, if it's been 2 years and the justices are different, you can use the basic court. If it's a week later, the delegate would appoint 3 temporary justices to hear the appeal if granted. Alternatively, if you're concerned about having able and available people to serve, let the Delegate decide who will rehear the case without worrying about whether they were on the court that previously heard it.
It shall be the duty of the Delegate to ensure that sentences are carried out in full.
I don't think the Delegate alone is quite enough. I would suggest instead something like this:
Sentences will be implemented in-game by the Delegate, and on the forum by one or more members of the admin team. Every government official in Lazarus is responsible for reporting any violation of a court-imposed sentence that they learn of.
This takes care of a case where the delegate isn't an admin, and also requires others to not sit quietly if they find out that someone who was banned has returned (for example).
On to Criminal Procedures!
Should a Justice of the Court of Lazarus be unable to handle a criminal case, their powers and responsibilities regarding that case shall be taken up by a temporary Justice appointed by the Delegate. That temporary Justice shall bear none of the other powers, rights or responsibilities of the Court of Lazarus.
- Justices must recuse themselves from a case they are otherwise involved in or implicated by.
- Justices must participate in all votes regarding a case if they are to continue handling it.
I don't like how this bit is ordered. Subordinating the recusal and voting bits seems odd. I suggest, instead, something like this:
1) Criminal cases will be heard by the Court of Lazarus.
2) Any Justice serving on the Court must recuse themselves from ruling on any case where they are the defendant, the accuser, a representative of either party, or where they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner. A justice who is unavailable to hear a case due to a temporary absence will also be considered recused.
3) If one or more Justices is recused from a case, the Delegate will appoint temporary Justices to serve in their place. These appointments are not subject to Assembly confirmation.
Also, might be worth considering letting the Justices appoint a temporary justice, rather than having the delegate do it, unless all 3 justices have recused themselves.
After a week has passed, the Justices serving on the case at hand shall decide by two thirds vote lasting three days whether or not to dismiss it.
I don't think a week is required. Some things are so frivolous that the justices can just wave their hand and say no.. I think we can just say "A case may be dismissed by majority vote. A dismissal does not prevent charges from being brought against the same defendant another time."
I added the second clause because I think it's good to establish with clarity that dismissing charges isn't permanent - it's not impossible for a court to be politicized such that they dismiss legitimate charges against someone they like, and this would allow the charges to be brought again once those justices are out of office.
Ooh... this is tricky. I think asking the justices to write their own procedure every time is going to be a mess. Everyone has different ideas of how trials should be run, and that can lead to some really unfair treatment. I think it would be better to simply say that criminal cases will follow procedures established by the permanent members of the court, and just put the onus on the court to make those procedures exist.
I also don't think a weeks' notice for a trial is necessary. The court can give a week's notice to a defendant that a case has begun, that's fine, but a week before a trial can begin seems extraneous.
After the notice period is complete, the criminal court shall convene within the public court area of the forum and the court procedure shall begin.
