[Proposal] Criminal Procedure Act (November 2019)

[McChimp]

Criminal Procedure Act (November 2019)

Proposed By: McChimp​

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 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.

Perhaps it's time to get around to writing up some criminal procedure

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

I suggest that there should be legal allowance for other nations to act as prosecutor and defense attorney, whether they originate from in or out of region. I would also recommend that the titles "Petitioner" and "Accused" should be replaced with "Plaintiff" and "Defendant." Although this will require further amendment of the supreme law, I also believe that the government of Lazarus should have an attorney-general to prosecute treason cases. However, since you are already working on an amendment, it should not be too difficult to work it in.

 

[Deleted1]

Can a petitioner be a non-citizen?

 

[McChimp]

I suggest that there should be legal allowance for other nations to act as prosecutor and defense attorney, whether they originate from in or out of region. I would also recommend that the titles "Petitioner" and "Accused" should be replaced with "Plaintiff" and "Defendant." Although this will require further amendment of the supreme law, I also believe that the government of Lazarus should have an attorney-general to prosecute treason cases. However, since you are already working on an amendment, it should not be too difficult to work it in.

The proposal does make allowances for the petitioner and the accused to be represented by another person (who need not be a citizen):

Since the constitutional amendment is already at vote, it's passed the point where I can make changes. The wording I chose was intended to be more compatible with non-adversarial Court procedures, which I still consider a possibility in the long term.
The idea of an attorney general was considered when we first thought about having a criminal court here and for the most part I agree with the arguments against having one. I don't see the benefit of electing/confirming somebody to do something that every citizen ought to be able to do anyway, especially since court cases are so rare that for most of the time they'd have nothing to do. If the government wishes to bring a case against someone then it makes sense for the most appropriate minister to do so. This also grants greater flexibility, preventing the problems caused by circumstances such as the attorney general being unwilling to bring a case against somebody for personal reasons.

 

[McChimp]

Can a petitioner be a non-citizen?

No, though the accused may be.

 

[Deleted1]

Should we spell that out under section 1 or is that done somewhere else? I would be disappointed if the court decided that that was not the case because it was not clear somewhere.

 

[McChimp]

Should we spell that out under section 1 or is that done somewhere else? I would be disappointed if the court decided that that was not the case because it was not clear somewhere.

The Mandate, if the amendment at vote passes, will say:

 

[McChimp]

I have amended the proposal so that it specifies a two-thirds vote instead of a 50%+1 vote.

Since the Court consists of only three justices, in order to exceed 50%+1 (2.5) you'd have to achieve unanimity, which was not my intention.

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

I suggest that there should be legal allowance for other nations to act as prosecutor and defense attorney, whether they originate from in or out of region. I would also recommend that the titles "Petitioner" and "Accused" should be replaced with "Plaintiff" and "Defendant." Although this will require further amendment of the supreme law, I also believe that the government of Lazarus should have an attorney-general to prosecute treason cases. However, since you are already working on an amendment, it should not be too difficult to work it in.

The proposal does make allowances for the petitioner and the accused to be represented by another person (who need not be a citizen):

Since the constitutional amendment is already at vote, it's passed the point where I can make changes. The wording I chose was intended to be more compatible with non-adversarial Court procedures, which I still consider a possibility in the long term.
The idea of an attorney general was considered when we first thought about having a criminal court here and for the most part I agree with the arguments against having one. I don't see the benefit of electing/confirming somebody to do something that every citizen ought to be able to do anyway, especially since court cases are so rare that for most of the time they'd have nothing to do. If the government wishes to bring a case against someone then it makes sense for the most appropriate minister to do so. This also grants greater flexibility, preventing the problems caused by circumstances such as the attorney general being unwilling to bring a case against somebody for personal reasons.

Stupid me, I jumped over the final article of the proposition for some reason. I see your rationale against having an attorney-general and find it valid. My only remaining question concerns the terminology. Why not just use "Plaintiff" and "Defendant" since those will likely be the colloquially used terms anyway?

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

Can a petitioner be a non-citizen?

No, though the accused may be.

This also raises a question. Why should the court dismiss cases brought by non-citizens against citizens? Should the courts not have the obligation to enforce justice universally? Also, what if it causes a diplomatic snafu with another region?

 

[McChimp]

Stupid me, I jumped over the final article of the proposition for some reason. I see your rationale against having an attorney-general and find it valid. My only remaining question concerns the terminology. Why not just use "Plaintiff" and "Defendant" since those will likely be the colloquially used terms anyway?

You've persuaded me about this. We've always strived to use real-life, relatable terminology in our laws. It would probably make more sense for this law to reference the plaintiff and the defendant as such and I'll edit the proposal to do so.

My instinct is that we shouldn't allow foreigners to bring cases to court as a security measure and that diplomacy should always be handled by the government-either way, that's not a consequence of this bill.

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

My instinct is that we shouldn't allow foreigners to bring cases to court as a security measure and that diplomacy should always be handled by the government-either way, that's not a consequence of this bill.

Can you explain why you think that giving foreigners the ability to bring cases forth presents a security risk?

 

[McChimp]

My instinct is that we shouldn't allow foreigners to bring cases to court as a security measure and that diplomacy should always be handled by the government-either way, that's not a consequence of this bill.

Can you explain why you think that giving foreigners the ability to bring cases forth presents a security risk?

It's not exactly a mortal risk but it certainly presents an opportunity for nuisance. Why would we want to create a tool for outsiders to harass our citizens?

Again I must stress that this bill does not and could not affect this question.

 

[McChimp]

I motion to vote

 

[Deleted1]

I second the motion.