Proposal Criminal Procedure Amendment (March 2022)

[Domais]

Criminal Procedure Amendment (March 2022)

Proposed by: @Domais​

Preamble

An amendment to allow for the withdrawal of criminal petitions.

Section 1. Amendment to Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(1) Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act currently reads:

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.

(2) Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be amended to read:

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. (4) At any moment between the submission of the relevant petition and the decision of the court on whether to conduct a Criminal Review by a two-thirds vote, the Plaintiff(s) may withdraw their petition or parts of it.

 

[Domais]

Fixed some spelling errors.

 

[Debussy]

There needs to be a comma between "vote" and "the Plaintiff(s)"

 

[New Rogernomics]

(4) At any moment between the submission of the relevant petition and the decision of the court on whether to conduct a Criminal Review by a two-thirds vote the Plaintiff(s) may withdraw their petition or parts of it.

I'd disagree with this change, as someone could withdraw their petition right before the court is to rule. It needs a time frame from when the petition is posted, otherwise it is too open-ended.

 

[Frankender]

Can we explain why this is needed?

 

[Domais]

Can we explain why this is needed?

People have suggested that one part of my and Wang's criminal complaint sets a dangerous precedent if allowed to proceed. They wish to ask a legal question first. I would tend to allow that but I can't withdraw my motion nor can the court do anything besides not take it up. But, it would also set a dangerous precedent if the court were to deny something based on this as it is not allowed in the law.

Maybe, it would be better if someone could request it and the court has to agree?

 

[thechurchofsatan]

I'd disagree with this change, as someone could withdraw their petition right before the court is to rule. It needs a time frame from when the petition is posted, otherwise it is too open-ended.

I think you've misunderstood the wording of the amendment. As it is currently phrased, the plaintiff would be allowed to withdraw their petition at any time from when they submitted the petition, to just before the court decides to conduct a trial. One would not be able to withdraw their petition after the trial begins.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I think you've misunderstood the wording of the amendment. As it is currently phrased, the plaintiff would be allowed to withdraw their petition at any time from when they submitted the petition, to just before the court decides to conduct a trial. One would not be able to withdraw their petition after the trial begins.

I didn't misunderstand it, my initial comment above is still correct.

A petitioner shouldn't need more than three days to withdraw a petition, and I'd argue that is excessive, as 24-48 hrs is sufficient, nor should a petition be allowed to be withdrawn the moment a trial has begun. Like so:

(4) Up an hour before the decision of the court on whether to conduct a Criminal Review by a two-thirds vote, the Plaintiff(s) may withdraw their petition or parts of it.

This should give enough time, excessively so, without having last minute withdraws.

Though I still think this can result in folks getting wind of a decision not being in their favor and withdrawing so they can re-draft it and make a more compelling case.

The more concerning aspect is going to be folks using petitions to the court as threats, and constantly bringing forward petitions only to withdraw them.

If petitions are forced to be put forward, then that does stop someone re-drafting and re-drafting and holding it over someone's head.

 

[thechurchofsatan]

I didn't misunderstand it, my initial comment above is still correct.

A petitioner shouldn't need more than three days to withdraw a petition, and I'd argue that is excessive, as 24-48 hrs is sufficient, nor should a petition be allowed to be withdrawn the moment a trial has begun. Like so:

This should give enough time, excessively so, without having last minute withdraws.

Though I still think this can result in folks getting wind of a decision not being in their favor and withdrawing so they can re-draft it and make a more compelling case.

The more concerning aspect is going to be folks using petitions to the court as threats, and constantly bringing forward petitions only to withdraw them.

If petitions are forced to be put forward, then that does stop someone re-drafting and re-drafting and holding it over someone's head.

Okay, I see that you make a fair point. Seems I am the one that misunderstood it.

 

[Wang Yao]

I think the amendment itself, with addition of New Rogernomics' suggestion of a limited window for withdrawal, would be a positive addition for future procedures.

 

[Frankender]

People have suggested that one part of my and Wang's criminal complaint sets a dangerous precedent if allowed to proceed. They wish to ask a legal question first. I would tend to allow that but I can't withdraw my motion nor can the court do anything besides not take it up. But, it would also set a dangerous precedent if the court were to deny something based on this as it is not allowed in the law.

Maybe, it would be better if someone could request it and the court has to agree?

I'm not sure I understand. You can already ask the court questions on law, why would you need to withdraw a motion for criminal proceedings?

 

[thechurchofsatan]

I'm not sure I understand. You can already ask the court questions on law, why would you need to withdraw a motion for criminal proceedings?

Because of the ramifications a guilty verdict for one of the charges could have on the region as a whole.

 

[Frankender]

Because of the ramifications a guilty verdict for one of the charges could have on the region as a whole.

The accuser shouldn't be filing charges as such, then

I don't think it makes sense for accusers to be allowed to withdraw "police reports" for political reasons. If someone is potentially guilty of a crime, they should be tried in court

 

[Domais]

The accuser shouldn't be filing charges as such, then

I don't think it makes sense for accusers to be allowed to withdraw "police reports" for political reasons. If someone is potentially guilty of a crime, they should be tried in court

Then maybe the court should be able to review any legal questions before starting the trial?

 

[Frankender]

Then maybe the court should be able to review any legal questions before starting the trial?

That's already how it is laid out. You can submit a question instead of starting a court case

 

[Domais]

That's already how it is laid out. You can submit a question instead of starting a court case

That's not the same thing. Other people have raised this concern not me. I think that they should be able to hear these concerns before the trial starts. As it is written they can't do that. There needs to be some way if a criminal case is submitted for any legal questions regarding the said case to be reviewed before any verdict is issued. Right now that is not the case.

 

[thechurchofsatan]

And as such we are working together to resolve this before the trial begins, Frank. ^_^

 

[Debussy]

There needs to be some way if a criminal case is submitted for any legal questions regarding the said case to be reviewed before any verdict is issued. Right now that is not the case.

You should use relatively the same language you have used here in the clause for the new law.

 

[Frankender]

Wait I'm legitimately confused. Can't we just make a thread asking the court for legal questions regarding a potential case? Or is that not really possible in our current law?

 

[thechurchofsatan]

Or is that not really possible in our current law?

That is the case, presently.