Judicial Reform
- Harvey Steffke
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:28 pm
Re: Judicial Reform
Honestly the essay system sounds beyond terrible. If I'm being put on trial by some nutjob that dislikes me enough to put me on trial, the last thing I want to do is write an essay. Plus it just beeeggggggssssss for people to pull the "my real life is packed - I don't have time to be writing essays" card, which they would be almost certain to get away with.
What's wrong with making a simple argument for or against and having the judges decide which case is better?
What's wrong with making a simple argument for or against and having the judges decide which case is better?
- Andreas the Wise
- Posts: 5253
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:41 pm
- Location: The Island of Melangia, Atterock, Kildare
- Contact:
Re: Judicial Reform
If you restrict it to a simple argument for and against, that's fine. If you continue to yell at eachother about increasingly irrelevant things, well ...
The character Andreas the Wise is on indefinite leave.
However, this account still manages:
Cla'Udi - Count of Melangia
Manuel - CEO of VBNC. For all you'll ever need.
Vincent Waldgrave - Lord General of Gralus
Q - Director of SAMIN
Duke Mel'Kat - Air Pirate, Melangian, and Duke of the Flying Duchy of Glanurchy
And references may be made to Vur'Alm Xei'Bôn (a Nelagan Micron of undisclosed purpose).
However, this account still manages:
Cla'Udi - Count of Melangia
Manuel - CEO of VBNC. For all you'll ever need.
Vincent Waldgrave - Lord General of Gralus
Q - Director of SAMIN
Duke Mel'Kat - Air Pirate, Melangian, and Duke of the Flying Duchy of Glanurchy
And references may be made to Vur'Alm Xei'Bôn (a Nelagan Micron of undisclosed purpose).
- Malliki Tosha
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am
Re: Judicial Reform
I think we need to decide on a level of formality and rigidity. Now, in RL trials, there is a point to all the formality and rigidity, namely to guarantee the integrity of the process, and make sure that everyone gets equal treatment (in theory). Here, since we all know each other, and the severity of the cases are never in the murder range, if you catch my drift, there is no reason for that. I think the suggestion that a trial should be conducted more or less as a three-way discussion between prosecution, judge and defendant to be the best one. Evidence can be introduced freely, and it is up to the presiding judge to judge what evidence is admissable and not. Since, as Scott says, most evidence will probably be available online, this should present no problem. I also don't think we need some special provision to allow for the "this is silly and I want it dropped" motion since that is pretty much just a motion to dismiss. You can always make those.
So, in conclusion, I support a structured system that is based on a simple process where the trial takes the form of a discussion, with free evidence.
So, in conclusion, I support a structured system that is based on a simple process where the trial takes the form of a discussion, with free evidence.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests