The Chairman wrote:
I do not think that leaving appeals up to a vote in Parliament is the best option, as the passions of the community could easily be what caused a mistrial in the first place. An alternative would be to appoint a group of people with no personal involvement or stake in the original trial to review it.
In addition, we may want to define what a mistrial is. Though it may seem obvious to some, these views can easily differ in subtle but important ways. I believe that a mistrial is any case in which either:
A) The judicial procedure as defined in our laws and the Indoles Carta was not followed.
B) New evidence is revealed that casts doubt on the guilty verdict.
C) The law that the defendant was convicted of violating is unconstitutional.
The last point brings up a topic we have yet to touch, constitutional review. At what point and how do we put laws on trial?
In addition, the appeals process is open to the defense, but are there any circumstances in which the prosecution may appeal a verdict? How might those circumstances be different than the ones the defense can appeal under?
You bring up some good points for sure. My concern with appointing a group is - who gets to decide that group?
My other concern is taking too much away from our judicial system. It's set up pretty well, and as far as I'm aware we've never had any "bad trials" in terms of the outcome that the wider community didn't care for.
Good points though, I'd like to see what others think about the points you've raised. I myself prefer the semi-legislative approach, especially since it is restricted to HoD and CotC, whereas a Jury can have counts on it as well. However, if someone can think of something better, I'd love to hear it detailed out.
Keep in mind that the "legislative" appeals process is only for overturning sentences, not for a mistrial. We should add something in there about a mistrial being declared if the judicial process wasn't followed for sure.
Something like:
* The right to a new trial if the judicial process was not followed in the original trial
Thoughts?
As for laws, we can overturn them via the normal process if we decide as a community later on that it wasn't quite right. I don't think that should be taken to a court. It's not as if laws get passed without the proper numbers/much discussion. Sure, not everyone gives input on every law, but it's not as if they are prevented from doing so! Even counts can give input in Parliament on laws. Care to delve deeper into why we'd need some sort of extra process to handle a potentially "bad" law?