Mark Accynnafon wrote:
It serves the purpose of letting the wider community have input should a trial occur and a sentence is handed down via a small jury or the justice minister alone ( after all, the minister does have that power in theory). It is intended to be rarely used, as we've never really had a case of an unfair punishment, but we should have one and many of the active players on the server have been discussing this on discord recently.
Verdicts can already be appealed should new evidence come to light, as outlined in the Indoles Carta of Rights and Freedoms, Section IV under Legal Rights.
Who could stomach missing such a great opportunity to refine and develop a more just legal system to provide a niche possible check on circumstances where an excessive punishment was given out in an overreach of power not reflective of the wider communities views, providing the punishment is longer than a month and thus reflects a serious crime however, a crime not serious enough to warrant a formal trial with a large jury. Bearing in mind the minister of justice is elected it can reasonably be assumed that the elected party would show good judgement as to when a crime is serious enough to possibly warrant a serious sentence it will also be serious enough to warrant a proper trial. It seems to me this application is so specialized and niche it will serve no purpose, rather than a very reasonable purpose of allowing for better judgments and a more just system.
The appealing of verdicts in light on new evidence doesn't currently provide a process to appeal verdicts should a party feel an incorrect verdict has been reached, it allows for corrections of verdicts if there is new information - this is thus assuming a verdict can never be incorrect, that the legal process is infallible if all relevant evidence is present, this doesn't make sense as people make mistakes.