The Mercurian Empire
http://hermertia.com/

Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
http://hermertia.com/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=1474		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 22nd, 2016, 1:44 am ]
Post subject:  Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
Several of us (primarily Septimus, Jenkins of Wysteria, and myself) have been discussing the creation of a judicial review process.

Our initial discussions have led us to believe that some sort of appeals process involving a judicial review case, requiring perhaps a jury of a certain size be required to appeal sentences. A time frame after the initial sentence was handed down would be preferable as well.

What are the community's thoughts on this?
Author:  Caesar [ December 22nd, 2016, 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
I think this is a fantastic proposal, it will enhance Hermertia's legal system and ensure a more rigorous judicial process. A process whereby a party could appeal a judgement gives a check on possible bad judgments so that better judgments can be made in the future as well as poor judgments rectified.

Although, a max time scale after the initial sentence will be detrimental to all of this as with legal cases perhaps a tendency for poor judgement stems from individuals emotions related to the case. Reviewing a case after the dust has settled will allow for better legal judgments to be made. The only time scale that makes sense is actually a minimum time until after the case that a appeal can be made, preventing cases from dragging on before sentencing and giving the parties involved time to reflect.
Author:  Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 29th, 2016, 6:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
I've thought about this some more, and decided I'd rather support a process that involves a high percentage of the Council and the House to overturn a sentence.

Specifically (not proper language yet):

* 3/4 of the active voting members of the Council of the Crowned

* 3/4 of the active voting members of the House of Dukes

* Appeals cannot happen before 1 Mercannum (1 IRL month) have passed since a sentence.
Author:  King Tiber III [ December 29th, 2016, 7:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
Marks secondary thoughts on the matter make the most sense to me, I agree completely with needing 3/4 of the Kings and Dukes for support, but perhaps being a month before the appeal can be filed.
Author:  Sodihv Thalion [ December 29th, 2016, 8:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
I've talked about this a bit in depth with Mark, Tiber, and possibly some others that I can't remember right now. I support the requisites that Mark has posted above. The 1 month appeal wait period leaves time for tensions to settle, but keeps the case fairly fresh in memory. I highly doubt there will be many cases that exceed a duration of 1 month, but if there are, they were most likely serious enough to warrant a review from the council if challenged. I also agree with the higher percentage required to overturn a sentence. If a sentence is truly unjust a large majority of the community would agree to overturn such a thing.
Author:  Scrios V [ December 29th, 2016, 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
I would agree with the above noted requirements too posted by Mark. All systems have an avenue to appeal and it would be a great addition to ours.
Author:  Septimus [ December 29th, 2016, 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
I would prefer to see an appeals process which involves a retrial, dependent on new evidence rather than a process whereby the Council and HoD vote to overturn the previous verdict, though I appreciate the IRL effort involved with calling another trial, selecting a new jury and then going through the arguments for and against a second time might be so great as to hinder the process, so I'm aware I will likely be in a minority in preferring the above.

If we go with the process proposed by Mark in his second comment, I assume that the votes of the defendant/prosecution would not be required were they from either house?
Author:  Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 29th, 2016, 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
Septimus wrote:
I would prefer to see an appeals process which involves a retrial, dependent on new evidence rather than a process whereby the Council and HoD vote to overturn the previous verdict, though I appreciate the IRL effort involved with calling another trial, selecting a new jury and then going through the arguments for and against a second time might be so great as to hinder the process, so I'm aware I will likely be in a minority in preferring the above.

If we go with the process proposed by Mark in his second comment, I assume that the votes of the defendant/prosecution would not be required were they from either house?



This would not be a process to overturn a verdict. It would only be a process to overturn a sentence that is overbearing. Nothing here was intended to create a process to overturn verdicts; I believe that is a separate discussion entirely.
Author:  Caesar [ December 30th, 2016, 12:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
Mark Accynnafon wrote:
This would not be a process to overturn a verdict. It would only be a process to overturn a sentence that is overbearing. Nothing here was intended to create a process to overturn verdicts; I believe that is a separate discussion entirely.


How does this relate to the waiting period until after the sentence? What if a sentence is entirely contained within the waiting period, as in a hypothetical month server ban as a sentence could only be appealed after the month has past making it a mute point.

Having the appeals process as a system to ensure better judgements should mean that verdicts can be appealed rather than the focus on sentences. The appealing of sentences has more of a focus on reducing a punishment for crimes rather than ensuring good application of the law which seems to me to be a mistake.

I agree with the high majority threshold for successful appeals also, it's a sensible way to ensure a good appeal process regardless of it's focus.
Author:  Cerdic Accynnafon [ December 30th, 2016, 1:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Judicial Law Change - Appeals process
Caesar wrote:
Mark Accynnafon wrote:
This would not be a process to overturn a verdict. It would only be a process to overturn a sentence that is overbearing. Nothing here was intended to create a process to overturn verdicts; I believe that is a separate discussion entirely.


How does this relate to the waiting period until after the sentence? What if a sentence is entirely contained within the waiting period, as in a hypothetical month server ban as a sentence could only be appealed after the month has past making it a mute point.

Having the appeals process as a system to ensure better judgements should mean that verdicts can be appealed rather than the focus on sentences. The appealing of sentences has more of a focus on reducing a punishment for crimes rather than ensuring good application of the law which seems to me to be a mistake.

I agree with the high majority threshold for successful appeals also, it's a sensible way to ensure a good appeal process regardless of it's focus.


If the punishment is within that short of a time frame, I'd hardly think that is a punishment worth overturning. I don't think we have a tradition of cruel/unfair punishments as is, but come on - a month long punishment of sorts, if you are found guilty of something we have a criminal code entry for is hardly something that might be deemed unfair.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/