| Legal Question - Formal Apologies |
I was going to draft up something for this (finally, had a busy week), but would like the other justices opinions first on one possible issue.
This query was regarding formal apologies, which at the time of the question were required for defamation charges. This has since been scrapped from the Code as a crime. However, apologies are still mentioned in the clause for conduct violations: 2. Conduct violations are punishable by immediate ejection and banishment from the region, albeit punished parties may appeal this decision to the court. In most cases, nations that appeal the decision and apologize should expect to have their ban lifted. As far as I can see, this part is probably not the intent of the original question to be clarified, as this clause is not a required formal apology. I honestly think the question can be dismissed due to the changes to the Code, but just want others opinions on whether this bit is relevant before drafting it up. Thanks.
As per the above, I forgot when you edit a post it doesn't show as a new post, so you may not be aware I modified it. I would like some feedback on this so we can issue a response. Thanks.
(03-02-2015, 12:27 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: I was going to draft up something for this (finally, had a busy week), but would like the other justices opinions first on one possible issue. I must confess that I'm getting confused as to what has been passed and what hasn't given the number of votes going on. It doesn't help the Assembly list hasn't been updated since late February. However, given the Code of Laws has been amended I would agree that changes have made the question as originally framed irrelevant. I think we should therefore move to dismiss the question. That being said, as Aram points out the apology issue does still sit on the statute books for conduct violations so I suggest we make it clear in any judgement that we are not ruling in any way that an apology conflicts with the Bill of Rights.
Would the Justices participating in this case like my assistance in drafting a statement?
I would be most grateful for any help you could offer in drafting the statement. For reasons stated elsewhere the last few weeks and probably the next couple are going to be a little difficult for me.
HCLQ1502
- 19.03.15 -
Petitioner
Unibot
Presiding Justices
Aramanchovia, Farengeto, Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Awe
Although it is unusual for me to bring up a question regarding a law which has not yet passed; it is expected to pass within the next few days and will likely be in force by the time the court can respond. My question is whether requiring a formal apology would violate the new Bill of Rights, which reads: 2. The freedom of speech, including the freedom of expression and the press. 3. The freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience. 4. The freedom of association, including the freedom of peaceful assembly. Assuming citizens do have the freedom to think as they would like, they also have the freedom to not be sorry, to not be regretful and to not show contrition. If a court specifically requires citizens to show remorse ... to apologize, I would argue that the court is wrongfully robbing citizens of their own freedom to think independently. A free society is not one where a court compels its citizens what to think. Moreover, the idea of a formal apology misunderstands the purpose of a court - not to manage people's remorse, but to enforce the law. Whether one is remorseful or not may have relevance to rehabilitative justice (the parole board) but it is not relevant to the exercise of traditional justice. Majority Opinion
Armanchovia, Farengeto, Hopolis
After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Unibot. It is in the opinion of the High Court that contrary to what the Petitioner has proposed, calling upon the Accused to apologise for wrongdoings as a penalty for offences committed is not contrary to the Bill of Rights, nor does it violate an individual's right to thought, opinion, belief or conscience. In stating the above, the Court has resolved that the individual in question must have been found guilty of an offence and ordered by the Court to issue an apology as a penalty. In doing so, the Court believes that this arises as a result of the principle of 'cause and consequence', that if an individual had committed an offence in contravention of the laws of the South Pacific, the individual in question should expect to be tried and penalised by the judicial system. While the Court does recognise and seek to uphold rights and liberties of the individual as protected by the Bill of Rights, the Court must also reconcile that it has been charged with the responsibility of the imposition and upholding of justice and elements of law pertaining to crime and punishment in the South Pacific. Herewith lies the point where a line should be drawn as to how far-reaching the individual's liberties are, and to what extent the Court should seek to penalise the individual. While the Court does acknowledge that the individual has the 'freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience' as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, the Court resolves that this freedom accorded to individuals is subjected to reasonable limits, particularly so in regards to the fact that the individual, having applied for citizenship in the South Pacific, is subjected to the restrictions of the following clause: Quote:Article 1, Section 1.2, Charter The above clause implies that the rights of the individual, as protected by the Bill of Rights, is subjected to them fulfilling obligations that are tied to the holding of citizenship in the South Pacific, which among others, would include the respect for the laws of the region as well as the obligation to carry out penalties enforced by the judicial system. In doing so, the individual is understood to have temporarily forfeited their rights to the freedoms stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as the freedom of the individual is only in force insofar as the individual fulfilling their mutual obligation as a citizen, to respect the laws of the region. However, this does not remove the right of the individual to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial, as these rights are enshrined in the Judicial Code of the South Pacific, as part of the principles of the Court and the ethics of Justices. The Court also emphasises that in meting penalties to the individual, the aim of the Court should be to rehabilitate and not to punish, to correct and not to convict. Thus, apologies as a form of penalty are currently only meted out for Conduct Violations, and depending on the discretion of the Justices, for Vexatious Charges. The Penal Code emphasises that wherein the Justices have discretion in deciding the appropriate penalties, 'the sentence must be proportionate to the offence'. Thus, the Court believes that lenient forms of punishment such as issuing an apology is proportionate, appropriate and sufficient for mild conduct violations and vexatious charges, as these crimes are understood not to cause significant harm to others or discord in the community, as compared to other crimes stipulated in the Penal Code. The above should be subjected to consideration of the Justices as to the previous criminal history of the individual, the intent of the individual in committing this offence, and the likelihood of the individual to reoffend. The Court, at the discretion of the Justices, can also increase the severity of penalties should the individual decline to comply with the orders of the Court to carry out the punishment, so long as it is not excessive or motivated by inherent bias in nature.
I'm happy with this. Thank you again Awe.
I like it. Emphasizes (or emphasises, depending where you are from in the world), not emphasis is probably the right word in the second last paragraph. Only change I'd make from a quick skim read.
Apologies for leaving this to you, think next week I should have more free time, but knowing my luck something else will go wrong here at work and I'll be doing 12 hour days again.
Fixed. Response is ready for release.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |