Hi Sasha!

I would like to apologize in advance if the following questions or comments are already answerable by existing regional law and or jurisprudence. I am still catching up on my reading, so I might have missed the relevant details. 
 

Quote:4) The court shall not offer, suggest, accept or otherwise endorse any plea bargains.
a. A plea bargain shall be defined as a formal, informal or suggested deal to reduce the sentence in exchange for an admission of guilt or assistance in the same or any related case.

I have some problems with this definition. While I understand the one provided is for purposes of TSP law, in real life, plea bargain entails pleading to a lesser offense, not the reducing the sentence per se though a lighter sentence be the eventual result. 

Any prearrangement with regard to sentencing is already prohibited. Under our Criminal Code, the court has the sole discretion for it. The judges themselves are empowered to determine whatever punishment is to be meted out, considering that criminal code does not prescribe penalties for crimes other than treason and conduct violations. 

Besides the definition offered would also be contrary to other provisions,  such as this:
 

Quote:4)
e. Also not to be defined as plea bargain are agreements between the different parties involved or recommendations by parties that are not defendants in this or related cases to reduce the sentence for such mitigating circumstances as admissions of guilt, apologies and assistance in investigations. This is regardless of whether the court chooses to follow such agreements and recommendations or not.

The scenario envisaged under paragraph e, particularly one entered by the parties involved in the case, is essentially the amendment's definition of what a plea bargain is. I concede, however, that you may be exempting agreement between parties only if there is the presence of mitigating factors, if that is your intention of the wording of the paragraph. 

Further the last sentence of paragraph e itself also runs counter to what the amendment is trying to achieve under paragraph c of Section 3 under sentencing. 

Quote:3)
c. shall, in cases only affecting specific persons and not the region, not exceed the recommendations of the injured parties, unless considered necessary to prevent further crime or safeguard the interests of the region in which case the court shall provide its reasoning. 

The amendment's Article 5, Section 4, paragraph e retains the discretion of the justices to consider and adopt the agreement of the parties and or recommendation of non-parties, but then Article 6, Section 3, paragraph c binds the court to observe the recommendation, unless considered necessary to prevent further crime or safeguard the interests of the region. 

I suggest just removing Article 6, Section 3, paragraph c
 

Quote:b. Justices are prohibited from talking about the extent or possible extent of sentencing before the sentencing phase except to remind people of applicable law or precedent.
c. Justices are further prohibited from coercing admissions of guilt or otherwise require the defendant to incriminate him-/herself, especially if this accomplished by using the threat of a harsh sentence.

I think the better place for these will be under Article 2, Section of the Judicial Act. We can revisit the conduct and decorum expected from the justices to address the concerns in paragraph b and c. 
 

Quote:(3) The court in its sentencing and granting of parole or appeals:
a. shall consider possible mitigating circumstances, including, but not limited to, sincere admissions of guilt, apologies, assistance in investigations and impaired judgement

I wholly support your intention to include the consideration of potentially mitigating circumstances in the determination of the sentence to be handed. May I just check whether it was your intention to deliberately not define what mitigating circumstances are, to give the judges more wiggle room in appreciating other circumstances aside from the examples already provided?