(02-26-2018, 06:36 AM)Belschaft Wrote: How things are meant to "flow" isn't very clear; it seems to me like everything is meant to start as a Legal Question, with Criminal Cases coming into existence via a question like "Did X break the law in doing Y" - I'm not sure if this how things are meant to work. Similarly, the wording seems to suggest that Sentencing is a separate case to the Criminal Case - again, not sure if this is what you intended but how the law seems to be written.

That's precisely the intent!

First, everything is meant to go through a unified process (as outlined in Article 3). This vastly simplifies things, as no longer does the law have to spell out a procedure for legal questions, criminal trials, appeals, etc. separately, but rather there is one process that applies to all.

Second, a regular member shouldn't be able to directly submit a criminal indictment, but rather the court should judge whether probable cause was presented. The way a regular member can do it is to ask the question if a criminal act has been committed, and if the court finds that probable cause is present, it then indicts the individual. The reason is that this allows us to have a mechanism for when a preemptive penalty (such as temporarily suspending Legislator status in case of an accusation of fraud) is appropriate - that being, when the individual is indicted, which only happens with probable cause.

Third, yes, sentencing is separate because I think these are separate issues. The criminal case determines that a criminal act occurred. The sentencing then uses other evidence (past behaviour, record of criminality, etc.) into account to determine an appropriate sentence.

Regarding the "flow" of criminal cases, there are two varieties:

Variety 1: Member A accuses member B.

• Member A submits the question "Is B's action X illegal? Or even criminal?"
  
• The court accepts the case.
  
• If the court is not satisfied with the initial evidence, it uses the regular inquisitorial process to find more.
  
• The court then rules whether it considers there to be probable cause that a criminal action was committed. If no, the case is closed; if yes, the case continues.
  
• B is indicted and notified.
  
• The case proceeds, now seeking to establish "clear and convincing evidence".
  
• The court delivers an opinion, which includes a verdict.
  

Variety 2: Member A submits a Legal Question. As part of the Legal Question, B's criminality is determined.

• Member A submits the question "Stuff XYZ happened, does this mean ABC?"
  
• The court accepts the case and proceeds with the usual inquisitorial process to answer the question.
  
• The court then finds out that as part of XYZ, there is probable cause that B committed a criminal act.
  
• B is indicted and notified. The court opens a separate case to handle the indictment, as it's unrelated to answering the question.
  

In the future, I envision a Variety 3 by which the CRS (as the only institution) can directly submit a criminal case if the CRS determines probable cause from its evidence.