Introduction:
Since there have been concerns about length and content/intention here is an introduction:

Why this amendment?
There are currently several court cases in deadlock which may not be resolvable without a law on this issue because court may not be allowed to rule on the current legality of plea bargains.
Furthermore, the current so-called "plea bargain" procedure is quite concerning for a number of reasons:
- rather than conducted by the prosecutor as in real life Common Law legal systems, these plea bargains have been conducted/proposed by the same judges who are to neutrally judge the defendants which is not possible when these same judges also assume guilt and try to encourage defendants to plead out of a trial
- plea bargains are currently entirely unregulated and were introduced by a judge as "logical extension" of the current law, which is at best debatable and an issue that the court may not be allowed to rule on, leading to deadlock and legal uncertainty
- the plea bargain in case 1902 was conducted as backroom deal without public oversight and may have been an instance of the judge prejudicing himself against the second defendant, an issue which cannot conclusively be decided as long as the negotiations for the plea deal are unknown

Why not let the court resolve this issue by itself?
It is not clear that the court can rule on the legality of plea bargains by itself. And if the relevant open cases were overturned for other reasons (such as prejudice or gross misconduct) that would still leave open the possibility of plea bargains being attempted in another case and may possibly create even more legal uncertainty. I strongly believe that it is necessary for the assembly to legislate on this.

Why is the proposal so long? What is the intent?
The proposal is long because I have tried to close off loopholes and avenues of abuse. The additions under section 5. Criminal Cases exists to ban plea deals without banning legitimate court actions. The additions under section 6. Sentencing exist to serve as interpretational device, statement of intent, to prevent new or creative interpretations that may compromise the integrity of the court, to prevent abuse and to increase legal certainty for all parties by providing guidance about which circumstances should generally be considered.
It does not create a general legal right, since almost any attempt to use this sentence would be considered either in bad faith (intent to reduce the sentence instead of alleviation of guilt) or otherwise frivolous or meritless, which the court may choose to penalise. However it may help overturn cases of egregious judicial misconduct, should the court allow such a case.


Proposal revision #4:

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

5. Criminal Cases

(1) As part of a case, the justice may indict an individual if there is probable cause that this individual has committed a criminal act. If the criminal act is not substantially related to the case, the assigned justice is encouraged to start a separate case for the indictment.

(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contacted through at least one reasonable means and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered.

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if:
a. the accused admitted guilt and there is evidence corroborating the accused's admission or,
b. the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.

(4) The court shall not offer, suggest, accept or otherwise endorse any plea bargains, 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. Not to be defined as plea bargain is the court's right to adjust sentences and to consider mitigating circumstances, such as sincere admissions of guilt and assistance in investigations.

(5) 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.

(6) Justices are prohibited from coercing admissions of guilt or otherwise require the defendant to self-incriminate, especially if this accomplished by using the threat of a harsh sentence.

(7) Also not to be defined as plea bargain are requests for leniency by any party, however if the defendant is found to have asked another party to make a request for leniency in order to sway the court, that defendant shall be found in contempt of court.

6. Sentencing

(1) A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted and after all evidence of possible mitigating circumstances has been submitted. The case is started, if possible, by the justice that delivered the conviction.

(2) The sentencing case shall be on hold if an appeal for the conviction has been filed, for the duration of that appeal. If the original conviction is overturned, the sentencing case is automatically dismissed.

(3) The court in its sentencing and granting of parole or appeals:
a. shall consider but not be obligated to grant a more lenient sentence for possible mitigating circumstances, including sincere admissions of guilt, apologies, assistance in investigations, drunkenness and other circumstances diminishing responsibility or alleviating guilt, and
b. shall consider but not be obligated to follow requests of the parties involved, exempting special provisions for specific crimes as defined in law.

(4) Attempts to have the court consider claims of mitigating circumstances that are in bad faith, frivolous or obviously meritless shall be dismissed and may be considered in contempt of court if repeated or excessive. If a defendant makes or encourages such an attempt, any sentence reductions may be nullified and previous related sentences increased.

(5) Deliberately or recklessly inducing drunkenness or a similar state shall not be considered a mitigating circumstance.

7. Appeals

(1) An appeal is a case for which the petitioner seeks to reverse or reevaluate a case. An appeal may only be filed if there is no other open appeal for that case, and must be filed against the most recently adjudicated appeal, if one exists.

(2) An appeal may be filed by any member of the South Pacific or by any non-member with a vested interest in the case, for at least one of the reasons described in this article.

(3) Appeals may be submitted on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct. For such an appeal, the assigned justice of the case being appealed is automatically recused from the appeal case.

(4) Appeals may be submitted upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion.

(5) Attempts to appeal cases on grounds of mitigating circumstances not being fully considered may be dismissed if the court deems a significant sentence reduction to be unlikely. This shall not affect appeals on grounds of substantial violations of court procedure.  

Differences: spelling and a change to more gender-inclusive language; no content changes;

Proposal revision #3

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

5. Criminal Cases

(1) As part of a case, the justice may indict an individual if there is probable cause that this individual has committed a criminal act. If the criminal act is not substantially related to the case, the assigned justice is encouraged to start a separate case for the indictment.

(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contacted through at least one reasonable means and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered.

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if:
a. the accused admitted guilt and there is evidence corroborating the accused's admission or,
b. the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.

(4) The court shall not offer, suggest, accept or otherwise endorse any plea bargains, 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. Not to be defined as plea bargain is the court's right to adjust sentences and to consider mitigating cricumstances, such as sincere admissions of guilt and assistance in investigations.

(5) 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.

(6) Justices are 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.

(7) Also not to be defined as plea bargain are requests for leniency by any party, however if the defendant is found to have asked another party to make a request for leniency in order to sway the court, that defendant shall be found in contempt of court.

6. Sentencing

(1) A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted and after all evidence of possible mitigating circumstances has been submitted. The case is started, if possible, by the justice that delivered the conviction.

(2) The sentencing case shall be on hold if an appeal for the conviction has been filed, for the duration of that appeal. If the original conviction is overturned, the sentencing case is automatically dismissed.

(3) The court in its sentencing and granting of parole or appeals:
a. shall consider but not be obligated to grant a more lenient sentence for possible mitigating circumstances, including sincere admissions of guilt, apologies, assistance in investigations, drunkenness and other circumstances diminishing responsibility or alleviating guilt, and
b. shall consider but not be obligated to follow requests of the parties involved, exempting special provisions for specific crimes as defined in law.

(4) Attempts to have the court consider claims of mitigating circumstances that are in bad faith, frivolous or obviously meritless shall be dismissed and may be considered in contempt of court if repeated or excessive. If a defendant makes or encourages such an attempt, any sentence reductions may be nullified and previous related sentences increased.

(5) Deliberately or recklessly inducing drunkenness or a similar state shall not be considered a mitigating circumstance.

7. Appeals

(1) An appeal is a case for which the petitioner seeks to reverse or reevaluate a case. An appeal may only be filed if there is no other open appeal for that case, and must be filed against the most recently adjudicated appeal, if one exists.

(2) An appeal may be filed by any member of the South Pacific or by any non-member with a vested interest in the case, for at least one of the reasons described in this article.

(3) Appeals may be submitted on grounds of process violations, contradictions of law, or judicial misconduct. For such an appeal, the assigned justice of the case being appealed is automatically recused from the appeal case.

(4) Appeals may be submitted upon submission of new evidence that a reasonable person considers grounds for reviewing the original opinion.

(5) Attempts to appeal cases on grounds of mitigating circumstances not being fully considered may be dismissed if the court deems a significant sentence reduction to be unlikely. This shall not affect appeals on grounds of substantial violations of court procedure.  

Differences: separating/reordering the language previously under 5.4 into multiple clauses (5.4-7) with no content changes; separated the language under section 6.3 into multiple clauses (6.3-5 and 7.5); replaced language referring to "this section" with more concrete definitions in 6.4 an 7.5; added 7.5 as a fully separate definition for the sake of clarity;

Proposal revision #2:

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

5. Criminal Cases

(1) As part of a case, the justice may indict an individual if there is probable cause that this individual has committed a criminal act. If the criminal act is not substantially related to the case, the assigned justice is encouraged to start a separate case for the indictment.

(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contacted through at least one reasonable means and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered.

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if:
a. the accused admitted guilt and there is evidence corroborating the accused's admission or,
b. the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.

(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.
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.
d. Not to be defined as plea bargain is the court's right to adjust sentences, to consider mitigating cricumstances, such as sincere admissions of guilt and assistance in investigations.
e. Also not to be defined as plea bargain are requests for leniency by any party, however
f. If the defendant is found to have asked another party to make a request for leniency in order to sway the court, that defendant shall be found in contempt of court.

6. Sentencing

(1) A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted and after all evidence of possible mitigating circumstances has been submitted. The case is started, if possible, by the justice that delivered the conviction.

(2) The sentencing case shall be on hold if an appeal for the conviction has been filed, for the duration of that appeal. If the original conviction is overturned, the sentencing case is automatically dismissed.

(3) The court in its sentencing and granting of parole or appeals:
a. shall consider but not be obligated to grant a more lenient sentence for possible mitigating circumstances, including sincere admissions of guilt, apologies, assistance in investigations, drunkenness and other circumstances diminishing responsibility or alleviating guilt, and
b. shall consider but not be obligated to follow requests of the parties involved, exempting special provisions for specific crimes as defined in law.
c. Bad faith, frivolous and obviously meritless attempts to use this section shall be dismissed and may be considered in contempt of court if repeated or excessive and
d. The court may nullify reductions and increase previous sentences if a defendant attempts or encourages another to attempt to use this section in bad faith.
e. Furthermore, deliberately or recklessly inducing drunkenness or a similar state shall not be considered a mitigating circumstance. 

 
Differences: 5.4.e and f have been cut to allow the defendant to request leniency, 6.4 has been changed to clarify mitigating circumstances and add bad faith provisions.

Proposal revision #1:

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

5. Criminal Cases

(1) As part of a case, the justice may indict an individual if there is probable cause that this individual has committed a criminal act. If the criminal act is not substantially related to the case, the assigned justice is encouraged to start a separate case for the indictment.

(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contacted through at least one reasonable means and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered.

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if:
a. the accused admitted guilt and there is evidence corroborating the accused's admission or,
b. the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.

(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.
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.
d. Not to be defined as plea bargain is the court's right to adjust sentences, to consider mitigating cricumstances, such as sincere admissions of guilt and assistance in investigations.
e. Also not to be defined as plea bargain are requests by non-defendant parties for a lenient sentence or statements by any party mentioning potential mitigating circumstances, however
f. If the defendant is found to have asked another party to make a request for a reduction for mitigating circumstances, that defendant shall be found in contempt of court.

6. Sentencing

(1) A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted and after all evidence of possible mitigating circumstances has been submitted. The case is started, if possible, by the justice that delivered the conviction.

(2) The sentencing case shall be on hold if an appeal for the conviction has been filed, for the duration of that appeal. If the original conviction is overturned, the sentencing case is automatically dismissed.

(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, and
b. shall consider but not be obligated to follow requests of the parties involved, exempting special provisions for specific crimes as defined in law. 

Differences: Criminal Cases Section 4 e and f are shorter/reworded, Sentencing section 3 b has been changed and 3c has been struck.

Original proposal

Judicial Act
An act to establish operational principle, procedures, and best practices for the High Court

5. Criminal Cases

(1) As part of a case, the justice may indict an individual if there is probable cause that this individual has committed a criminal act. If the criminal act is not substantially related to the case, the assigned justice is encouraged to start a separate case for the indictment.

(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contacted through at least one reasonable means and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered. 

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if:
a. the accused admitted guilt and there is evidence corroborating the accused's admission or,
b. the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.

(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.
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.
d. Not to be defined as plea bargain is the court's right to adjust sentences, to consider mitigating cricumstances, such as sincere admissions of guilt and assistance in investigations.
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.
f. If the defendant is found to have asked another party to make a recommendation for a reduction for mitigating circumstances, that defendant shall be found in contempt of court.

6. Sentencing

(1) A sentencing case is started when an individual has been found guilty after being indicted and after all evidence of possible mitigating circumstances has been submitted. The case is started, if possible, by the justice that delivered the conviction.

(2) The sentencing case shall be on hold if an appeal for the conviction has been filed, for the duration of that appeal. If the original conviction is overturned, the sentencing case is automatically dismissed.

(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, and
b. shall consider but not be obligated to follow recommendations and agreements of the parties involved, and
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. 

(This post was last modified: 11-05-2019, 12:03 PM by Sasha. Edit Reason: A note that the thread title has been altered slightly to conform to the standard format — Amerion )

Reply

I feel like this is a little too much for one amendment.  Maybe you should split this into two separate ones?

AIDENFIEELD

Legislator in TSP | Active User of the RMB | Former Local Councillor | Member of The Ministry Of Regional Affairs

Reply

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. 
 

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:
 

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. 

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
 

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. 
 

(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?

Reply

I have revised my original proposal somewhat, cutting some bad/unnecessary/redundant sections.

I feel like this is a little too much for one amendment.  Maybe you should split this into two separate ones?

I feel that that would be problematic because while long, it is trying to fix the same problem - banning plea bargains without compromising the ability of victims to ask for lenience or the courts ability to adjust sentences based on mitigating circumstances. I deliberately decided to make a longer and possibly redundant proposal to prevent loopholes or situations in which the court would be required to rule on its own procedure because of ambiguities in the law.
However, I received somewhat similar advice from Kringle, so I will try have cut it down a bit.
 

Spoiler

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. 
 

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.  

 

As I understand it, plea bargains in real life America do not always pleading guilty to lesser crimes but sometimes also just means that the prosecutor will ask for significantly less time for the same crime.
But no matter the situation in America, TSP's system is different which means that the definition has to be interpreted in a way that works for TSP.
And as for the legality of arrangements before sentencing - it is currently not clear whether those are legal as per https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7000.html, nor is it clear whether court can resolve the relevant cases on its own.

The court having sole discretion in regard to sentencing does not exclude the possibility of a judge offering a reduced sentence to a defendant in exchange for a confession or additional information which is de facto a plea bargain.

Spoiler

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

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. 

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

 

Following your advice and the advice of Kringle, the relevant sections have been revised or struck.
 

Spoiler

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. 

 

 
I disagree because these sections are only relevant to criminal law and a prohibition on plea bargains in particular.
 

Spoiler

(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?      

 

 Yes. Mitigating circumstances are hard to enumerate and the court should be free to adjust its sentences. While Kringle has advised me that these sections are redundant because most crimes do not have fixed punishments I felt it better to include this carification in order to prevent unnecessary legal ambiguities. [/quote]

(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019, 10:10 AM by Sasha.)

Reply

I may need to brush up on my Court history but if I recall, the Court has only accepted one plea bargain in recent memory and that was during an exceptionally busy docket?

Reply

I may need to brush up on my Court history but if I recall, the Court has only accepted one plea bargain in recent memory and that was during an exceptionally busy docket?

I am only aware of one set of related cases:
1. https://tspforums.xyz/thread-6856.html - the case in which the plea deal was entered, still unresolved
2. https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7000.html - a legal question on the legality of plea bargains, still open
3. https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7008.html - an attempted appeal, closed due to case 1 being still open
4. https://tspforums.xyz/thread-6810.html - another related case in which the proper sentencing procedure was not followed, still open
5. https://tspforums.xyz/thread-6631.html - this is the first of their many court cases

Reply

I personally don't see a terribly big issue if the defendant voluntarily enters a plea agreement. While I'm happy that we are codifying such agreements, I think some leeway should be provided to the Court in how it resolves its cases.

Reply

I personally don't see a terribly big issue if the defendant voluntarily enters a plea agreement. While I'm happy that we are codifying such agreements, I think some leeway should be provided to the Court in how it resolves its cases.

There are several problems with this:
1. there was a second defendant and the court essentially offered a reward to the first defendant for providing potential evidence against the second, potentially prejudicing the court against the second defendant removing any impartiality the court may have had
2. the plea deal was negotiated in private, not in a public venue, thus not allowing necessary public oversight
3. the question of whether this action is legal is unresolved as is the question of whether the court is allowed to rule on whether this action is legal, in part because there is no legislation on plea deals
4. while court should have some leeway, that leeway should not result in the court adopting new, completely unregulated procedures that are not provided for in legislation or subject any oversight
5. if an institution that is supposed to be impartial and operate under the presumption of innocence starts issuing incentives for guilty pleas before a defendant has actually been found guilty, that institution is no longer operating under the presumption of innocence, nor is it impartial to punish people to wanting to fight (instead of pleading out) a case in which it is not clear whether they are guilty, not is it impartial, just and under the presumption of innocence if possible innocents are encouraged to plead out for fear of a harsher sentence; there is a reason why it is the prosecutor and not the judge that offers plea deals in America and why no legal system with inquisitorial (not adversarial) procedure has plea deals!

Reply

From discord: Unless 6.3.a is reworked I will not vote for it as is. The phrases "including but not limited to" and "impaired judgement" both raise the potential for abuse by a savvy defendant.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

From discord: Unless 6.3.a is reworked I will not vote for it as is. The phrases "including but not limited to" and "impaired judgement" both raise the potential for abuse by a savvy defendant.

 On that note the full discussion in the form of screenshots:

Spoiler

I have amended 6.3 and 5.4.e and f.

Reply