I like these ideas and will try to incorporate them into my upcoming courts overhaul. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Oct 1, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > So, CFJ 3563 read as follows: > The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally > issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued. > and the caller barred Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > This left the Caller, o, nichdel and Publius with conflicts of interest > or being ineligible to be assigned. A difficulty. Further, it just > seems to be a miscarriage of justice to lump multiple cards into one > CFJ. > > I suggest the following criminal process reforms with the following > principles (not rushing to do it this week, this is for discussion): > > 1. Only a defendant (the carded) can call a case questioning whether > the card was correct. E can bar someone of course. > > 2. E can do it for free (protecting eir right as per R217, and removing > incentives for bundling cards into one CFJ). > > 3. Standards of evidence are specified for this type of case (beyond a > reasonable doubt? or should it be preponderance of evidence). > > 4. Any case questioning a Card that doesn't use this process (e.g. > called by a non-defendant) should be DISMISSED and referred to this > process. > > The trickiest part is how punishment effects are applied - how to > suspend (or not suspend then) during this process. > > Thoughts? > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
