Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 18:13 Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
>   Is everyone working on one of these?
> 
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, yes. 

I for one don't have any big scheme.  It's just minor things I've noticed 
as Arbitor, but I was waiting for one of these big schemes to come through
so my fixes didn't get over-written.  If all the big schemes are a few 
distributions away from being ready I might propose some of the smaller 
fixes though.

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 19:01 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Mine is based on the Roman court system and integrates civil and criminal
> procedures.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


This sounds interesting! Perhaps circulate a proto-proto?

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Mine is based on the Roman court system and integrates civil and criminal 
procedures.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Oct 1, 2017, at 6:12 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Is everyone working on one of these? P.S.S., what are you planning for
> your court reform?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> 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  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

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 18:13 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is everyone working on one of these?
>

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Aris Merchant]

Is everyone working on one of these? P.S.S., what are you planning for
your court reform?

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> 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  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?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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  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

DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Kerim Aydin]

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?