Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform
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
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
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
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
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
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
