[Draft] Fairness in Sentencing Decisions

[Bears Armed]

1. Mandates that member-states shall establish competent, impartial judicial entities and that these entities shall reserve the right to review sentencing decisions made by other judicial bodies within their nation; should they determine that a sentencing decision conflicts with domestic law, or procedures stipulated by this assembly, then they shall have the capacity to nullify such a decision, and call for a retrial, should circumstances permit;

"As currently written, this clause would give any and every 'competent, impartial judicial entity' that has been established by and within a WA member-nation the authority to nullify the sentencing decisions of any other judicial body there... which somehow seems incorrect to me..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Merfurian]

1. Mandates that member-states shall establish competent, impartial judicial entities and that these entities shall reserve the right to review sentencing decisions made by other judicial bodies within their nation; should they determine that a sentencing decision conflicts with domestic law, or procedures stipulated by this assembly, then they shall have the capacity to nullify such a decision, and call for a retrial, should circumstances permit;

"As currently written, this clause would give any and every 'competent, impartial judicial entity' that has been established by and within a WA member-nation the authority to nullify the sentencing decisions of any other judicial body there... which somehow seems incorrect to me..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Hear here. If such provision is going to be made, then at least restrict such powers to the Appellate levels of national judiciaries, otherwise Trial Courts could be reversing each other's decisions, which would bring instability to the system, and not create a defined system of precedent.

Klause Uliyan
etc

[Connopolis]

1. Mandates that member-states shall establish competent, impartial judicial entities and that these entities shall reserve the right to review sentencing decisions made by other judicial bodies within their nation; should they determine that a sentencing decision conflicts with domestic law, or procedures stipulated by this assembly, then they shall have the capacity to nullify such a decision, and call for a retrial, should circumstances permit;

"As currently written, this clause would give any and every 'competent, impartial judicial entity' that has been established by and within a WA member-nation the authority to nullify the sentencing decisions of any other judicial body there... which somehow seems incorrect to me..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

1. Mandates that member-states shall establish specialized, competent, impartial judicial entities that shall reserve the right to review sentencing decisions made by other judicial bodies within their nation; should they determine that a sentencing decision conflicts with domestic law, or procedures stipulated by this assembly, then they shall have the capacity to nullify such a decision, and call for a retrial, should circumstances permit;

How's this, Honorable SouthWoods?

Warm regards,

[Bears Armed]

That works better... but you still might need to allow for nations having two or more distinct legal systems, for what seems a fairly obvious possibility to me as an example with one just for the armed forces -- who are likely to be under additional regulation compared to the civilian populace -- as well as the main one, with separate sets of appeal courts for each of those...

[Merfurian]

1. Mandates that member-states shall establish competent, impartial judicial entities and that these entities shall reserve the right to review sentencing decisions made by other judicial bodies within their nation; should they determine that a sentencing decision conflicts with domestic law, or procedures stipulated by this assembly, then they shall have the capacity to nullify such a decision, and call for a retrial, should circumstances permit;

"As currently written, this clause would give any and every 'competent, impartial judicial entity' that has been established by and within a WA member-nation the authority to nullify the sentencing decisions of any other judicial body there... which somehow seems incorrect to me..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

1. Mandates that member-states shall establish specialized, competent, impartial judicial entities that shall reserve the right to review sentencing decisions made by other judicial bodies within their nation; should they determine that a sentencing decision conflicts with domestic law, or procedures stipulated by this assembly, then they shall have the capacity to nullify such a decision, and call for a retrial, should circumstances permit;

How's this, Honorable SouthWoods?

Warm regards,

We don't see what Honourable SouthWoods is barking at (pun not intended). We operate two distinct levels of trial courts - one regional system (with each Autonomous Community having its own set of courts up to Supreme Courts), and a Federal system. They both converge at the Federal Court of Criminal Appeals. We do not believe that the text as rewritten would cause a conflict with systems.

Perhaps Ambassador SouthWoods would care to elaborate his concerns?

Sincerely;

Klause Uliyan
etc

[Bears Armed]

We operate two distinct levels of trial courts - one regional system (with each Autonomous Community having its own set of courts up to Supreme Courts), and a Federal system. They both converge at the Federal Court of Criminal Appeals. We do not believe that the text as rewritten would cause a conflict with systems.

Perhaps Ambassador SouthWoods would care to elaborate his concerns?

If the courts at those regional and federal 'trial' levels are as much "competent, impartial judicial entities" as is the case fo the 'appeal' courts' then the proposal's earlier wording would actually have authorised them to nullify the apeal courts' decisions, and allowed regional courts to nullify federal trial courts' verdicts (and vice versa) too, instead of only letting the appeal courts nullify verdicts from the 'trial' ones...

[Merfurian]

We operate two distinct levels of trial courts - one regional system (with each Autonomous Community having its own set of courts up to Supreme Courts), and a Federal system. They both converge at the Federal Court of Criminal Appeals. We do not believe that the text as rewritten would cause a conflict with systems.

Perhaps Ambassador SouthWoods would care to elaborate his concerns?

If the courts at those regional and federal 'trial' levels are as much "competent, impartial judicial entities" as is the case fo the 'appeal' courts' then the proposal's earlier wording would actually have authorised them to nullify the apeal courts' decisions, and allowed regional courts to nullify federal trial courts' verdicts (and vice versa) too, instead of only letting the appeal courts nullify verdicts from the 'trial' ones...

You misinterpreted me. We have the following Autonomous Courts:
Trial Court --> Autonomous Court of Criminal Appeal --> Autonomous Supreme Court. Overruling works from the Supreme Court downwards - that is, the Supreme Court may overrule itself and the Autonomous Court of Criminal Appeal, and the ACAP can overrule itself and the Trial Court. The Trial court cannot overrule itself, and is the lowest "rung" in the judicial ladder.

Then, on the Federal level, we have Federal Trial Courts, which can overrule themselves, BUT NOT THEIR AUTONOMOUS COUNTERPARTS or any other Autonomous Court. Above that is the Federal Court of Criminal Appeal - which is where the two systems converge. They may overrule the Federal Trial Court, themselves AND ALL AUTONOMOUS COURTS. The same applies to the Supreme Court of the Union, which is the highest court in the land.

This means that we have six layers of judiciary, four of which serve an appellate function (the Federal Trial Court is hybrid, and may only overrule itself).

This proposal, as we see it, will only affect those Appellate Courts and the Federal Trial Courts when they deal with their own decisions (what we call Internal Appeal)

[Bears Armed]

If the courts at those regional and federal 'trial' levels are as much "competent, impartial judicial entities" as is the case fo the 'appeal' courts' then the proposal's earlier wording would actually have authorised them to nullify the apeal courts' decisions, and allowed regional courts to nullify federal trial courts' verdicts (and vice versa) too, instead of only letting the appeal courts nullify verdicts from the 'trial' ones...

You misinterpreted me. We have the following Autonomous Courts:
Trial Court --> Autonomous Court of Criminal Appeal --> Autonomous Supreme Court. Overruling works from the Supreme Court downwards - that is, the Supreme Court may overrule itself and the Autonomous Court of Criminal Appeal, and the ACAP can overrule itself and the Trial Court. The Trial court cannot overrule itself, and is the lowest "rung" in the judicial ladder.

Then, on the Federal level, we have Federal Trial Courts, which can overrule themselves, BUT NOT THEIR AUTONOMOUS COUNTERPARTS or any other Autonomous Court. Above that is the Federal Court of Criminal Appeal - which is where the two systems converge. They may overrule the Federal Trial Court, themselves AND ALL AUTONOMOUS COURTS. The same applies to the Supreme Court of the Union, which is the highest court in the land.

This means that we have six layers of judiciary, four of which serve an appellate function (the Federal Trial Court is hybrid, and may only overrule itself)

But the proposed resolution would over-ride your system's rules: If it says that a court that is a "competent, impartial judicial entity" can nullify the verdicst of other courts, and all of your courts are "competent, impartial judicial entities" then it would let any of them nullify verdicts from any of them, regardless of how autonomous from each other your systems were beforepaw...

[Merfurian]

You misinterpreted me. We have the following Autonomous Courts:
Trial Court --> Autonomous Court of Criminal Appeal --> Autonomous Supreme Court. Overruling works from the Supreme Court downwards - that is, the Supreme Court may overrule itself and the Autonomous Court of Criminal Appeal, and the ACAP can overrule itself and the Trial Court. The Trial court cannot overrule itself, and is the lowest "rung" in the judicial ladder.

Then, on the Federal level, we have Federal Trial Courts, which can overrule themselves, BUT NOT THEIR AUTONOMOUS COUNTERPARTS or any other Autonomous Court. Above that is the Federal Court of Criminal Appeal - which is where the two systems converge. They may overrule the Federal Trial Court, themselves AND ALL AUTONOMOUS COURTS. The same applies to the Supreme Court of the Union, which is the highest court in the land.

This means that we have six layers of judiciary, four of which serve an appellate function (the Federal Trial Court is hybrid, and may only overrule itself)

But the proposed resolution would over-ride your system's rules: If it says that a court that is a "competent, impartial judicial entity" can nullify the verdicst of other courts, and all of your courts are "competent, impartial judicial entities" then it would let any of them nullify verdicts from any of them, regardless of how autonomous from each other your systems were beforepaw...

In theory, the Trial Courts at Federal and Autonomous level are at the same level in the judicial system - they just have slightly different remits, and, like I said, the Federal Trial Court may only overrule its own past decisions in an Internal Appeal process where another Bench of Judges considers an interlocutory appeal. Federal Trial Courts are not permitted to overrule any Autonomous Courts - that is enshrined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence, and will not change.