by The Ice States » Sun Jul 24, 2022 12:16 am
by Trotterdam » Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:38 am
Most countries in real life have separate laws for children, so a child likely wouldn't be punished as harshly as an adult, even for murder. That's a valid subject for an issue, but it does mean that you probably shouldn't assume as a given that most countries would give a child the same punishment as an adult, and it's pretty weird to be making this issue about something that only comes up due to a rare technicality, rather than the more general question of how such cases should usually be handled by law.The Ice States wrote:[desc] A melodramatic but sentimental speech by a nine year old child, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, in court, who is currently being prosecuted for an act of murder and likely to be sentenced to death,
by Tinhampton » Sun Jul 24, 2022 5:45 am
by Trotterdam » Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:07 am
I wasn't entirely sure, but the first option does clearly use the suspect's age and the shocking nature of capital punishment as a talking point in arguing for its position, and the second option directly responds to that. If those aren't the intended focus, then the issue still needs an extensive rewrite in a different direction.Tinhampton wrote:Trotterdam: I don't think that the age of criminal responsibility is the point of what Ice's written.
by The Ice States » Sun Jul 24, 2022 6:56 pm
Tinhampton wrote:@@RANDOMNAME@@ exists - and works. (Suppose that you use @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ in your description and then refer to that speaker as @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ in the options. Then if John Smith is generated in your description, "John" will be generated in your option.)
Trotterdam: I don't think that the age of criminal responsibility is the point of what Ice's written. He could have just as easily put the following down as his description:A boring and snoozeworthy speech by a twenty-nine year old lorry driver, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, in court, who is currently being prosecuted for an act of burglary and likely to be sentenced to 60 days in prison, has led to all of the nation's justices abstaining, including your Minister of Justice. As your nation's constitution makes the national leader responsible for rendering a verdict when a judiciary is unable to do so -- a line which has never been invoked before now -- it lies on you to decide the fate of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@.
and the gist of the issue would still be clear. In fact, it might even be clearer.
Trotterdam wrote:I wasn't entirely sure, but the first option does clearly use the suspect's age and the shocking nature of capital punishment as a talking point in arguing for its position, and the second option directly responds to that. If those aren't the intended focus, then the issue still needs an extensive rewrite in a different direction.Tinhampton wrote:Trotterdam: I don't think that the age of criminal responsibility is the point of what Ice's written.
by Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands » Sun Jul 24, 2022 7:31 pm
by The Ice States » Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:21 pm
Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands wrote:I think more humour can be derived from an absurdly boring scenario, and would definitely shift the focus more onto the abstention rather than the case itself. There's already an issue in children facing capital punishment so you'd want to avoid conflicting with that one.
by Electrum » Sun Jul 24, 2022 10:40 pm
by The Ice States » Sun Jul 24, 2022 11:27 pm
Electrum wrote:I don't understand the premise. Judges don't abstain from cases. They decide for one side or another. Alternatively there is a jury that decides one way or another.
by Electrum » Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:07 am
The Ice States wrote:Electrum wrote:I don't understand the premise. Judges don't abstain from cases. They decide for one side or another. Alternatively there is a jury that decides one way or another.
In many legal systems, judges can fail to rule for reasons other than an objective conflict of interest; eg in the USA, Section 455 of Title 28 requires justices to abstain "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned". A boring monologue is absolutely a reason for a judge to become biased against -- or for, if somehow convincing -- the defendant, and want them to receive a harsher sentence.
Recusal is usually unnecessary in cases of the judge’s adverse ruling or expression of opinion; rumor, suspicion, or innuendo; familiarity with parties or events; personal attacks on the judge; and threats or lawsuits against the judge. Recusal is more likely in cases of close personal or professional relationship to attorneys or others; public comments or outside activities; ex parte contacts; involvement pertaining to guilty plea; and a judge taking personal offense.
by The Ice States » Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:01 pm
Electrum wrote:The Ice States wrote:In many legal systems, judges can fail to rule for reasons other than an objective conflict of interest; eg in the USA, Section 455 of Title 28 requires justices to abstain "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned". A boring monologue is absolutely a reason for a judge to become biased against -- or for, if somehow convincing -- the defendant, and want them to receive a harsher sentence.
Yes, that is something called recusal. These generally apply to a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
As this case law analysis says (relevant parts highlighted):Recusal is usually unnecessary in cases of the judge’s adverse ruling or expression of opinion; rumor, suspicion, or innuendo; familiarity with parties or events; personal attacks on the judge; and threats or lawsuits against the judge. Recusal is more likely in cases of close personal or professional relationship to attorneys or others; public comments or outside activities; ex parte contacts; involvement pertaining to guilty plea; and a judge taking personal offense.
The usual solution is a new judge would be chosen. I find it extremely implausible that 'all of the nation's justices abstaining' for a simple robbery case. I would find it impossible to not find a judge who would hear this case impartially, especially with a pool of hundreds of judges within @@NAME@@. There's been plenty more controversial cases in real life that have managed to find both an impartial judge and jury, regardless of the actions or crimes of the defendant.
by Electrum » Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:23 pm
The Ice States wrote:Electrum wrote:
Yes, that is something called recusal. These generally apply to a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
As this case law analysis says (relevant parts highlighted):
The usual solution is a new judge would be chosen. I find it extremely implausible that 'all of the nation's justices abstaining' for a simple robbery case. I would find it impossible to not find a judge who would hear this case impartially, especially with a pool of hundreds of judges within @@NAME@@. There's been plenty more controversial cases in real life that have managed to find both an impartial judge and jury, regardless of the actions or crimes of the defendant.
Understood. I wonder if it would work if it's changed to the entire legislature -- rather than court -- abstaining on some controversial new policy? I know there's an issue about ties in elections, so I don't know if the overlap is significant enough for it to be discarded?
by The Ice States » Tue Jul 26, 2022 6:45 pm
by Australian rePublic » Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:43 pm
by Verdant Haven » Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:13 am
Australian rePublic wrote:That's not what jury nullification is. Jury nullification is when a court case is found invalid, not when the person is found innocent
by Australian rePublic » Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:45 am
Verdant Haven wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:That's not what jury nullification is. Jury nullification is when a court case is found invalid, not when the person is found innocent
No.
Jury Nullification is when a defendant is found not guilty, regardless of the law or the evidence. Juries rule only on the guilt or non-guilt of the accused.
by The Ice States » Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:12 pm
by USS Monitor » Sun Jul 31, 2022 3:06 pm
The Ice States wrote:With a verdict favourable to the driver about to be rendered, panicked @@DEMONYM@@ are divided on the issue of jury nullification.
by The Ice States » Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:36 pm
USS Monitor wrote:1. Have someone leak information on how the jury deliberations are going, and it sparks a debate -- but leave more uncertainty about whether the defendant will actually be acquitted. Don't make it sound like the jury has already made up their minds.
by The Ice States » Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:45 pm
by The Ice States » Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:13 pm
by The Ice States » Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:28 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement