Change need in PI Procedures

[FionnMcCumhall]

Ok folks lets face it we need to have a rule change here. We currently do not have a rule that lets a defendent plead quilty. While they can plead quilty we still have to go thru trial polls and discussions leading up to the trial polls. Instead we should skip to the sentences phase or add in plea agreements like the judicial system of today allows.

Anybody else want to add to this please add

 

[Chieftess]

I agree. We used to have something like this back in the days when PIs were unnoficial...

 

[Goonie]

I second the motion for this type of change.

 

[naervod]

I agree. As I stated in the Judiciary thread, I am writing a new rule that will allow this.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

post it here so we can discuss it

 

[donsig]

The idea is an acceptable one but we need to see the actual rule change in order to discuss the details.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

May I bring up the Penguin PI for a moment. As we know, I commited a crime. I pleaded guilty off the bat. Sure, we needed a poll, but we didnt and still dont have a ruleset for someone who admits their guilt. Why?

 

[GenMarshall]

I agree, we should have sort of a system when the Defendent pleads Guilty, The Judical branch can skip the trial poll and move onto the sentencing poll.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

Originally posted by donsig
The idea is an acceptable one but we need to see the actual rule change in order to discuss the details.

You did read naervods post that he was going to post the rule change right?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
May I bring up the Penguin PI for a moment. As we know, I commited a crime. I pleaded guilty off the bat. Sure, we needed a poll, but we didnt and still dont have a ruleset for someone who admits their guilt. Why?

The PI before that one (eyrei and the quick polls) pretty much ended in a plea bargain. But that one was officially dropped because the only possible punishment was a warning since it was a CoS violation. The current PI and the Penguin PI are both CoL violations that could carry stiffer penalties.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
You did read naervods post that he was going to post the rule change right?

Yes, I read it. Just wondering why it is that you can't write a rule change. If you're not willing to propose the actual change in the rules you shouldn't be complaining about the rules we have.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

im not good at writing law, but i figured i better get the ball rolling since no one else was going to do it, that is until i read naervod's post after making this thread. And i dont see you doing one either.

 

[naervod]

Here is my idea:

CoS.H.7.D
If the defendant should plead guilty to the charges brought against him than the investigation may proceed directly to the sentencing poll.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

i agree with this proposal. maybe we should add in something to do with plea arangements as well so we can potentially skip a sentenceing poll?

 

[GenMarshall]

Here is my proposal in the law change . I know it can be refined since mines is more worded differently.

Original
From Section H of the CoL section 6 and 8
Investigations

6. Citizens post their opinions on the charge, whether they think the suspect is guilty of an infraction, and if the case should go to trial (poll).

8. If the suspect is found guilty through the trial poll, a sentencing poll is held.

Proposed change. in bold
From Section H of the CoL section 6 and 8
Investigations

6. Citizens post their opinions on the charge, whether they think the suspect is guilty of an infraction, and if the case should go to trial (poll). If the Defenent pleads guilty in the PI thread then the Trial (poll) will be skiped and the PI would move onto the sentencing poll

8. If the suspect is found guilty through the trial poll or if the Defendant pleads guilty in the Investigation Thread, a sentencing poll is held.

Please take note that the changes are a Rough draft .

 

[Falcon02]

since we're in the talks, can I propose another change?

"The Military Leader Reserves the Right to change military items in city production."

Maybe add that this would only be in cases when the item it's being changed to is equal or lesser in sheild value, as not to delay the production of other improvements.

I seriously think the Military Leader should have a right to change a military item (esp. unit) already in production.

EDIT: I realize this is kinda off topic and I apologize, cause I don't wanna thread-jack.

 

[Shaitan]

The guilty plea is definitely needed. Plea bargaining is not. That opens up a can of worms that is best left packed up tight. Who would be able to accept the plea? The accuser? No justice system in the world allows that. Our Judiciary handles the cases for the people. If they begin to accept pleas it is the same as if they assign punishments. The people? They already do this through the sentencing polls.

@Falcon02 - No, the Military Leader should not be able to switch anything at will. Same as the Science Leader can't switch things if a science building happens to be up in the queue and the Culture Leader can't arbitrarily change a queue when a building with culture is up. Any time Leaders want something in particular built they can request this from the appropriate governor. They may also ask the President to intervene using his Council backed override.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I concur with Shaitan. A guilty plea is necessary to hasten the PI process, but plea bargaining just won't work. Politics and personal loyalties will figure into that far more than actual guilt/innocence.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

it was an idea. i tried, too much of the law and order series

 

[Shaitan]

I am proposing the following changes to the President and Council for adoption into our Code of Standards through a Council Vote. The changes are noted in bold italic. The Council Vote has been prepared and uploaded in a text file http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads3/COSchangePIguiltyplea.txt]here[/url]. Whichever Leader (or the Pres) wishes to sponsor this change, simply copy and paste the text from the file into a new thread in the polls forum.

Proposed change:

6.	Citizens post their opinions on the charge, whether they think the 
	suspect is guilty of an infraction, if the case should go to trial (poll), 
	[i][b]what punishment(s) would be in order if the defendant is found 
	guilty, etc. [/b][/i]
7.	When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have 
	passed the Judge Advocate will post a trial. 
	[i][b]A.	If the defendant pled "guilty" to the charges, the trial 
		poll is skipped and the Judge Advocate will proceed to 
		posting a sentencing poll.[/b][/i]
	B.	If the results of the investigation thread are overwhelmingly 
		in favor of the defendant the Judge Advocate will submit the 
		case for Judicial Review and possible dispensation as a "No 
		Merit" case. 
	C.	The trial poll will have options of Guilty/Innocent/Abstain and 
		will remain up for [i][b]48[/b][/i] hours. 
	D.	In the event the trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the 
		Judiciary shall decided amongst them if the defendant is 
		innocent or guilty. If the triumvirate of the Judiciary cannot 
		come to an agreement, the Chief Justice alone will cast the 
		tie breaking vote. 
8.	If the suspect is found guilty [i][b][delete] through the trial poll, 
	[/delete][/b][/i] a sentencing poll is held. 
	A.	The sentencing poll will remain up for [i][b]48[/b][/i] hours.