Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Cyc, do you seriously believe a correctable infraction that was likely a mistake deserves ANY punishment? Either way, I am absolutely sure that Chieftess was not picking on you or the North Province.
Public Investigation: People vs. Chieftess, Part III
- Thread starter naervod
- Start date
FortyJ
Deity
Regardless of the intention of the DP and the difficulty of ensuring that the instructions and build queues for every city is accounted for (the likely culprit for our many multi-hour preturns), the fact is that the governor's requests were ignored, over-ruled, or at the very least, overlooked.
Fortunately, there is no real damage done here as the production on the rifleman was not completed and there is still the opportunity to change production to an aqueduct (something I assume was taken care of last turn chat).
Nonetheless, it seems clear that Chieftess is guilty of this charge.
Fortunately, there is no real damage done here as the production on the rifleman was not completed and there is still the opportunity to change production to an aqueduct (something I assume was taken care of last turn chat).
Nonetheless, it seems clear that Chieftess is guilty of this charge.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
This is logic akin to determing the meaning of the word "is", and is badly misplaced.
The instructions were posted in turn chat instruction threads. Therefore the instructions should have been carried out in the applicable turn chat.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I believe with the passing of the new Section H of the CoS, as Chieftess and defense council have both pleaded Guilty on this charge, it should go straight to a sentencing poll.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Cyc is correct. COS changes are in effect as soon as the measure is passed by the Council. Judicial Review can later revoke a COS change but until that time the change is used.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I would also say that discussion has "petered out".
Hmmm...what is that legal term? Ex post facto, I believe? I think it means a person should not be tried based on laws passed after they committed a crime. While this particular law does not exactly fit the definition, as it has little to do with the actual crime, but the trial had already started. Therefor this trial should be seen through to the end using the laws we had in place when it began. Or I could invoke the double-jeopardy idea...no person can be tried twice for the same crime. Chieftess has already been tried for this crime, and found innocent. We should not be trying her again.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Ex post facto doesn't apply here. The rule change was to the process of trial. She isn't being charged with something made illegal after the act of commission.
I agree with double jeopardy but the judiciary obviously didn't as the case was filed.
In any case, let's just get these through the system as fast as possible so CT can get her warnings and the game can turn into a game again.
I agree with double jeopardy but the judiciary obviously didn't as the case was filed.
In any case, let's just get these through the system as fast as possible so CT can get her warnings and the game can turn into a game again.
I see your point, but no honorable court system would allow a change in trial procedures that takes place during the trial to cause the defendent to be tried twice for the same crime. I would like to be able to say our court system is honorable. The fastest way to get this done with, is to drop trying to continue to sentencing after a verdict of innocent has been given by the people.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
You mean by that, eyrei (in a R/L example), if I stole intellectual property from Bill Gates the week before a law covering intellectual property was passed, he couldn't come after me?
Shaitan
der Besucher
Once again I agree regarding it being a case of double jeopardy but the rule change had nothing to do with that. All the rule change did was remove the trial poll when the defendant pleads guilty.
There is a method for the double jeopardy to be corrected. The Judiciary would need to dismiss the case as no merit. We will need a restored Judiciary for that to happen.
There is a method for the double jeopardy to be corrected. The Judiciary would need to dismiss the case as no merit. We will need a restored Judiciary for that to happen.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Actually, yes. Exactly.
If you commit an action that is not against the law you cannot later be charged for committing a crime if the action is subsequently made illegal. It doesn't apply here though as the rules CT was accused of breaking were all established well before the alleged action.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Protection from double jeopardy means you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. For example, say a murderer gets off on a premeditated murder charge. The DA cannot then "try again" with a manslaughter charge. The DA could also not charge the killer with both manslaughter and murder 1 at the same time as both charges would be for the same crime.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
There are two different cases to consider. I closed the other investigation after the poll closed because the poll had started before approval of the law. This one, because of the pleas of guilt and current lack of a trial poll, will go directly to sentencing.
Feodor Ardent
Grizzled 'ol Civ Veteran
"Ex Post Facto" and "Double Jeopardy" restrictions are both intended to protect the inhabitants of a country from judicial persecution by the powers-that-be. Apparently in Roman, medieval, and early modern Europe, these were common abuses.
