Term 2 – Election for Judge Advocate

[Furiey]

The Judge Advocate is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Chief Justice and Public Defender, and is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution to an accused citizen

Please vote for one of the following candidates:

Black_Hole
Strider​

Link to Nomination thread

This is a private poll, and will last for 3 days.

 

[Strider]

Not much I can say, other than that, if elected, I promise to do my duties to the best of my ability. Saying anything else would just be a fancy menuver to try to impress people. There is no possible way I could go and tell you how I stand of past issues, because they are past issues. As we have no knowaledge of the issues that may appear in this term, it'll be near impossible to predict those.

As such, I'm running on just one thing... the only thing that could possibly get you a win in a Judiciary Election, my personality. As such, you can count on my deadly efficiency, hostile neuroticism, and sarcastic desire for Judicial Affairs.

 

[Strider]

No questions? I thought the election itself might've been more entertaining than this!

 

[Black_Hole]

Anyeone at all?

 

[Bootstoots]

Okay then: are you more of a strict constructionist (looking only at the letter of the law), or a loose constructionist (taking into account the law's intent)?

 

[Strider]

Okay then: are you more of a strict constructionist (looking only at the letter of the law), or a loose constructionist (taking into account the law's intent)?

Loose, easily. If we do not follow the intent of the author or the law, then that law's true purpose no longer exists. However, sometimes it is impossible to find the true intent of the author or law. It may not have been stated, or has been lost in DG's past.

In these circumstances, the wisest, and unbias choice is to look at the law strictly.

 

[greekguy]

If elected, will you try to push foward changes, such as ammendments, or will you strictly interpert laws in JR's, CC's, and ammendments put before you?

 

[Strider]

If elected, will you try to push foward changes, such as ammendments, or will you strictly interpert laws in JR's, CC's, and ammendments put before you?

If your asking, if I would attempt to change the intent of a law by strictly interpreting it. No, I would not. Same reason I stated above.

As many people know, I would have prefered if we introduced a another "book" of laws. Something very easy to edit, that corresponds to the Articles in the Constitution (IE: Article A. in this book, would talk about Article A. in the Constitution). This would scrap the constitutional wording, and state in plain english what that laws purpose is and what they hope it achieves.

Then we know why that law is there, what it's suppose to do, how it's suppose to do it, etc. This will not only greatly aid in several JR's, but it could also eliminate the need for many. Add in that we can also easily detect if a law has failed, and take the steps necessary to resolve the situtation.

At this point and time, it would be near impossible to achieve this, without changing the constitution. This is one, of many, changes that should have been implemented. We lack organization, espicially where our laws and the Judiciary stand.

If elected, I will take the steps necessary to have this game run at maximum efficiency, with the least man power. To allow us to focus less on the laws, and more on the "fun" aspects.

 

[Black_Hole]

Okay then: are you more of a strict constructionist (looking only at the letter of the law), or a loose constructionist (taking into account the law's intent)?

I am interperate more strictly, for example at a JR this last term, the CoL says that a 67% majority is needed for the senate to ovverride the constitution, even though the intent was that a 4-2 vote could comply(which is 2/3 or 66.666)

I ruled that a 4-2 majority did not constitute the 67%, because its not 67% even though the author's intent was a 4-2 would suffice.

The people vote on the constituion's text, not on the author's intent

 

[Black_Hole]

If elected, will you try to push foward changes, such as ammendments, or will you strictly interpert laws in JR's, CC's, and ammendments put before you?

As I am still a citizen I will not stop myself from putting forth amendments, however I will prefer I don't because I have to rule on it.

The interperation of the law should not change it, unfortunately this can happen if a justice is ruling on the intent of the law and not the law

 

[DaveShack]

Thinking about the other duty of the Judge Advocate, would you tend toward prosecuting an offender based on the letter of the law only, or do you take the accused's intent into consideration?

Do you think that an "out of court settlement" between an accuser and accused is preferable to using the citizen complaint process?

 

[Black_Hole]

Thinking about the other duty of the Judge Advocate, would you tend toward prosecuting an offender based on the letter of the law only, or do you take the accused's intent into consideration?

Do you think that an "out of court settlement" between an accuser and accused is preferable to using the citizen complaint process?

For the first part, a crime is a crime... Lets say 2 DPs brake an official instruction, DP A did it because the leader made a bad instruction. Its not fair to DP B because DP A had better intent and got off easy.
Intent is hard to measure...

Now onto your second question, it depends on the offence. If the offence is violating the WOTP then every single citizen needs to agree to it. Just because the accuser agrees to a settlement, doesn't mean that the accuser was the only one effected by law breach. So normally no, out of court settlements should not be used. In cases of effecting only a single person, then it is fine, but those are rare cases.

I know these sound harsh, but the JA isn't here to be nice he is here to enforce the law, and protect the citizens from leaders breaking the law

 

[Strider]

Thinking about the other duty of the Judge Advocate, would you tend toward prosecuting an offender based on the letter of the law only, or do you take the accused's intent into consideration?

Do you think that an "out of court settlement" between an accuser and accused is preferable to using the citizen complaint process?

If there is sufficient proof that the citizen in question did not intend to break the law, and was acting for the sprit of the game. Then I think they should get a sufficiently lesser punishment, as prepared to someone who committed the same crime knowingly, and with the intent of disturbing the game.


Citizen Complaints cause un-needed division and anger, and I would much prefer to bypass them if at all possible. I support a "out of court settlement" under any condition. As I noted above, CC's cause to much drama, and I would prefer to not disturb the game with a Citizen Complaint.