Term 4 Election for Public Defender

[Swissempire]

This is the term 4 election thread for the position of Public Defender

The candidates are:
Swissempire
Donsig

 

[Donovan Zoi]

People of Licentia,

Put your current thoughts of me aside, and listen to the following logic:

Justice donsig will be less of a judicial distraction than citizen donsig.

As a citizen, donsig will find the holes in our ruleset and exploit them for all they are worth. This is just what he does, and we love him for it. However, whenever donsig has taken to the bench, he has performed admirably and interpreted the letter of the law.

Whatever you think of my previous comments, please understand that my intent was to lessen the opportunity for legal spectacle as much as possible so that our collective citizenry could once again focus on the all-important GAME. Electing donsig as Public Defender would be a major step in realizing this goal.

 

[Nobody]

This is a hard Decision, First off make no mistake Swissempire might have been slightly on my way of thinking during the recent constitutional crisis (did anyone else call it that) but i have no doubt at all that donsig was acting fair and only in the nations best interests.

So here is donsig, my initial reaction is to vote for him, i trust him to do what he thinks is right, But i cant bring my self to vote for a candiate who has said as public defender he might not defend the public.

So i will hold off on voting hopeing Donsig can put my fear to rest.

 

[donsig]

@ Donovan Zoi: To know me is to love me.

@ Nobody and everybody: As public defender I would not be able in good conscience to defend someone whom I felt was guilty. Trying to do so would be ineffective and therefore not fair to the accused. I would readily step down (recude myself) from any such case and help the citizen charged find someone who could better defend him or her. This only applies to cases where I think the citizen did not follow our rules. In others case where I felt there was no wrong doing I would do everything I could to defend the citizen. I do have a little DG legal defense experience having myself been the accused more than once in previous demogames.

 

[Nobody]

Donsig here is how you win a vote. If you personally are unsure if the person is gulity would you defend them. Say they are 50-50 would you defend them? Or they appear gulity as sin but they continue to pled innocent and you can see a defense against it would you defend them? Just explain more when you would defend someone and when you would recuse yourself.

 

[Strider]

Here is how you can win my vote:

Which is more important, the game or the laws?

 

[ravensfire]

I cannot support a candidate that will not represent all citizens, especially those that most need it. Sorry, donsig, I think that you're the stronger candidate w/ regards to JR's, but that one statement completely eliminates you from consideration.

The Public Defender is there as the person that represents anyone under investigation. They must be able to set aside their preferences and disputes, and represent the interests of that citizen. Someone must be able to help the citizen that carries out an unpopular action, and has most of the DG against them. That person should be the Public Defender.

With donsig in office, that citizen may well be alone, deprived of their rights because of the selfish acts of an elected official.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

While i cannot point to my previous rulings and say "Ha, see, you should all agree with me!" What i can do if promise. I promise to defend each and everyone of my clients to the fullest extend, barring a request i don't, or a conflict of interest. I promise that i will take into account both my and the citiziens opinions when making a decision. I promise that i will uphold both the DG and the Law. They are equal entities, they both rely on each other. I would ask that you vote for me, for the future of this demogame. I am not playing the martyr card, i am trying to get into the judiciary. And if you can't vote for me because i wouldn't be a nuisance if i didn't win, i am truly sorry you feel that way

A Swiss promise is one you can take to the bank(RPG or otherwise)

 

[Black_Hole]

I cannot support a candidate that will not represent all citizens, especially those that most need it. Sorry, donsig, I think that you're the stronger candidate w/ regards to JR's, but that one statement completely eliminates you from consideration.

The Public Defender is there as the person that represents anyone under investigation. They must be able to set aside their preferences and disputes, and represent the interests of that citizen. Someone must be able to help the citizen that carries out an unpopular action, and has most of the DG against them. That person should be the Public Defender.

With donsig in office, that citizen may well be alone, deprived of their rights because of the selfish acts of an elected official.

-- Ravensfire

I agree, I was about to place my vote for donsig before reading his post... I need to think about this for abit...

 

[Black_Hole]

After much thought, I am voting for donsig, I know how he rules and he doesn't stray from the law and I wasn't impressed with Swissempire's understanding of the law during the CJ debacle...
However, I still hope that donsig will change his mind and defend any citizen from a CC

 

[greekguy]

i voted donsig. donsig knows the laws, while Swissy needs to buff up on the constitution.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am not sure if I should vote for Donsig. I perfer a canidate who will not be biased and set asside their differences and disputes. I have always gone with the belief that "Thou shall not judge one another" as told by Jesus (or something of that nature).

I would have to go with a canidate that has both experiances and can be able to set asside his or her differences and grudges. I cannot vote for a canidate who would not represent the citizens. Sadly though, Donsig has stated that he would "not be able in good conscinece to defend someone whom [he] felt was guilty". To me that is not a very good attitude to have as a public defender. As stated before, a public defender should set asside his biases and grudges against the person who is on the defense to ensure that person has a right to a fair trial.

This to me sounds more like a morality case in which one is faced with a question (Sorry if I am taking a religious comparison on this) with the Good Samaritan. To me, Donsig would be the person who would not help a person accused of a violation of the rule, when in Donsig's mind that person is guilty. Much like in the first half of the Good Good Samaritan parable where the traveler has been attacked and robbed to be left there on the spot to die.

For me, I believe that Swissempire has the qualities of a Good Samaritan in my eyes. He said that he will defend anyone regardless of any personal biases that he may have. Swissempire is willing to help the person who is accused of violation of the rule. Much like the Good Samaritan who helped the fallen traveler back on his feet (Note: The Samaritans and the Jewish population had a mutual antipathy during the Ancent times in RL)

i voted donsig. donsig knows the laws, while Swissy needs to buff up on the constitution.

That was my main consern was experiance, but I also take into the person's attitudes into consideration as well so this is a toughy for me to vote for since we have at one hand a person who is experianced in the laws but would not be a Good Samaritan to the accused while on the other hand we have a new guy in the courts with little or no experiance in the laws but yet is willing to be a Good Samaritan to the accused.

 

[Swissempire]

i voted donsig. donsig knows the laws, while Swissy needs to buff up on the constitution.

How so? I mean, all Donsig did in his term was sit, and sit, and sit. This gives us no thought of his knowledge. While agree that Donsig may bee a good justice, he would not be a good public defender. He has stated he cannot do the job, and i feel he ran for this position because I was running for this position. In regards to this DG's Consitution and CoL, we have the same experience. I know that people will look for a reason not to vote for me and thats okay.

But that is not the way we should hold our elections. It should be about why to vote for a candidate, not why not to vote for one. The mudslinging and blaming will do no good for our people and our demogame. You should not vote for him simply because you don't want to vote for me, you should vote for him because you think he could do the job better than me. He has stated he cannot do the job. I would take the Citiziens opinion into account, so if you don't feel i am interpreting the constitution right, enlighten me.

But i don't see how i could be that bad at the Law, considering i help forge it

 

[Whomp]

Swiss Empire, if it's any consolation, Donsig lost my vote when he said he wouldn't defend a citizen. I see you going to the wall for a citizen's rights.

 

[donsig]

Donsig here is how you win a vote. If you personally are unsure if the person is gulity would you defend them. Say they are 50-50 would you defend them? Or they appear gulity as sin but they continue to pled innocent and you can see a defense against it would you defend them? Just explain more when you would defend someone and when you would recuse yourself.

I would look at the case and look at the laws and then decide if I thought the action in question was legal or not. If I thought the action legal I would do my best to defend the person. If I thought the action was illegal I would recuse myself. If it was 50-50 (in other words if the law was truly unclear) then I would - as public defender - do what I could to defend the accused.

Maybe I could give a couple examples from the last term. In the CC against Curufinwe I would have had to recuse myself. I could not defend his actions in good conscience since I truly thought (and still think) his actions were unconstitutional.

The next examples are hypothetical since I do not believe any complaints were filed so I'm putting a disclaimer up front and saying I'm only talking *what ifs* here and not pointing fingers. Let's say a complaint had been filed against Chieftess for appointing Nobody as Chief Justice when she was Secretary of State. The law surrounding that is very vague and I would certainly have defended her even though I'm not sure how I would rule in that case - since I haven't heard all the legal arguments yet. That's what I'd call a 50-50 case.

Another *what-if* would be a complaint filed against Chillaxation for waiting 72 hours (actually more as it happened) to appoint a CJ. I definately think that what he did was right and would have given my all to defend him in that case.

Here is how you can win my vote:

Which is more important, the game or the laws?

If I'm on the bench then the laws are more important. Justices who are willing to overlook our laws when they become inconvenient should not be justices.

As a citizen I also think we should play by the rules we ourselves make - but I also think we should minimize the rules we make!

As a player who cannot attend the chats or look at the save our legal system is the last hope I see of restoring this game to one that is forum based where we can all participate on an equal level. Once that actually happens then the part of the demogame will become as important to me as our laws.

 

[robboo]

A public defender who might not defend the public...too bad we cant impeach you if you didnt do your job. Our only recourse is to not vote for you and not give you the chance.

I voted for SwissE

 

[Curufinwe]

I must say so as well. It's not hard to suck it up and argue someone elses side, especially when that's your job. Though, I must say I find it immensely honourable, immensely so, for you to forsake pride and say simply "I'm sorry, but I can not do this justly".

 

[ravensfire]

I must say so as well. It's not hard to suck it up and argue someone elses side, especially when that's your job. Though, I must say I find it immensely honourable, immensely so, for you to forsake pride and say simply "I'm sorry, but I can not do this justly".

My question is, how would you handle the citizen that nobody will defend? Who will help them? Who will guarantee their rights?

And in case you're wondering, yes, that scenario HAS happened in the past (see DG4).

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

My question is, how would you handle the citizen that nobody will defend? Who will help them? Who will guarantee their rights?

And in case you're wondering, yes, that scenario HAS happened in the past (see DG4).

-- Ravensfire

Hmmm... don't remember much about DG4. Kinda lost touch after DG3T3.

If Nobody will defend the citizen then I guess there's no problem unless Nobody is elected Judge Advocate then he'd have to recuse himself to be defender. In that case we could just both recuse ourselves and appoint each other as our respective pro tempores and get on with business.

Oh, wait, you don't mean Nobody our beloved citizen, you mean nobody as in no one! That's a tough one. In all honesty if the case was so strong against the accused that he or she could not find legal representation (and I believed the actions of the accused were illegal) I'd urge him or her to accept the charges and try to work out a deal with the accuser to settle things. In such a case if the assuced refused to deal and wanted a trial I'd ask the accused to find other representation so I could recuse myself. If no one could be found I would present a defense but I'd also make it plain I thought the defense was weak - which IMO does not do justice to the accused so I'd really do what I could to get him or her a better advocate.

Believe it or not I do not think the judiciary should be a citizen's first recourse whenever there is a problem. It is always better to try to show an official where his or her actions conflict with the law so said offical can remedy the situation to everyone's satisfaction. As public defender I would always work towards resolving citizen complaints before they reached the point where a trial was needed. Sometimes this would involve advising the accused to accept the charges and remedying the situation in question. If the accused demanded a trial agianst my better judgement then I'd simply recuse myself (unless no one else could be found to act as defense counsel as noted above).

There are two points I'm trying to make here. One is that I feel forcing a someone to defend someone else whom the former though was guilty is a conflict of interest much the same as a justice ruling on the validity of his or her own position on the bench. In order to ensure fairness both types of conflict of interest should be avoided - which means we should not expect the PD to defend someone against his wishes nor should we expect the JA to prosecute someone against his wishes!

The second point is that the structure of our judiciary is flawed. Not only to we allow justices to hand down decisions that directly affect them we expect others to come up with legal arguments they don't believe in. We do this and expect to have a fair legal system! We need to get away from this system where the only options we have are asking for judicial reviews or filing a citizen complaint. We need to be able to bring cases before the court where we can say, such-and-such was done illegally and we need to remedy it and do what is legal. That is a very different case from having to go before the court and say so-and-so did something illegal, now what are we going to do about it?

 

[Nobody]

If Nobody will defend the citizen then I guess there's no problem unless Nobody is elected Judge Advocate then he'd have to recuse himself to be defender. In that case we could just both recuse ourselves and appoint each other as our respective pro tempores and get on with business.

Oh, wait, you don't mean Nobody our beloved citizen, you mean nobody as in no one! That's a tough one.

I got to admit you confused me.