Term 4 - Nominations for Public Defender

[Strider]

Please submit a nomination for the Judicial Poistion of Public Defender. You may self-nominate yourself, or nominate someone else. Only those nominations that are accepted by the nominated candidate will proceed to the election polls.

Acts as Chief Attorney for the 
                accused, unless the accused wishes otherwise. 
                Ensures the accused understands his/her rights and the
                accusation.

 

[mhcarver]

I nominate Black_hole and ravensfire

 

[Nobody]

I nominate my self

 

[Black_Hole]

I accept...

 

[Nobody]

oh well i will have to campaign .

Just brifely because i got to go out soon (its 6am ) i will seperate my campaign into 4 parts, 1. The way i will treat CC's, 2. The way i will treat JD's 3. Just why you should vote for me and 4. Question and answer time. More to come.

VOTE NOBODY

 

[greekguy]

I second nobody and Black_Hole and nominate ravensfire.

 

[Bertie]

I second Nobody.

 

[Black_Hole]

Questions?
Time for a debate

 

[zyxy]

Question for all candidates: the Public defender is a judge and the counsel for the defense at once. How do you think to combine these roles?

In particular, the accused in a CC might want to share facts/opinions with his defender that he doesn't want his judge to know. How will you deal with this?

 

[Nobody]

Citizen Complaints: The Public defender has two main roles in Citizen Complaints, first they along with the other justices decide if the case has merit. If elected the way I will decide this based on not if accused is guilty, but rather if the accusation has been filed in the proper way and second if there is possible that the crime has been committed. The next part and fundamentally the most important role of the Public Defender is to act as legal council for the accused person. If elected I will do everything in my power to defend the accused. I will always work in their best interest, and my personal opinion of the case is irrelevant. Also I will run my defences in a colourful sort of way. In the event of a hung jury the judicially steps into decide the case, in this situation I defend the accused because it is my most important duty to defend the public.

Judicial Review: The judicially is one of the most undemocratic part of the demogame. Three people get to decide some very important issues. If elected I will interpret the law by exactly what it says. I don’t think three people should make the law this is the role of the Legislative branch, and not the judicially. Likewise if legislation is put to me, I am more in favour of allowing the people to vote on it, so I will only vote against it if it is clearly in violation of existing laws.

Why vote for me? : Well im new to the judicially and still fairly new to the game, I am currently doing a law paper, and I want to be a judge before I finish it, and this is the last term that it is possible. I am fair, even handed and I like to bring fun and role playing to different positions. I got 78% for my first assignment (constitutional law and Interpreting Legislature) and 96% for my second (contract law mainly case). So I am fairly good at it (don’t worry im becoming a lawyer this is the only Law paper im doing and its compulsory). If CG wins his elections and I win mine that will be two new judges and with the wise leadership of Chief Justice Mhcarver to lead us everything will be fine. Plus if you I blow up you families (im kidding…. Or am I)

Question Time.

I think I will let Mr Hole answer the questions first. 


Summary: So Basically My two most important policies are 1. The Judicially Interprets the Law but does not make it. 2. I will defend the public to my utmost ability including there rights and freedoms. Think of me not just as the publics advocate but as Freedoms Advocate.

Vote Nobody
Freedoms Advocate​

 

[Black_Hole]

Ill get to your question zyxy, but I find a few things with Nobody's platform.

Judicial Review: The judicially is one of the most undemocratic part of the demogame. Three people get to decide some very important issues. If elected I will interpret the law by exactly what it says. I don’t think three people should make the law this is the role of the Legislative branch, and not the judicially. Likewise if legislation is put to me, I am more in favour of allowing the people to vote on it, so I will only vote against it if it is clearly in violation of existing laws.

I am not sure, how many times this has been stated, the judiciary does NOT make laws, they interperet them. If the law is vague, and broad interperation must be given, a judicial review never ovverides law, thus it never is a law

Question Time.

I think I will let Mr A Hole answer the questions first. 

Thank-you....

Now the Public Defender does have 2 roles: defense attorney and judge. However the public defender only rules on the CC if it is tied in the people's poll... Now as a judge, you must rule on merit, basically if there is any possibility the law specified was broken, the CC has merit. The public defender must rule fairly, as the public defender defends the public... If a PD were to rule against merit, even though there was he would be hurting the public, by breaking their constitutional rights. I always work as the client wishes. A client may wish to just let go and not defend against this, in hopes of a faster debate and lesser punishment, or if the client wishes, i will work thoroghly to defend and as much as possible. I have experiance with CCs, being 'involved' with 3 of them. (Defended on one, prosecuted on another, and filed/pushed on another). So, I know how the prosecution and accuser will work and how to best defend the client. I have been in the judiciary this entire game, and much of last game.

For Black_Hole and Experiance!

 

[Nobody]

Thank-you....

lol the A was meant to be hiden.

anyway to answer the question, i almost did in the first part. So anyway

the Public defender is a judge and the counsel for the defense at once. How do you think to combine these roles?

Well at first the Public defender has to say if the CC has merit. If there is any reasonable chance that the Law has been broken then it has merit. The only time that i would find the CC has no merit is if it is just stupid (e.g. I CC Civ General for breaking the law section19: No Monkey bussiness) or if the proper procdure has not been followed and it disadvantages the defendant. During this period i would be neutral. After this i will work in the Defendants best intrests what ever they may be

 

[zyxy]

I thank both candidates for their extensive answers

 

[Bertie]

Question to the candidates: pretend I've been CC'd for something that, in your judgement, justifies me been thrown out of the game. In fact, my offense is so awful that you don't even want to discuss it with me. Would you defend me or resign rather than deal with my case?

 

[Nobody]

pretend I've been CC'd for something that, in your judgement, justifies me been thrown out of the game. In fact, my offense is so awful that you don't even want to discuss it with me. Would you defend me or resign rather than deal with my case?

Lets assume that you riged an election to become military minister then loaded up the save, disbanded the military, declared war on the world. Then somehow you deleted all the other copys of the game on here and left your corrupt copy as the only one avalible. Well then i would defend you as much as posiable. Because its the job, and i have made a practice of Insulting quiters (e.g. Donovan Zoi during the last demogame as FA minister). I would not resign my postion unless something happened in real life that made it impossiable to play.