Amendment to F.2:
Reasoning:
For the Conclave:
Support.
Conclave’s working on discussing an inquisitorial system and I plan on bringing up removal of the EPAO if we do get that changed.
That being said, I’m strongly against removing the general right to counsel - I think anyone on trial should have the right to be represented by someone if they so choose. All an inquisitorial system does is remove the need for the resident to have legal experience to make arguments - but residents could still benefit from having someone who knows law and/or trial proceedures well. Or maybe they’d even just feel slightly more comfortable with someone else speaking on their behalf. Whatever the case, I do think people should be allowed to have representation when it comes to trials.
Though I no longer support a government attorney system. I’m mostly meaning that if they can, residents can ask others to represent them and help them out - the right to use privately sought after counsel should be protected. If we need to change the Concordat’s wording to prevent the implication that the government should be giving attorneys, that’s fine - but the inherent ability of people to seek help during trials needs protection.
As was discussed over discord I support the right to counsel as a negative right within the Concordat, without the same implicit expectation for the provision of tested counsel like the EPAO (which seems proven to be an unsustainable and untenable practice). I propose the following:
Each Resident shall not be tried twice for the same offence unless new and compelling evidence has been presented to the Conclave nor forced to self-incriminate. Residents shall have the right of representation by adequate counsel to enforce these rights. Residents shall not be denied chosen representation in trial.
Theoretically, under this model, with the word adequate removed, anyone can represent the defendant, which I personally don’t see as a bad thing. Our laws are not so complex that a three year education, LSAT, and certification board is necessary to represent you legally, and thus representing yourself is honestly not that difficult. This should be no different from our current system.
You need a limit on this. As written, one could start over and over with trials, each time presenting “new” evidence. Something which excludes evidence that was available or discoverable the first time, but was not presented (either willfully or by negligence).
“Compelling” also does not sound like a high bar.
We can add withholding evidence as an offence.
Compelling is as strong as the Conclave interprets it. My intention is for it to be very strong.
Added your suggestion.
I feel like it would be best to leave this up to Conclave. In pre-trial, they already have the power to decide if evidence is “compelling” enough to bring it to trial, and they tend to dismiss charges if this bar is not cleared. Besides, if we want a legal standard for this, I think it would be better enshrined in the SOC than the Concordat.
Sure, nothing stops someone from immediately submitting a request for a new trial, but in the same way it would be denied on the basis of double jeopardy today, it would be denied for a lack of “new” and “compelling” evidence (with both words defined by Conclave for flexibility) after this amendment was passed.
Residents shall not be denied reasonable chosen representation in trial.
Think it would be best to add this tiny phrase so the Conclave or law can define it further if necessary. Otherwise it may become a bit easy to troll our justice system