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).
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 todismiss 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
Reasonable as in reasonably qualified? In that case, I already made an argument against that.
Or do you mean reasonable as in “they can’t pick Fedele”? If so, where’s the line? Do you just want to bar people banned from TEP? If so, why not just do that? Do you want to bar all non-residents? If so, why not just do that? Why “reasonable”? In my opinion, that vagueness can allow us to deny pretty much whoever we want.
I could say anyone without legal experience isn’t reasonable (see above argument) and then disqualify anyone WITH legal experience by saying it’s a conflict of interest if it’s a law they voted on or wrote, or if they are a current or former Arbiter, who is supposed to stay neutral. Sure, that might not be others’ ideas of reasonable, but I’m deciding (in this hypothetical).
And sure they can appeal any government action, but they’re appealing to the Conclave, and the Conclave is making the decision, so they can just deny the appeal. After all, we’ve established that they think it’s reasonable.
I’m not saying this as a “evil Arbiter” argument, I genuinely think that people’s differing, legitimate, good faith ideas of what representation is “reasonable” can be problematic.
I mean, thats why I suggested defining it in a law.
But in any case, ig Id add at the end “unless said representation is banned from the East Pacific.” and remove reasonable. Id prefer if inly current Residents could become representation, but theres no real way to prevent prosecutors from circumventing such resrictions so theres no point in that.
That being said, the Conclave does need a way to deny representation and the amended wording completely prohibits that whilst the current Conk wording doesn’t. That does need to be fixed because otherwise the Conclave cannot have recourse against rowdy representation that perhaps shouldnt be representation. My best suggestion would be to add another sentence like “As an exception, the Conclave may bar an individual from serving as representation if said individual’s conduct is majorly disruptive to the relevant Conclave proceeding.”
Or just say “Residents have the right to choose their own representation during atrial; who can serve as representation can be limited by law.”
I mean, I think that would be reasonable to stipulate.
The best way to word it would be to prevent anyone from representation if said rep wasn’t a resident when the trial was initially motioned or some time before that. Which, at its core, gives the prosecution the ability to import representation whilst defendants cannot.
That being said, IG at a large enough time-scale, this already-unlikely event would become nigh impossible, so could work maybe.
Maybe just give Conclave the power to “keep order in trial proceedings” or something?? In Article C? I think that’d be fine.
Why not just the wording I provided? It’s more explicit and unambiguous.
I guess. I was mainly approaching it from the perspective of minimalism, which this amendment seems to be desiring. Also more specific means less broad, and Conclave might want to seek order in other ways – the specifics of which I would prefer be regulated by statute rather than Concordat.