[PROPOSAL] Amendment to the Chief Officer of Justice Act

Hello Magisters,

The current system in TEP for prosecuting crimes has, in my personal opinion, a few hiccups. It is, in general, unclear who has the authority to bring forth criminal charges. I am concerned that current TEP law may allow for private citizens to file criminal charges against any other private citizen, thus necessitating at the very least a pre-trial process in which the SOC require the accused’s participation. The accused then has no choice but to submit to a legal proceeding that will take up valuable time and energy on all sides. This is not how the process works in real life, in which only the state may bring forward criminal charges against someone. In real life, even if I see a murder happen in front of my own eyes in broad daylight, I could not personally go to a court and tell a judge to initiate trial proceedings. A prosecuting attorney working on behalf of the government would need to bring the case to a court.

Note that the police themselves also need to seek out the prosecuting attorney in order to file charges in most cases in real life (I’m pretty sure, but I’m also not a real lawyer). In current TEP law, our closest equivalent to a prosecuting attorney is the Chief Officer of Justice, who is explicitly commanded in the law to collaborate with EPPS on not only the prosecuting of crimes but also investigating crimes (or at least it seems to me that the law could be interpreted that way.) This is the equivalent of a prosecuting attorney assisting police officers in their investigation, which would be unheard of. In real life, prosecuting attorneys do not participate in police investigations, and the separation between the two prevents undue influence on the legal process.

In addition, my proposal generally removes the ability of any other TEP government official from unilaterally bringing forward criminal charges, instead requiring sign-off from the Chief Officer of Justice in order for the charges to be authorized. The Concordat uses the term “indictment” several times to refer to the formal act of being charged with a crime. However, the Concordat does not define what an indictment is or how one is brought forth. While it would seem the Chief Officer of Justice Act is the law that outlines this process, it does not actually mention indictment anywhere. My proposal makes it clear that the Chief Officer of Justice is the individual tasked with indicting citizens, when and if they have determined that there is sufficient evidence to hold a trial—this is NOT the same as determining there is sufficient evidence to determine guilt.

The proposal also, as is more typical of a prosecutor, marks the Chief Officer of Justice as the default individual to argue the government’s case in the Conclave. The Delegate could appoint someone else if they so chose, however. Note that this is only in regard to actual cases—while the law recommends the COJ bring forth requests for judicial review and so forth, it does not prevent other people from doing so.

I whipped all of this up in the span of like 2 hours late at night, so by all means, I welcome any comments or concerns. Really, what I want out of this amendment is something that clarifies who issues indictments. If people don’t want this role to be the only person who can issue indictments, or if they don’t think it’s necessary that they represent the government in criminal prosecutions, or anything else, please let me know. I can vibe with other proposals. This is just what I drafted to begin the conversation.

The law as currently written is:

[spoiler]
BE IT ENACTED by the Magisterium of the East Pacific:

SECTION I. TITLE

…1.1- This act shall be known and cited as the “Chief Officer of Justice Act”.

SECTION II. PROVISIONS

…2.1. The Office of the Chief Officer of Justice is established and is to be led by the Chief Officer of Justice (“Chief Officer”).  The Chief Officer may appoint up to 2 Deputy Chief Officers of Justice (“Deputies”) who shall assist the Chief Officer in their duties. The Office shall exist independently of the other government branches of the East Pacific.

…2.2. The Magisterium may appoint for a four-month term a Chief Officer by a majority vote upon nomination by the Delegate.

…2.3. The Chief Officer may not serve concurrently as an Arbiter, Attorney, the Delegate, Provost, Deputy Provost, Grand Vizier, Eastern Pacific Police Service Commissioner, or any position that assumes the legal duties of the Delegate during their absence.

…2.4. Nothing in this Act precludes or prevents the initiation of any proceedings before the Conclave by the Delegate or any Citizen.

SECTION III. RESPONSIBILITIES

…3.1. The Office of the Chief Officer of Justice shall, independently of the executive and legislative authorities of the East Pacific:
(a) investigate in cooperation with the Eastern Pacific Police Service (EPPS) to prosecute any criminal act or offense under the law of the East Pacific;
(b) represent the general interest of the Citizens of the region of the East Pacific in all proceedings brought before the Conclave;
(c) take any initiative before the Conclave, including judicial review and proceedings for advisory opinions, to safeguard and enhance the coherency and quality of the law of the East Pacific.

…3.2. If necessary, the Chief Officer may ask a Deputy to fully take over their Chief Officer duties.

…3.3. In case of a conflict of interest for the Chief Officer in any given investigation with the EPPS or any given proceedings before the Conclave, the investigation or case shall be handled by a Deputy and the Chief Officer shall be recused.
…3.3.1. If there are no Deputies or there is a conflict of interest for all Deputies and the Chief Officer, all shall be recused and any investigation or proceedings shall be handled solely by the EPPS or Conclave.
[/spoiler]

My proposal is as follows:

[spoiler]
BE IT ENACTED by the Magisterium of the East Pacific:

SECTION I. TITLE

…1.1- This act shall be known and cited as the “Chief Officer of Justice Act”.

SECTION II. PROVISIONS

…2.1. The Office of the Chief Officer of Justice is established and is to be led by the Chief Officer of Justice (“Chief Officer”).  The Chief Officer may appoint up to 2 Deputy Chief Officers of Justice (“Deputies”) who shall assist the Chief Officer in their duties. The Office shall exist independently of the other government branches of the East Pacific.

…2.2. The Magisterium may appoint for a four-month term a Chief Officer by a majority vote upon nomination by the Delegate.The Chief Officer of Justice shall be appointed to a four-month term by the Delegate, subject to confirmation by the Magisterium in a majority vote.
…2.2.1. The Chief Officer may, if unable to execute the powers and duties of their office for any reason, temporarily transfer their powers and duties to one Deputy, who shall become Acting Chief Officer of Justice (“Acting Chief Officer.”)
…2.2.2. In the event the Office of the Chief Officer of Justice becomes permanently vacant prior to the scheduled end of the term, the Delegate may appoint a new Chief Officer to serve only for the remainder of that four-month term.
…2.2.3. If the Chief Officer falls out of communication for a period exceeding 72 hours, one Deputy shall become Acting Chief Officer and assume the powers and duties of the Chief Officer for the duration of the absence. If there is more than one Deputy, the Deputy who has served in the role for a longer total period of time shall become Acting Chief Officer, unless the Deputies come to a mutual decision otherwise or unless the Delegate appoints another Deputy. If they are unable to come to a mutual decision, the Delegate shall appoint an Acting Chief Officer.
…2.2.4. To ensure continuity and to prevent a vacancy in the office from halting the work of government, terms of Deputies do not automatically end upon the conclusion of the term of the Chief Officer who appointed them. Deputies shall serve at the pleasure of the currently serving Chief Officer.

…2.3. The Chief Officer, nor any Deputy, may not serve concurrently as an Arbiter, Attorney, the Delegate, Provost, Deputy Provost, Grand Vizier, Eastern Pacific Police Service Commissioner, or any position that assumes the legal duties of the Delegate during their absence.

…2.4. Nothing in this Act precludes or prevents the initiation of any proceedings before the Conclave by the Delegate or any Citizen or any officer of The East Pacific as outlined in the Concordat or elsewhere in statute.

SECTION III. RESPONSIBILITIES

…3.1. The Office of the Chief Officer of Justice shall, independently of the executive and legislative authorities of the East Pacific:
(a) investigate in cooperation with the Eastern Pacific Police Service (EPPS) to prosecute any criminal act or offense under the law of the East Pacific; Review evidence brought to them by government authorities within The East Pacific or by private citizen(s) in regard to any alleged criminal act or offense under the law of the East Pacific to determine if is sufficient to merit a trial and, if so, formally issue an indictment specifying the identity of the accused and the charge or charges of which they are accused;
(b) represent the general interest of the Citizens of the region of the East Pacific in all proceedings brought before the Conclave;
(c) take any initiative before the Conclave, including judicial review and proceedings for advisory opinions, to safeguard and enhance the coherency and quality of the law of the East Pacific;
(d) represent the government of The East Pacific as lead prosecutor in any case in which it is the plaintiff, unless the Delegate orders that another person or persons shall represent the government of The East Pacific as lead prosecutor, except as otherwise explicitly provided by statute or the Concordat.

…3.2. If necessary, the Chief Officer may ask a Deputy to fully take over their Chief Officer duties.

…3.3. In case of a conflict of interest for the Chief Officer in any given investigation with the EPPS or any given proceedings before the Conclave, the investigation or case shall be handled by a Deputy and the Chief Officer shall be recused.
[s]…3.3.1. If there are no Deputies or there is a conflict of interest for all Deputies and the Chief Officer, all shall be recused and any investigation or proceedings shall be handled solely by the EPPS or Conclave.

[/s]…3.2. The Conclave shall not hear any criminal case in which charges have not been duly and formally presented to it in the form of an indictment issued by the Office of the Chief Officer of Justice, except as may be otherwise explicitly provided by statute or the Concordat.

…3.3. The Chief Officer shall take care to ensure that all evidence presented to them in pursuance of an indictment in a case be transmitted to the Conclave immediately or as close as is practicable after an indictment is issued.
…3.3.1. All evidence cited by an indictment must be re-introduced during the trial in the Conclave by the government; however, the opposing party shall have the right to object to the evidence’s inclusion in the trial record. The Presiding Arbiter in the case shall decide on such an objection.
…3.3.2. All evidence submitted to the Chief Officer pursuant to an indictment shall be made public, if requested by any citizen, after the Conclave has concluded proceedings for that case.
…3.3.3. Evidence pursuant to a case in which the Chief Officer determined there was no merit for an indictment to be issued shall not be made public unless so ordered by the Conclave in a civil suit in which the Conclave determines that releasing such information serves a legitimate public interest.

…3.4. In any case in which the participation of the Chief Officer would present a conflict of interest, the Chief Officer shall be recused and not participate in such case and instead a Deputy shall handle the case as Acting Chief Officer.
…3.4.1. In the event in which there is no Deputy either willing or able to assume responsibility for the case, the Delegate may appoint any duly certified attorney as an Acting Prosecutor to assume responsibility for that particular case; such an appointment shall expire immediately upon conclusion of the trial.
[/spoiler]

I received a question from our fair Viceroy, Halleyscomet08, on Discord and I wanted to mention it here as well so that everyone sees it and my answer:

— Begin quote from ____

So citizens can’t ask Judicial reviews now, they need to go to the COJ? … idk I just feel that the amendment of 2.4 feels weird someho[w]

— End quote

These amendments affects only criminal proceedings—cases where TEP is the plaintiff and a citizen is the defendant. The amendment to 2.4 is specifically in reference to the power of citizens to bring criminal charges being removed—it would be dishonest to include that provision when the law as I’m amending it does, in fact, prevent the initiation of some proceedings before the Conclave by citizens.

I do want to make clear what my point is with the overall section:

— Begin quote from ____

…2.4. Nothing in this Act precludes or prevents the initiation of any proceedings before the Conclave by the Delegate or any officer of The East Pacific as outlined in the Concordat or elsewhere in statute.

— End quote

(Emphasis added.) What this means here is that the exception for the Delegate or “any officer of the East Pacific” to be able to initiate proceedings before the Conclave contrary to this act must appear in the text of law elsewhere. In other words, in order for the Delegate/government official to bring forward criminal charges without an indictment from the Chief Officer of Justice, they must cite some law or clause of the Concordat that explicitly gives them the power to issue an indictment. As an example, see Article D, Section 5 of the Concordat:

— Begin quote from ____

Section 5) The Praesidium may temporarily suspend the Delegate via a 2/3 majority vote if it believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat or has committed an abuse of power. The temporary suspension must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a decision of the Conclave. This suspension shall be considered an Indictment for High Treason or abuse of power as prosecuted by the Grand Vizier or designee. The suspension and Indictment shall be lifted by a non-guilty verdict of the Conclave, a 2/3 vote of the Praesidium, or a 4/5 vote of the Magisterium.

— End quote

(Emphasis added.) Here, the Concordat explicitly gives the Praesidium the authority to issue an indictment and for the Grand Vizier to prosecute. This procedure would remain unchanged by these amendments.

The intended effect on the law by my proposed amendment to 2.4 is that, in most cases, even the Delegate and officers of TEP will require an indictment issued by the Chief Officer of Justice in order to prosecute a criminal case and, to be clear, indeed to explicitly remove the right of citizens to bring forward criminal charges on their own at all.

— Begin quote from ____

In real life, even if I see a murder happen in front of my own eyes in broad daylight, I could not personally go to a court and tell a judge to initiate trial proceedings.

— End quote

Weekend plans

— Begin quote from ____

In real life, prosecuting attorneys do not participate in police investigations, and the separation between the two prevents undue influence on the legal process.

— End quote

In the context of NationStates, where police services are so unique, and manpower is in such shortage, I don’t think this is actually that bad. Removing COJ entirely and allowing any Vizier to bring charges might not be the worst idea, especially compared to making what might as well be a fifth branch. Investigation in NS isn’t really a big thing, and if the evidence the Praesidium gathers is the basis for charges, then it would make sense for them to issue those charges and make their case. Also makes sense considering the Praesidium as a Security body. This is kinda the direction we were heading before this proposal. I think it’s worth considering which approach we wish to pursue.

— Begin quote from ____

2.2. The Chief Officer of Justice shall be appointed to a four-month term by the Delegate, subject to confirmation by the Magisterium in a majority vote.

— End quote

I’d replace appointed with nominated.

— Begin quote from ____

2.2.2. In the event the Office of the Chief Officer of Justice becomes permanently vacant prior to the scheduled end of the term, the Delegate may appoint a new Chief Officer to serve only for the remainder of that four-month term.

— End quote

Is this appointment subject to confirmation? I’m assuming no

— Begin quote from ____

2.2.3. …] or unless the Delegate appoints another Deputy.

— End quote

I feel like this comes out of left field - there’s no mention of the Delegate appointing deputies before this.

— Begin quote from ____

If they are unable to come to a mutual decision, the Delegate shall appoint an Acting Chief Officer.

— End quote

I’d remove this. If they’re unable to come to a decision, the longest serving one becomes it. Because that’s what the first part of this clause says.

— Begin quote from ____

2.2.4. To ensure continuity and to prevent a vacancy in the office from halting the work of government, terms of Deputies do not automatically end upon the conclusion of the term of the Chief Officer who appointed them. Deputies shall serve at the pleasure of the currently serving Chief Officer.

— End quote

This could mean the exact same thing if everything but the last sentence was deleted, and would also cover the process of appointing deputies, so I recommend that.

— Begin quote from ____

2.3. The Chief Officer, nor any Deputy, may not serve concurrently as an Arbiter, Attorney, the Delegate, Provost, Deputy Provost, Grand Vizier, Eastern Pacific Police Service Commissioner, or any position that assumes the legal duties of the Delegate during their absence.

— End quote

I don’t think precluding Deputy Provosts is necessary, especially if we’re applying this to all DCOJs as well. As for assuming the legal duties, maybe instead of “or any position that assumes the legal duties of the Delegate during their absence” we could have “nor may they assume the legal duties of the aforementioned positions”. Just to make it easier, since the vagueness of the previous part can be a problem.

— Begin quote from ____

2.4. Nothing in this Act precludes or prevents the initiation of any proceedings before the Conclave by the Delegate or any officer of The East Pacific as outlined in the Concordat or elsewhere in statute.

— End quote

This deserves its own post, there’s a lot for me to cover.

— Begin quote from ____

(d) …] unless the Delegate orders that another person or persons shall represent the government of The East Pacific as lead prosecutor, except as otherwise explicitly provided by statute or the Concordat.

— End quote

The unless and except feel weird together. Also, does this mean the Delegate at any time can just give COJ duties to someone who isn’t confirmed by the Magisterium? In which case, the confirmation makes no sense, just make COJ a traditional Minister position.

— Begin quote from ____

3.2. The Conclave shall not hear any criminal case in which charges have not been duly and formally presented to it in the form of an indictment issued by the Office of the Chief Officer of Justice, except as may be otherwise explicitly provided by statute or the Concordat.

— End quote

I think that “This act doesn’t preclude X” clause (2.4) should be moved/reorganized to be right after this to preserve logical flow and cohesion.

— Begin quote from ____

3.3.1. All evidence cited by an indictment must be re-introduced during the trial in the Conclave by the government; however, the opposing party shall have the right to object to the evidence’s inclusion in the trial record. The Presiding Arbiter in the case shall decide on such an objection.

— End quote

But can prosecution also introduce new evidence? Nitpicky, I know, but I’m saving Conclave a future JR/AQ.

— Begin quote from ____

3.4.1. In the event in which there is no Deputy either willing or able to assume responsibility for the case, the Delegate may appoint any duly certified attorney as an Acting Prosecutor to assume responsibility for that particular case; such an appointment shall expire immediately upon conclusion of the trial.

— End quote

As long as we’re preventing Attorneys from being COJ and DCOJ, this feels weird. Almost like a contradiction. I get the idea, but still. But also, if we’re doing the “Delegate can appoint DCOJs” thing in 2.2.3, I feel like there’s a disconnect. The Delegate can just appoint a DCOJ with no conflict of interest instead of choosing between only the attorney list. Idk.

Is there any particular harm from having any Citizen being able to open a criminal case? I understand the benefit of having one clear governmental prosecutor rather than two, but that concept isn’t mutually exclusive with allowing private citizens to launch criminal cases.