Force Regional Forum


Debate: Court Elections, December 2019

Renegalle

  • Founder
  • Sr. Member
  • *
    • Posts: 450
    • Karma: +33/-6
    • View Profile
on: December 08, 2019, 02:46:34 pm
Debate: Court Elections, December 2019

Debate closes on December 11th at 2:47 PM EST.



Brief Overview

The Debate period is intended to be a time in which citizens can assess the competence of candidates running for office and make an informed decision in the voting period that follows. All citizens may ask questions to the candidates and while the candidates are not legally bound to answering these questions, it is highly encouraged. Candidates are however legally bound to answer all questions asked of them by the Founder.

Candidate for Prosecutor

Farallaracks

Candidate for Judge

Marcelli

Relevant Law

1. As a candidate, you are required to answer all questions asked to you by the Founder (Renegalle) during this Debate or you will be automatically disqualified (žB.4.1).

Required: Founder's Questions for All Prosecutor Candidates

1. The Prosecutor is responsible for determining whether any laws contradict the Constitution. With this power in mind, what method(s) would you use to come to a decision as to the legality of a law? If a law was not necessarily illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for it to be overturned?

2. As Prosecutor, you are responsible for determining whether or not a case should be accepted for Court review. What laws and/or reasons would you use to justify choosing to deny the hearing of a case and why? (Cite the law and/or past precedent as necessary)

Required: Founder's Questions for All Judge Candidates

1. The Judge is responsible for deciding the punishment for a person found guilty, following a trial. You are required to do this with the advice of the Jury. Keeping that in mind, how would you balance your own thoughts on how harsh a punishment should be with the Jury's recommendation?

2. As you may or may not know, the previous Judge was under scrutiny for taking a while to determine the verdict in the case, Libertatis Regalis vs Salibaic. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict, even if it means the guilty party goes longer without punishment, or do you believe it is more important to quickly decide on a verdict, even if it means the punishment may not be as suitable as otherwise? What factors would tilt this more in favor of one or the other?

3. The Constitution currently stipulates maximum punishments for guilty parties, but no minimum punishments. Do you believe minimum punishments should also be defined or do you believe it is more important that the Judge maintains wider discretion in coming to a verdict? Why? (keep in mind that the Judge has no legal power to change this stipulation)

Required: Founder's Question for All Candidates

1. You are the only candidate for your position in this Election. Why should voters trust you to uphold the rule of law when no other candidate with better or worse qualifications is challenging you?


Farallaracks

  • Guest
Reply #1 on: December 08, 2019, 05:07:36 pm
1. The constitution would be my main tool, of course. If an issue goes against the character of this region's constitution, It would be of morality.
2. My reasons for denying a case would be if there is no evidence, if it doesn't go against the constitution, or if it doesn't go against the morality and character of this region.

As being the only candidate for the prosecutor, I would like to say that I have been Prime Minister before, and I want to further my experience within the region. I want to make sure we are not wasting time with cases we don't need to be reviewing. Voters should trust me because they have trusted me before when I was Prime Minister.


Renegalle

  • Founder
  • Sr. Member
  • *
    • Posts: 450
    • Karma: +33/-6
    • View Profile
Reply #2 on: December 11, 2019, 02:55:48 pm
The debate period is now over.

Marcelli has been disqualified under žB.4.1 of the Constitution for failing to answer the questions I posed to them in the required period of time.