Debate: Special Judge Elections, December 2019

[Renegalle]

Debate: Special Judge Elections, December 2019

Debate closes on December 27th at 12:15 AM 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 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 (§B.4.1).

Required: Founder's Questions for the Judge Candidate

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)

4. The Judge (following the likely passage of a Constitutional Amendment) will be 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?

5. 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?

[Marcelli]

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?

The responsibility of the Judge is to determine legality. Therefore all of my decisions will be made using only the law and the jury, without my opinion.

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?

I think that taking time enough time as needed is more important, however, taking uneeded time to do so is not acceptable. The most important factor in this is that the correct amount of time is needed or else the end result is unfair.

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)

I think that minimum punishment are needed, however small they be. This is because it leaves room for a punishment which is too lenient.

4. The Judge (following the likely passage of a Constitutional Amendment) will be 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?

For a law to be determined as against the Constitution, it simply needs to be compared to the Constitution to see if it violates. Because legality is often not black or white, the help of the jury will greatly aid me. Laws that are not illegal should not be overturned if they go against the Constitutions character, as this power can be used to overturn bills which there is a prejudice against.

5. 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?

I will act in Force's best interest according to the law at all times. Force should feel comfortable with me as Judge, as i have served multiple terms in different positions and have acted only toward making Force a better place.