Force Regional Forum


Debate: Court Elections

Empire of Elysium

  • Union House Speaker
  • Jr. Member
  • *
    • Posts: 97
    • Karma: +5/-5
    • View Profile
on: June 05, 2020, 04:56:45 pm
Debate: Court Elections, June 2020

Debate closes 4:56 PM EST June 8th, 2020



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.

Candidates for Justice:

Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia - [F]
Tigslarlowducken- [F]

Relevant Law
1. As a candidate, you are required to answer all questions asked to you by the Founder (Renegalle) and the Speaker of the House (Sir Lashnakia) during this Debate or you will be automatically disqualified (§B.4.1).

Required: Questions for All Court Justice Candidates
1. The Justices are 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. The Justices are 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?
3. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, 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?
4. 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?
5. Similarly to Q2, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for the case to be considered?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 01:20:30 pm by Renegalle »
I wish I was in the land of cotton, old times there are not forgotten.


Tigslarlowducken

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 100
    • Karma: +7/-12
    • View Profile
Reply #1 on: June 05, 2020, 05:04:40 pm
Q. The Justices are 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?
A. If there is a minor difference between the jury’s decision and my own, I would probably just take the average of the two. For a major disagreement, I would follow a case-by-case basis, but would probably go with the jury unless I have a reason not to.

Q. The Justices are 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?
A. Any law going against the intention of the Constitution can be overturned depending on to what extent it bends the rules. Much of what I would do as justice depends on the specifics of the case.

Q. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, 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?
A. Take the recent Libertatis Incident. Once doxxing was found, it was imperative to remove his permissions as soon as possible. In this case, a ruling would need to be found fast. In others, thoroughness is preferrable.

Q. 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?
A. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/472407264700006420/718562186418716742/melonland.mp4

Q. Similarly to Q2, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for the case to be considered?
A. No
You are now breathing manually


☕️ 𝓝𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓢

  • Citizens
  • Newbie
  • *
    • Posts: 47
    • Karma: +1/-0
  • 〘 𝓐𝓭 𝓐𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓪 𝓟𝓮𝓻 𝓐𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓪 〙
    • View Profile
Reply #2 on: June 07, 2020, 03:23:31 pm
Required: Questions for All Court Justice Candidates
Q1. The Justices are 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 punishment should be with the Jury's recommendation?

A1. I would consider the Jury's recommendation as recommendations only.

Q2. The Justices are 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 fairgrounds for it to be overturned?

A2. The character of the constitution is apart of the constitution.

Q3. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, 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?

A3. It is important to take your time.

Q4. 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?

A4. But there is someone else, smh

Q5. Similarly to Q2, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for the case to be considered?

A5. If it against the character of it then it is against the actual constitution.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 06:24:35 pm by ☕️ 𝓝𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓢 »
✎𝕹𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓢


Empire of Elysium

  • Union House Speaker
  • Jr. Member
  • *
    • Posts: 97
    • Karma: +5/-5
    • View Profile
Reply #3 on: June 08, 2020, 04:56:21 pm
TIS DONE.
I wish I was in the land of cotton, old times there are not forgotten.