1) It should be carried out on a case by case basis, maximizing efficient punishments. Simply sticking predetermined sentences on someone is a bad idea, as it doesn't go into if it was a light action or a very heavy one of that type. 2) Yes. If a user has done much for the region, and served us well, then they deserve for us to do something for them, even if it's a considering of their history. Take Afforess. He's a long time member who's recorded our history, made NS++, been delegate i MoI, and maintains this website out of pocket, as well as hosts most of our group or regional projects himself. Would he deserve the same ruling as an obnoxious, new member who's done nothing? No. 3)I've spoken with Panagaedomm, albeit on a social setting.
Hi there, As a candidate for Alt. Justice, I'll address the questions presented to the candidates. 1) Do you feel that the Magna Carta is adequate as-is? Personally, I think there are some loose ends that could be cleaned up. As a justice that is not my call. 2) What sort of time availability do you have that you can dedicate to Capitalist Paradise? I am usually on every day. Some days I am on more then others. It all depends on RL work and getting internet connections while on the road. In the spirit of full disclosure, the RL must take precedent if there is a conflict. 3) When you are presented a legal question not strictly covered by the Constitution, how would you issue a ruling? You are asking me to rule on something that has not come up yet. However, the constitution requires the court to be the final arbitrator in all disputes. Read on: Enforcement and defense of this Constitution Resolve civil disputes among member nations if and after all reasonable efforts of the Advocate have been exhausted Resolve criminal complaints. Refer guilty parties to the CEO for ejection, banning or banning and ejection from the region if warranted; in the opinion of the panel. Therefore, after determining there was no constitutional issue at hand, I would rule based on the facts presented in the case. The emotional content of the argument or the political positions held by parties to the case will have no effect on that ruling. That ruling would be as fair to all concerned as is possible under the circumstances. 4) What legislative experiences do you have, if any? (World Assembly, Capitalist Paradise, real life, other?) No hands on legislative experience. However I have 60 years of real life experience. There are life lessons in there that cannot be matched. I have studied everything from small town politics to international relations to criminal acts and trials. Through my work I've had a ring side seat for five presidential elections, watched as state and federal legislators made lofty speeches about right and wrong while cutting back room deals for their vote and then watched the aftermath. --AND-- 1) In the event of a breach of law within the region, how do you think punishment should be carried out? Provide hypothetical examples if you wish. We are very limited in available punishment options. Those punishments are: Warning Probation (possibly with clearly outlined conditions of probabtion) for a set length of time Ejection Ejection with banning Once convicted, any punishment should be based on what happened, what is fair to the parties involved and what is best for the region. That punishment should commence as soon as possible after the ruling is handed down. 2) Do you believe that an individual's position or history within region should be a consideration for their criminal sentencing? Of course. Even convicted child molesters and murderers are allowed a presentence hearing. 3) Have you had interactions with any of the current seated justices, and if so, in what capacity? Yes. Panageadom and I frequently butt heads on RMB. In other questions that have come up in this thread... I completely agree with Singpu that judges do not make laws. They rule based on the law and nothing else. Judges should never legislate from the bench. For example, I completely agreed with and defended John Robert's ruling on the ACA because he was right under the law. That is the way I would arrive at my decisions. I completely disagree with ComputerCurtis' ranking of how he would rule from the bench. Judges must rule on the law first. Real world law does not apply here. And common sense comes in after the law and constitution. If there are any questions, I will be happy to address them.
1. That is surely not for me to say, but for the Minister of Bad Behavior to. I try to stick to my own job and not butt into others. 2. Absolutely. If they have a criminal record that should be included in rulings. I feel there should be a proper Police Department where criminal records should be stored. 3. I can't say I have presently.
1) The punishment should be carried out as an ejection and/or ban from the region. If thay previously had a big role within the region such as recently deleted afforess, then theyr'e punishment would be lighter. 2) Yes, the history of that nation should be considered. However, if it is bad history, then a very strict punishment would be carried out such as asking the security council to condemn them ( if they aren't already) 3) I have not currently had any interaction with the current judges, but that contact will begin once I am elected Alternate Justice (if I am!)
1) Do you feel that the Magna Carta is adequate as-is? - As a constitution it is adequate. I was there when it was first created and I have seen it revised time and time again. While it is not perfect, it leaves room for improvement as needed. Times change and so does legislature and the governing documents of our region. 2) What sort of time availability do you have that you can dedicate to Capitalist Paradise? - Daily, with the exception of one day per 8 due to my military service. 3) When you are presented a legal question not strictly covered by the Constitution, how would you issue a ruling? - Fairly and with great regard to real world issues (if eligible). I would inspect both sides, check the constitution and remember not to lose my common sense. 4) What legislative experiences do you have, if any? (World Assembly, Capitalist Paradise, real life, other?) - As a past delegate I have both extensive World Assembly and Capitalist Paradise experience in dealing with issues. Real life, I have no real formal and very little informal legal experience. 5) In the event of a breach of law within the region, how do you think punishment should be carried out? Provide hypothetical examples if you wish. - Every situation is different, I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I am a great opponent of 'one-size-fits-all' rulings in any capacity. 6) Do you believe that an individual's position or history within region should be a consideration for their criminal sentencing? - No, the law is the law. All are subject to it whether they be the current delegate, a prior delegate or simply a non-government member since the founding of CP in 2003. Each ruling will be handled case-by-case though, as the saying goes, the law is blind. 7) Have you had interactions with any of the current seated justices, and if so, in what capacity? - I believe I have had talks in the past with Panageadom and Repentant Jihadi (as well as Northern Borland). Though these were some time ago and I can't apply them to this current election.
Candidates, over the past few weeks I have submitted constitutional questions to the RMB, receiving responses that vary greatly. If you could, provide how you would rule and your reasoning in the following situations: 1. The WA Delegate of Capitalist Paradise has been deleted by the moderators. As it was his/her sole WA nation, they no longer have a nation with Vassal status within Capitalist Paradise, but they do have a puppet in the region that meets citizenship requirements. Does the puppet nation of the deleted delegate hold claim to the delegacy, or must there be a new election? Something else? 2. The constitution refers to individual nations, not entities controlling said nations. As such, does each individual nation hold the rights of membership, such as voting, vying for office, etc, or can only individual human entities behind the nations exercise such rights, eg one vote per person, not nation? 3. The Constitution does not say that the President of the Legislature has the power to arbitrarily determine the requirements for running for an office, eg be the first 5 to announce a candidacy. Further, the Constitution does not say that the POL can require a winner of an election to receive 50% of the votes, and a failure to do so results in a run-off (this, as opposed to first past the post system, for example). Does the POL have unlimited discretion here? If not, what limits do you see? 4. Related to No. 3, when there are issues of short-comings of the Constitution, would you rule that the Constitution does not have a position on the issue and the legislature must therefore pass an amendment to address the issue at hand or would you put down a ruling based on the situation and your own judgment? 5. In instances where the inherent rights of membership laid out by the Constitution are in conflict with the powers of the government, are you inclined to side with the liberty of the individual nations or the duty of the government?
1. No he hasn't, the WA delegate is DWAsnia. If you are relating to Afforess, his puppet is in office. 2. I would interpret that as meaning nations, as it would be difficult to prove ownership of a nation. 3. I do not know the official answer to that, but if I was asked to rule on that I would say no. 4. I would pass it to the legislature. 5. Liberty forever. Full stop.
#1 is a hypothetical question. It was prompted by Afforess's deletion. His Ministerial post was appointed by the delegate so it wasn't an issue. Yet, if DWAsnia had been deleted, there would have been the issue outlined in the question.
I see. In which case I would suggest the delegate's self-proclaimed puppet be given 10 days to get WA membership, otherwise a WA delegate election would happen. That would be my thinking.
For Singpu I will play devil's advocate when I ask you to elaborate upon your stance. Let us assume that Afforess has committed a great crime against Capitalist Paradise so grossly malicious that the people of the region turned their backs on him. Could you, as a justice and member of this region, truly say that someone who has contributed as much as he, while having committed the greatest offense(s) against Capitalist Paradise, might still have some measure of leniency? -------------------------------------------------------------------- For Capitalist Producers The same question as the above. -------------------------------------------------------------------- For Amn Voss While there is a, for lack of a better word, universal understanding of how certain situations, actions, and words should be viewed, the idea of "common sense" is not necessarily accurate. So, when it comes to the constitution, what would you consider to be "common sense"? You say that all are subject to the law regardless of current or prior standing with Capitalist Paradise and that justice is blind. While it is true that all should remain subject to the law, the end result of justice does not necessarily impact the punishment raised against a violator, but rather determines who is right and who is wrong through objective evidence and impartial treatment. So, allow me to repeat the question: Do you believe that an individual's position or history within the region should be a consideration for their criminal sentencing? Not trial.
Somewhat,but the leniency is something dependant on the case. Peer pressure is not something I'd let influence my decision, 8"% make sure my decision was true and my own ruling, not the ruling of a worried public.
1) According to the constitution, in the event of inactivity or deletion the MoFA will take over until the delegate can retake their position. THEREFORE, into. The delegate can safely resecure his position, the MoFA will be in it. No eld tion would be necessary. 2) That is a flaw in the constitution that has been am mended in regional law. The constitution or its amendments don't say no drunk plane driving while shooting the president, but its still illegal. Only the human entity can vote. In fact, we have procedures that make puppet votes inconsequential. 3) As stated before, the constitution is simply the major outline and guide of our government, it hays nothing about revolting against the delegate being illegal, but it Iis. The power they have is on the discretion of the delegate. 4)I would take what does matter of the constitution, common sense, and my own judgement we are being elected for our judgement skills, so it will be exercised. 5)It will depend on how much the weight is. Is the Minister of Defense enforcing a tarrif to pay defense? It does not cause enough conflict for a major debockle, I would block it but still. MEANWHILE, if it was forcing taxation, WA membership, etc. I would fully block it as I see it.
Let's not assume it is peer pressure, but rather that you had also been gravely wronged. Would you be able to dispense justice fairly? Would you be able to deal an appropriate punishment?
Assuming I was already a justice, I would ask the alternate justice to rule for me if possible to avoid bias. Justicwe, unlike most try and make it, is not revenge, and should not be used in someones arsenal as such.
But as a justice, whether you have a biased opinion or not, shouldn't you be obligated to carry out your duties and tackle even the hardest cases rather than delegate your vote to another? That in itself runs the risk of another's biased opinion.
IF I know and feel my own opinion is too strong, I will pass it to who has less bias. My job is to carry out decisions without bias, and so mhy decision is to abstain to a less biased user.
So then, would it be fair to characterize your position as "The powers not delegated to the Capitalist Paradise government by the Constitution are reserved to the WA Delegate, not to the people?"
We elect the delegate as our representative does us. That said, I'm ru ninngfor justice, nott for Political Informant and Knoq-It-All, Master of Judicial, Executive, and Legislative. That's CID.
Might want to go back and read that again. Interesting answer. With that answer in mind I must confess that I am now curious as to what you think a judge does. However, I want to thank you for your endorsement as Alternate Justice. That's a little scary. In response to Mortem Inferre: 1. The WA Delegate of Capitalist Paradise has been deleted by the moderators. As it was his/her sole WA nation, they no longer have a nation with Vassal status within Capitalist Paradise, but they do have a puppet in the region that meets citizenship requirements. Does the puppet nation of the deleted delegate hold claim to the delegacy, or must there be a new election? Something else? There is no order of succession in the constitution. There is also the problem with Nation States arbitrarily assigning executive status to the next highest endorsed nation. That takes a lot of the decision out of the hands of the court. Therefore it would be up to the justices to rule on the matter based on the facts at hand. Based on the requirements in the constitution to be the WA Delegate and CEO[1] my inclination would be to rule in favor of a new election as the ejected nation no longer meets those qualifications. 2. The constitution refers to individual nations, not entities controlling said nations. As such, does each individual nation hold the rights of membership, such as voting, vying for office, etc, or can only individual human entities behind the nations exercise such rights, eg one vote per person, not nation? Under the constitution every nation is entitled to vote regardless of the human being behind that vote. If you feel that needs changing, you should see about amending the constitution. 3. The Constitution does not say that the President of the Legislature has the power to arbitrarily determine the requirements for running for an office, eg be the first 5 to announce a candidacy. Further, the Constitution does not say that the POL can require a winner of an election to receive 50% of the votes, and a failure to do so results in a run-off (this, as opposed to first past the post system, for example). Does the POL have unlimited discretion here? If not, what limits do you see? You are asking me to render an opinion on a serious issue without hearing an opposing argument. The question you pose directly effects the election at hand. Based on your post this matter may even be pending litigation. It would be unwise for me to state an opinion here and then stand a chance on having to rule on the same question. Were I to do so and this matter came up, I would have to recuse myself has having expressed a prejudicial opinion. That's not the way I want to start out my Judicial career. 4. Related to No. 3, when there are issues of short-comings of the Constitution, would you rule that the Constitution does not have a position on the issue and the legislature must therefore pass an amendment to address the issue at hand or would you put down a ruling based on the situation and your own judgment? In absence of language in the constitution governing a given situation, I would have to rule based on the facts at hand. That ruling could include there is no legal matter to rule on. The court has no power to order the legislature to pass a law. However, assuming the US model here, the court may have the power to strike down a constitutional law. 5. In instances where the inherent rights of membership laid out by the Constitution are in conflict with the powers of the government, are you inclined to side with the liberty of the individual nations or the duty of the government? The Constitution wins every time. In the event the there is a conflict in the Constitution, when weighing the balance that must exist between government and freedom, I will always error on the side of individual freedom. In response to Singpu: I will play devil's advocate when I ask you to elaborate upon your stance. Let us assume that Afforess has committed a great crime against Capitalist Paradise so grossly malicious that the people of the region turned their backs on him. Could you, as a justice and member of this region, truly say that someone who has contributed as much as he, while having committed the greatest offense(s) against Capitalist Paradise, might still have some measure of leniency? Each case must be weighed on its own. In the real world every convict gets a presentence hearing along with a report from the probation department. Here there is no procedure for how a sentence is rendered. However, as in the real world, judges have the ultimate authority to impose whatever sentence is allowed under the law. I completely disagree. Someone with an interest in the outcome of the case cannot judge that case. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Qualification: This position requires a minimum influence level of "Vassal" and is elected by plurality votes of confidence as indicated by World Assembly members, for a term of service of not less than 90 days. After 90 days any qualified WA Nation desirous to challenge may and must lay challenge by precluding challenge publicly on the Capitalist Paradise Regional Message Board.. Upon challenge, this electoral process is adopted:
