But another judge should not have the power to cast two votes. Shouldn't this judge abstain altogether without delegating his/her vote?
The point of an alternate justice is to allow a justice to gracefully abstain from voting and be promptly replaced without causing havoc in the courts. It does not grant another justice 2x the votes.
In the UK judicial system a judge accompanied by a jury decides upon the state of guilty or not guilty. It is for the Sentencing Council to decide upon punishment.
Yes. I pose the same question I issued to both Singpu and Capitalist Producers. Also, you stated the administration of punishments are "not for you to say, but for the Minister of Bad Behavior to. You try to stick to your own job and not butt into others." However, the question was asking you about a violation of the law, and as a justice, it will be your job to interpret said law, to preside over a case if one should arise, and dispense justice. For your convenience, I will pose the question again for you here: 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.
I apologise, I misunderstood the question. 1. There should still be leniency as the contributions of Afforess have been great in the past. 2. I feel that I cannot comment on this as it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
It makes sense there would be some cultural confusion there. However, this also shows that you may not have a wide enough scope of experience to be effective as a justice.
That depends on which system we are going to follow. If we are to follow the Crown's legal system then your knowledge of that system will be valuable and I'll have to go buy a powdered wig. (Is that where the phrase "big wigs" came from?)
An additional question to all candidates: Have you served in jury duty before? If so, without disclosing details of the case(s), what did you personally take away from the experience(s)?
If I am under 18 (which I am) there is an obvious answer to that. However, I have been involved to an extent in a court case and also have been to both the English Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. I took away from these very interesting bits and bobs about how the legal system works.
Been called a half dozen times. Two cases went as far as jury selection. (Not settled before the date jurors had to appear.) In both cases I was bounced by the judge for being a member of the media. What I took from all that was a total of $20 and the knowledge the court does not believe someone in the media can render an unbiased opinion.
You are going to have to bring us up to speed on justice under the Crown. My first inclination is the systems are incompatible. It is my understanding the defendant in Great Britain is not afforded all the rights that a US defendant is allowed. From what I've been told there is a certain lack of transparency in the proceedings. For one thing the restrictions on the press during the course of a trial doesn't set well with me. Can you tell us what rights defendants are allowed and how do they compare to the rights defendants enjoy here? Now all that said, it is my understanding the civil system there is loser pays all costs. I am in fact a great fan of that system if it exists as explained to me.
Our courts system is complicated and - in places - confusing, because it has developed over 1,000 years rather than being designed from scratch. Different types of case are dealt with in specific courts: for example, all criminal cases will start in the magistrates' court, but the more serious criminal matters are committed (or sent) to the Crown Court. Appeals from the Crown Court will go to the High Court, and potentially to the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court. Civil cases will sometimes be dealt with by magistrates, but may well go to a county court. Again, appeals will go to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal - although to different divisions of those courts. The tribunals system has its own structure for dealing with cases and appeals, but decisions from different chambers of the Upper Tribunal, and the Employment Appeals Tribunal, may also go to the Court of Appeal. The courts structure covers England and Wales; the tribunals system covers England, Wales, and in some cases Northern Ireland and Scotland. The diagrams in the links below show the routes taken by different cases as they go through the courts system, and which judges deal with each. Further information... •The courts of England and Wales (PDF 44kb)http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Images/Layout/courts_structure.pdf •The tribunals system (PDF 117kb) http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Images/Layout/courts_structure.pdf Taken from judiciary.gov.uk. Crown copyright.
The Defendant's Rights Bail Upon pressing charges, the police are required to release the accused on bail unless a custody officer has good reason to impose further detention. When holding individuals in custody, the police must bring the accused before the Magistrates Court for a bail hearing when it next convenes (see References 2). Funding and Legal Representation All individuals charged with serious offenses have the right to legal representation. Many defendants "rely on public funding to provide representation," according to the National Council for Civil Liberties. Defendants have the right to obtain the services of the court's duty solicitor for their first court appearance and can later apply to the court for a representation order (see References 3). Appeal There is a right to appeal verdicts and sentences from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court. If the defendant pleaded guilty, he can only appeal the sentence. Pleas based upon Crown Court decisions must be made to the Court of Appeal within 28 days after conviction (see references 4 and 5). Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_6800853_rights-defendant-uk-criminal-justice.html#ixzz2kyfR2HIS You are correct in stating that the loser pays the winner in the British justice system.
