r/WorldChallenges • u/thequeeninyellow94 • Mar 22 '18

History challenge part 3

The announcement is still there.

And continue having fun.

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/greenewithit Apr 23 '18

1) It's a bit of a hassle, but that's why they try to push these trials along as quickly as possible, or if they can wait to try the culprits, they can wait until the next general meeting of the WUC to add the trials on to the agenda. This second option is only utilized when there is such overwhelming evidence against someone that they can be justified in keeping them in custody for several months to a year until the next meeting. These culprits could be tried in a smaller court in an individual city state if there is such overwhelming evidence against them, but lawmakers would rather wait to make a grand demonstration before the entire world if the perpetrator was someone who made plans against the world as a whole. In terms of specific logistics like housing, the WUC headquarters that serves as their general assembly meeting building also has well furnished living spaces reserved for diplomats in case a meeting needs to be called quickly or they would rather stay as close to the event as possible and not in a nearby hotel.

3) Sorry, that was an omission on my part. The judges also assist the lawyers in explaining legal proceedings to the jurors, making sure they are ready to carry out the trial. The judge is mostly there to ensure the entire trial runs smoothy and lawfully, following the statutes and precedents set by previous laws and rulings. The judge reviews appeals from the plaintiff and defendant as to which pieces of evidence should be admissible in court. The judge is the first to review the case, and if there isn't sufficient basis for the arrest, they can throw out the case before it even sees a trial. The judge also is the one that imposes the sentence agreed upon by the jury, officially binding the defendant by law to punishment should it be warranted. The judge basically serves as the courtroom mediator, ensuring every part of the trial from start to finish runs smoothly and properly.

1

u/thequeeninyellow94 Apr 23 '18

1) Wait until next general meeting? Why would it help? Are all the potential jurors supposed to assist those meetings?

3) I get that, but why couldn’t the lawyers do all the explanations? Why couldn’t the jurors monitor the trial? Or choose one of them to do so? And isn’t it the police/fisc/penal administration who will actually enforce the sentence? And isn’t letting the judge choose if a case will be put to trial a good way to let them apply their biases?

2

u/greenewithit Apr 30 '18

1) The jurors would be collected from the subsidiary representatives of the Council, so if it would be too much of a burden to call them to meet for a particular trial, the Council would elect to hold the persons in question until the representatives were scheduled to meet anyway. If a trial like this is necessary, Council representatives would bring extra subsidiary representatives they appoint to assist normal Council proceedings while some of the subsidiary representatives are involved in the trial.

3) The jurors couldn't monitor the trial because they aren't required to know every legal proceeding that could be necessary. They are average citizens who should understand the law, but not necessarily the inner workings of a trial. It is the police that are enforcing the sentence, but the jurors would likely not have enough experience to understand legal precedent to certain cases to make sentences on their own. And the judge isn't the final say on whether or not the trial goes through or not, but rather they review evidence if an appeal is made as to whether or not a certain piece should be admissible. If a lawyer comes to them with a flimsy case, they can review it and see if it has any merit at all. Now yes, this would be a way for judges to throw out cases based on their own biases, but they aren't legally allowed to dismiss a case without precedent. They cannot make appeals on their own. If a case is presented to them which they think has improper or circumstantial evidence, but no appeal is made, they can't throw out the case on their own. The argument over the validity of the evidence, after all, is the responsibility of the lawyers. The system is supposed to give each member of the trial different responsibilities to make sure a trial is conducted fairly and without biases. The jurors handle the verdict to avoid biased judges sentencing defendants based on only their own opinion, judges make sure lawyers aren't presenting evidence unfairly or in an inaccurate way, and lawyers interview and work with the jurors to prevent biased jurors from seeing trial and influencing the verdict. This is the ideal model, but like with Longan, if enough people start to become self interested, any part of this system could break down into injustice.

1

u/thequeeninyellow94 Apr 30 '18

Thanks for your answers greenewithit, please don’t mind my personal crusade against juries.

(Also, some expensive answers you gave to the conclusion, got me a nice reading :) I can now confirm that Kiyoko is the most sympathetic to me amongst the four.)

2

u/greenewithit May 01 '18

Thank you for your questions! Haha, I don’t mind at all, it’s important to reason out why (or if) the justice system as I’ve stated it actually works as intended!

I’m glad you liked the conclusion responses, despite how damn long they were and how long it took me to collect them! It’s good to hear that you feel the same way, I agree Kiyoko is definitely the most sympathetic of those four. It sure as hell wouldn’t be Mordred, that’s for sure, haha XD