The law in Stormwind - Magistrates

Axio wrote:Here's the original draft of the court proceedings section of the law reform I proposed a while back, on behalf of an aspiring judge character. Nothing was ever carved in stone from it, so I suppose you're free to use it if it'll be of any help

Thank you, I must say a lot of that is rather solid and that I particularly like the law of dispute. I had similar thoughts on several of these points however I feel that some things needs to be slightly more "simplified" to make the system work in a more solid way for everyday use, after all making it to complex may just discourage people from agreeing to IC trials from an OOC perspective. We'll see how my draft pans out but I'll likely use much of this as a source of inspiration (if I nick anything straight off I'll be sure to mention were it came from).

A first draft, there is still things to be added (including a section on appeals, recommended punishments to go with specific crimes and most likely more) grammar/spelling to be corrected etc. I would appreciate some feedback on what I got so far tough, feel free to criticize it but try to be constructive. I would also like to push the law of appeal that is described in the document in Axios post above, it is some solid work that should be put into play imo. Anyhow here's my "stuff" so far;

1. The obligations and privileges of a magistrate

1.1: A magistrate is considered a Stormwind official of great esteem and is to be treated as such by the laws of the kingdom.
1.2: A magistrates judgment is done in the name of His Royal Majesty King Varian Wrynn. Should a magistrate turn out to act to look to its own interests rather then those of the kingdom of Stormwind, the Minister of Justice may strip them of their title and arrest them for treason followed by a trial. This however requires evidence deemed indisputable by both the minister of justice and the minimum of one Grand Magistrate.
1.3: A magistrate is obligated to hear any evidence deemed relevant to the matter at hand. Should proof that this has not been the case see the light of day it is considered grounds for appeal and is to be submitted to the minister of justice for evaluation. If found correct an official reprimand will be given to the magistrate in question.


2. Trial regulations

2.1: When an arrest is made the guard regiment that does so it to submit a request for a trial. All relevant information is to be included in the request to make sure that justice is done swiftly. Crimes not eligible for trial are as follows: disturbing the peace and public intoxication, both of these are however possible to appeal as per usual criterias.
2.2: A trial has three essential figures excluding witnesses; the magistrate, the prosecutor and the defendant. In addition to these three figures the defendant may chose to have a fourth person represent him, this person is referred to as a defense lawyer.
2.3: In the event of a zealotry trial the magistrate is to have a representative from the church of holy light as an adviser for the entire duration of the trial.
2.4: In cases of treason, high treason and spying a jury selected by the minister of justice will decide the question of guilt.
2.5: The prosecution and the defense respectively has the right to a maximum of five witnesses to testify on their behalf. Should any of these witnesses be deemed irrelevant or violate the regulations of courtroom manners they will be removed but still be included in the full list of witnesses.
2.6: Citizens may attend a trial provided that their faces are visible at all times and no weapons is brought. Anyone attending is to remain silent at all times, failure to do so will lead to removal of said person and possible criminal charges depending on the nature of the disturbance. Trials of sensitive nature that is set to be behind locked doors is an exception from this.
2.7: For the duration of a trial none is allowed to enter or exit unless a break is declared or a person is ordered removed.

3. Trial proceedings (trials step by step)

3.1: The magistrate arrives and greets the prosecution and defence.
3.2: The prosecution presents the charges towards the defendant. The defense confesses or denounces charges made upon the defendant.
3.3: Evidence in favor of the prosecution is presented followed by evidence in favor of the defense. These evidences includes written statements from the guard or guards responsible for the arrest and objects that may be of relevance.
3.4: Witnesses are called in order of relevance starting with one called by the prosecution then alternating between the sides.
3.5: Respective side gets the opportunity to convince the court to take their side of the coin.
3.6: A verdict is made by the magistrate based on the evidence presented.

4. Courtroom manners

4.1: When the magistrate enters the room as the last person all present are to be standing to show their respect for the sovereignty of the court.
4.2: In a court of law respectful and appropriate behavior is to be presented. This means a person stands when addressed by the court, uses proper titles and does not speak unless given the word. Failure to follow proper etiquette may result in removal of the person in question.
4.3: In a court of law proper clothing is to be worn. Failure to do so may be fined the sum of ten gold coins.
4.4: In a court of law the use of profane and blasphemous language is strictly forbidden. Any element considered a violation against this by the magistrate is to be removed and may be punished under Stormwind law (disrupting a Stormwind official on duty or in extreme cases obstruction of justice).
4.5: Any display of violence in a court of law will be considered treason as it is an act to undermine the authority of the law.

ahh very detaild and thorough i like

Awesome!

I think you need to add bit on Cross-examination of witnesses.

And why a limit of 5 witnesses?

im probably guessing ,...... time constraints

aye, but what if I am accused of EXTRA HIGH TREASON and I need all 6 witnesses to prove I am innocent!? I once was preparing a defense-trial where I needed about 7-10 witnesses to prove my innocence! Fortunately charges were dropped.

hmm good point

Exaythe wrote:I think you need to add bit on Cross-examination of witnesses.

Very valid, I shall get my fingers working with it within a near fututure.

Exaythe wrote:And why a limit of 5 witnesses?

As Chareshia said before me, one part is time. The main reason however is that my personal opinion would be that it looses relevance to have ten people walk in and out of the court room stating similar things and for that very reason I added written statements as a form of evidence too. However I may consider adding a higher limit for more serious crimes.

Sorry for being slow. University has been taking its toll the past week, I'll try to have more coming within a few days.

Here's a full draft with appeals and cross examinations added. As I was thinking about recommended punishments and such I figured that it will vary depending on what people allows to happen to their characters on an OOC basis so my recommendation in that case is to have a look at the examples in the law paragraphs and just go by the basic rule: The more severe crime = more severe punishment


1. The obligations and privileges of a magistrate

1.1: A magistrate is considered a Stormwind official of great esteem and is to be treated as such by the laws of the kingdom.
1.2: A magistrates judgment is done in the name of His Royal Majesty King Varian Wrynn. Should a magistrate turn out to act to look to its own interests rather then those of the kingdom of Stormwind, the Minister of Justice may strip them of their title and arrest them for treason followed by a trial. This however requires evidence deemed indisputable by both the minister of justice and the minimum of one Grand Magistrate.
1.3: A magistrate is obligated to hear any evidence deemed relevant to the matter at hand. Should proof that this has not been the case see the light of day it is considered grounds for appeal and is to be submitted to the minister of justice for evaluation. If found correct an official reprimand will be given to the magistrate in question.


2. Trial regulations

2.1: When an arrest is made the guard regiment that does so it to submit a request for a trial. All relevant information is to be included in the request to make sure that justice is done swiftly. Crimes not eligible for trial are as follows: disturbing the peace and public intoxication, both of these are however possible to appeal as per usual criterias.
2.2: A trial has three essential figures excluding witnesses; the magistrate, the prosecutor and the defendant. In addition to these three figures the defendant may chose to have a fourth person represent him, this person is referred to as a defense lawyer.
2.3: In the event of a zealotry trial the magistrate is to have a representative from the church of holy light as an adviser for the entire duration of the trial.
2.4: In cases of treason, high treason and spying a jury selected by the minister of justice will decide the question of guilt.
2.5: The prosecution and the defense respectively has the right to a maximum of five witnesses to testify on their behalf in cases minor offense and offense cases. In case of a major offense the limit is extended to ten. The defense of prosecution may be granted rights to additional witnesses should the magistrate deem it fitting. Should any of these witnesses be deemed irrelevant or violate the regulations of courtroom manners they will be removed but still be included in the full list of witnesses.
2.6: Citizens may attend a trial provided that their faces are visible at all times and no weapons is brought. Anyone attending is to remain silent at all times, failure to do so will lead to removal of said person and possible criminal charges depending on the nature of the disturbance. Trials of sensitive nature that is set to be behind locked doors is an exception from this.
2.7: For the duration of a trial none is allowed to enter or exit unless a break is declared or a person is ordered removed.

3. Trial proceedings (trials step by step)

3.1: The magistrate arrives and greets the prosecution and defence.
3.2: The prosecution presents the charges towards the defendant. The defense confesses or denounces charges made upon the defendant.
3.3: Evidence in favor of the prosecution is presented followed by evidence in favor of the defense. These evidences includes written statements from the guard or guards responsible for the arrest and objects that may be of relevance.
3.4: Witnesses are called in order of relevance starting with one called by the prosecution then alternating between the sides (for details see cross examination part).
3.5: Respective side gets the opportunity to convince the court to take their side of the coin.
3.6: A verdict is made by the magistrate based on the evidence presented.

4. Courtroom manners

4.1: When the magistrate enters the room as the last person all present are to be standing to show their respect for the sovereignty of the court.
4.2: In a court of law respectful and appropriate behavior is to be presented. This means a person stands when addressed by the court, uses proper titles and does not speak unless given the word. Failure to follow proper etiquette may result in removal of the person in question.
4.3: In a court of law proper clothing is to be worn. Failure to do so may be fined the sum of ten gold coins.
4.4: In a court of law the use of profane and blasphemous language is strictly forbidden. Any element considered a violation against this by the magistrate is to be removed and may be punished under Stormwind law (disrupting a Stormwind official on duty or in extreme cases obstruction of justice).
4.5: Any display of violence in a court of law will be considered treason as it is an act to undermine the authority of the law.

5. Cross examinations

5.1: When a witness is called to the stand the defense and prosecution may choose to cross examine it with various questions relevant to the matter at hand. The side that calls the witness always starts out, after either side is done the other side gets the opportunity to add further questions.
5.2: During cross examination from either side the other side must remain silent. Violation of this may be punished with withdrawn rights to cross examine the witness for the violating side if the magistrate deems it necessary.
5.3: If the questions is deemed irrelevant by the magistrate he may demand an explanation. If the magistrate deems the reason invalid and similar questions or other irrelevant questions is brought up repeatedly the court may withdraw all further rights to cross examine witnesses. Valid reasons varies from a case to case, keep in mind that the credibility of the witness always is relevant.

6. Appeal

6.1: A matter can be eligible for appeal for two reasons; the first being new evidence and the second being misconduct by the court (see 1.3).
6.2: A request for an appeal may be sent to the minister of justice, a grand magistrate or the magistrate responsible for the trial and may be granted by either provided there is proof for either of the reasons in 6.1.

Also I would like to put Axios law of dispute up here, it's really well written and an awesome idea in my opinion. The document containing it was posted but I figured you are all lazy and want it here.

Axio wrote:The Law of Dispute

Disputes are typically resolved in summary proceedings, without attorneys present. The contents of the matter are generally presented at this first and only hearing, after which the judge rules in favour of the party he perceives to have presented stronger legal arguments.

3 § Torts

3.1 § A free citizen has the right to bring forth official complaints against another person, organisation or institution before the court of law.
3.2 § The Petitioner has the right to present up to a maximum of three witnesses and a maximum of three items to back his claims.
3.3 § The Defendant has the right to appear in court to confront his accuser, and rebut his claims with the same amount of items and witnesses as chosen to be exercised by the Petitioner.
3.4 § The appointed judge must hear and evaluate all physical and oral evidence presented by the parties and base his ruling upon the merits of the case.
3.5 § After examination of facts and evidence, the judge may alter the complaint into a criminal charge, to which rules of criminal proceedings apply.


4 § Dispute of ownership

4.1 § Parties arguing over land, item or intellectual property may bring forth their issue to be settled before the court of law.
4.2 § The opposing parties agree to subject themselves to the mercy of an impartial judge's power and thus cannot appeal the final ruling.
4.3 § The judge is at complete liberty to make a ruling in a dispute, should one or more of the disputees fail to show up for hearing.
4.4 § Valuables, deeds or patents are to be given to the party gaining the favourable ruling immediately at the end of a court battle.

*nods* will learn right away

IM guessin this project has died?

I killed it...

*jumps onto goblin alt and does a switchero ,.. a goldon coun for a small high explosive fire elemental enchanced saronite disk painted gold and runs*

It's still going ahead, there just has not been a good point to start it off IC yet *throws rock at Omanos*

Omanos is away for two weeks, just to let you know! He is a RL friend so I'll nudge him when he returns.

Righto. Well there's no hurry as long as the SW state is as it is.

cool consider an ic application going up when you put up the offers

Looks awesome! I wish I had the time to do anything serious. Would be awesome to start a proper company of lawyers

I saw the IC documents thread in the In Character section of the forum and thought I would comment. As a law student it was amusing to read, to say the least.

Let me start off by saying that a fine job has been done with regards to how a court works etc. This doesn't mean I don't have some things to add. Why else would I post here anyway?

Now let me start out by putting a few things out in the open.

I am assuming the legal system of Stormwind operates under a codification (as seen in the IC section), and that this means you guys have instated what is called a civil law system. I assume you understand that this system operates differently from the common law system (which I would highly advise against making any use of in RP with the, admittedly, limited knowledge I have of it.)

On a another note, the codification for Stormwind is rather lacking. I'll admit, it works well as a criminal law document. However, I'm not going to judge the quality of the law, what I am going to do is explain why I shouldn't even be calling it a codification.
A codification has 3 requirements to be considered a codification:
1) It must be written down.
2) It must have been issued by a competent organ of government. (In other words: An organ that has the authority to issue laws)
3) It must be declared 'complete'/'exclusive' through the authority of the government/legislator. (These are terms I directly translated from Dutch, what it comes down to is that a codification requires a clause declaring it the 'exclusive' law of the land; the sole law of the land. Yes, I am aware that the header in SW's laws could be declared to be such a thing, I disagree.)

I think it should be obvious that I like a realistic approach to laws in RP.

Yes, I know this is not the thread for that, but I had to get that off my chest first! Let's get on to the part regarding the judges and I can really be quick about this!

First, a disclaimer: I'm borrowing this entirely from Dutch laws!
I think that judges should have a couple of regulations, a couple of damn important ones even.

To quote a few Dutch laws:

De regter moet volgens de wet regt spreken: hij mag in geen geval de innerlijke waarde of billijkheid der wet beoordeelen.

1

Geen regter mag bij wege van algemeene verordening, dispositie of reglement, uitspraak doen in zaken welke aan zijne beslissing onderworpen zijn.

2

De regter die weigert regt te spreken, onder voorwendsel van het stilzwijgen, de duisterheid of de onvolledigheid der wet, kan uit hoofde van regtsweigering vervolgd worden.

3

Spoiler:

Now let me grant you an, admittedly hesitant, translation:

1: "The judge must judge through the law: He may never judge the quality or righteousness of the law."
2: "No judge may through regulation make a verdict regarding cases over which he must judge."*
3: "The judge who refuses to administer justice and cites as reason; his wish to remain silent, the darkness or incompleteness of the law, can be prosecuted for denial of justice"**

* What this comes down to is that a judge may not make laws.
**Not necessarily under the threat of prosecution, but the essence is important: The judge must deliver a verdict.

I think these regulations, derived from Dutch law, would add a nice degree of realism and atmosphere to the role of judge.

Exellent suggestion, I'm all for adding those.

Ehm. While I admire the level of detail in this work, it raises a few questions. Do you intend this to be used for any (accidentally) major criminal? Or for people who OOCly request this to be played as such?

What I mean is, in your OP you mentioned

Now how about trials? I do not know if there is any specific procedure that is set already but I would put it quite simple:
1. A person is arrested
1. The arrested person is put in jail and charges are wrote down by the guard in change of the arrest
2. A magistrate is brought in and a trial is arranged. The guard presents the charges and the statements of witnesses.
3. The accused person gets a chance to speak or have someone speak on his behalf
4. The magistrate nods seriously and proceeds to scratch his beard/play with her hair while deciding upon a verdict
5. A verdict is given and sentence is executed.

This 5-step program could be performed in 1 hour, maybe 1 day, perhaps longer. I suspect this is 'the intent' since you mentioned:

Magistrates would work closely with the guard guild(s) to make sure that most cases that requires magistrate involvement would be handled as quick as possible to avoid having players sit in jail for a good week (I have seen it happen).

But then I see your awesome but very detailed rules and system. I imagine a player getting into a bar-fight gone awry and ends up in jail. Will he need to divulge all this OOC information just to understand what's going to happen to his character and be able to 'play along'?
If this is played out in detail, then the character could still end up in jail for a week simply because the player needs that much time to divulge the information OOCly.
While he may let his character remain clueless ICly, I found OOC clarity and understanding quite important.

On the other hand, I try to imagine a more prominent roleplay character perform a severe crime, which is entirely OOCly communicated and planned. In such a case, a complex trial and judge system could be an expected or planned part of the roleplay.

This system, as I read it, makes me wonder if you still aim for the goal mentioned in the OP. Is this text to be the 'handbook for judge RP'? Or is it just a fluffy attribute, like JP's white robe, that does not truly influence how it is RP'd?

It's remarkable work, and it could certainly prove a good cornerstone for magistrate RP. Implement it, by all means, for the "real trial RP". But will this truly provide a simple and fast structure for the processing of (oocly casual) criminals?

Jeanpierre wrote:Ehm. While I admire the level of detail in this work, it raises a few questions. Do you intend this to be used for any (accidentally) major criminal? Or for people who OOCly request this to be played as such?

Jeanpierre wrote:It's remarkable work, and it could certainly prove a good cornerstone for magistrate RP. Implement it, by all means, for the "real trial RP". But will this truly provide a simple and fast structure for the processing of (oocly casual) criminals?

Well we have not pushed this trough as mandatory for every single crime out of OOC respect for players. The intent is to offer the option for those that wants it, if they dont the guardsmen will just administer the punishment and be done with it. The essence of the system still remains the 5 step system described in the OP, however you do have a point when it comes to added complexity. The main point in added complexity is the cross examination part, I'll look into making a simpler alternative for the criminals that may hesitate to do the whole big thing.

so you're enjoying your first 2 weeks of law school then? xD