Il Terra Di Agea Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) As per agreements worked out after the fall of Nordland, all Nordlandic Nationals are to surrender themselves to TEC and/ or Coalition forces to be put on trial. Any and all nationals who do not surrender themselves are to be found by any means for trial. The trails are to be held in Hammerfest and Helsinki. All trials will go systematically through individual nations, starting with the one nation to form from Nordland that has done the most to rebuild relations and peace, Poland. The first trial is that of Albert Tanzband, former King of Prussia, who is being asked to come to the Hammerfest Courthouse Before week's end. Al trials will be held in a fair court, where a jury will vote on the outcome, and the accused will be given representation, and the ability to say their side of the story. This is in no way an attempt to imprison the entirety of Nordland's former government, but rather to weed out those deserving of punishment from those who had to see Nordland turn into a monster and were nigh powerless to stop it. OOC: 1: Could the former Nordland rulers post up the people from your Goverment for the trials, and state if the individuals are in hiding or come willingly, because that would save a lot of time. I, and probably Ubie and some others will RP Prosecution, the RPer of the character (unless you are unable) will RP said character. 2: This was discussed in the Surrender agreement topics. 3: I am serious with what I say. This will not yield a 100% leader imprisonment. Unless something comes up (Horribly/ Fantastically RPed defense) I intend to replace the Jury with a random number generator, going from one to three (1--> Conviction, 2--> Goes free, 3--> Hung Jury and retrial) 4: I want to hurry through these, so less important people will just be a coin-toss, only the important people should get full, RPed trials, just for time's sake. Ideally we can start tomorrow, unless something comes up. Also: Sorry about being a bit... ramble-y. I'm tired... EDIT: I misspelled Trials as Trails... Many times. If a mod sees this, can the change the "Trails" in the title to "Trials" Edited June 22, 2009 by Il Terra Di Agea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: I vote for a player jury, not a random number generator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: RNG are good cause if it was up to players, might as well give the bullets to the firing squads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: I was going to do it properly but you can continue with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: RNG are good cause if it was up to players, might as well give the bullets to the firing squads. OOC: RNG means that someone that is guilty goes free, someone that is innocent gets killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Frederick Martens and Kristoffer Aussicht are in Norsvean custody and are to be transported to the court site on the specified date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Any nordlandic leadership that tries hiding in Bavaria will be sent immediately once we find them. OOC: Dunno how many or what kind of leaders would hide here.. <.< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: Live jury, not RNG. Also, I think that everyone in at least the coalition should have the ability to RP part of the prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumeragi Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: Then am I part of the Coalition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted June 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: I vote for a player jury, not a random number generator. OOC: RNG are good cause if it was up to players, might as well give the bullets to the firing squads. OOC: Live jury, not RNG. Also, I think that everyone in at least the coalition should have the ability to RP part of the prosecution. OOC: Yah, I guess live jury could work for the more high profile cases, but I still think that RNG is best for everything else, otherwise we will be doing this for months Also, sure. Anyone who is in the coalition can send in lawyers for the prosecution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) The Alliance would like to just pose the general question of why any political figures are to be imprisoned? Prison is a place for violent criminals to be separated from society, a political leader is hardly harmful when stripped of their power. Why not simply blacklist them from political office, and keep them under house arrest? Full scale prison doesn't really seem appropriate. Edited June 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 The Alliance would like to just pose the general question of why any political figures are to be imprisoned? Prison is a place for violent criminals to be separated from society, a political leader is hardly harmful when stripped of their power. Why not simply blacklist them from political office, and keep them under house arrest? Full scale prison doesn't really seem appropriate. Why does a murderer get to go to prison but a mass murderer get to sit in their fancy house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 The Alliance would like to just pose the general question of why any political figures are to be imprisoned? Prison is a place for violent criminals to be separated from society, a political leader is hardly harmful when stripped of their power. Why not simply blacklist them from political office, and keep them under house arrest? Full scale prison doesn't really seem appropriate. It could be argued that several leaders of Nordland are violent criminals. Nordland has started several wars at the drop of a hat, without using any means diplomacy. Many of the wars started by Nordland lead to the deaths of thousands of people, with many more injured or missing. House arrest will be enough for some who’s crimes are as severe, or those who were only supporting and unknowing actors. However those who were more involved should face prison. Slavorussia is however against the death penalty, we don’t want any martyrs being born here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk11 Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: If we're looking for a jury, I shamelessly throw myself forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) It could be argued that several leaders of Nordland are violent criminals. Nordland has started several wars at the drop of a hat, without using any means diplomacy. Many of the wars started by Nordland lead to the deaths of thousands of people, with many more injured or missing. House arrest will be enough for some who’s crimes are as severe, or those who were only supporting and unknowing actors. However those who were more involved should face prison. Slavorussia is however against the death penalty, we don’t want any martyrs being born here. Fair, however that isn't what I meant. What I meant was that in so far as these individuals are not going to resort to personal acts of violent crime; meaning murder, sexual assault, thievery, excreta it doesn't make sense to put them into prison which ought to be reserved for individuals who by their very presence pose a threat to individuals around them. These individuals may have committed deplorable acts through the power that they obtained however the violence they committed was always through puppets, and proxies that they controlled. That being said once you strip them of this power they are no longer a threat. Criminal Justice isn't about getting revenge or issuing retribution, its about protecting society, and the world. These individuals have proven they cannot be trusted with power, but they have not proven they cannot be trusted to live their lives outside of a cage. Why does a murderer get to go to prison but a mass murderer get to sit in their fancy house? Because it has nothing to do with the nature of the crime and everything to do with preventing future crime. A murder goes to prison because they have demonstrated potential to commit murders of individuals around them. A leader who through their office commits "mass murder" (via aggressive wars) has only committed such a crime through the detachment of their office and power. Once you remove that and confine them to their house they are no longer a threat. A murder can't be trusted with their freedom because they have used it to kill others. A bad politician can't be trusted with their power because they have used it to kill others. As you restrict the freedom of a violent criminal through prison, you restrict the power of an official through blacklisting. Edited June 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Because it has nothing to do with the nature of the crime and everything to do with preventing future crime. A murder goes to prison because they have demonstrated potential to commit murders of individuals around them. A leader who through their office commits "mass murder" (via aggressive wars) has only committed such a crime through the detachment of their office and power. Once you remove that and confine them to their house they are no longer a threat. A murder can't be trusted with their freedom because they have used it to kill others. A bad politician can't be trusted with their power because they have used it to kill others. As you restrict the freedom of a violent criminal through prison, you restrict the power of an official through blacklisting. Blacklisting won't stop the official. You are talking under the assumption that the Martens family have only committed murder through politics - though isn't it true that the family is known to be on the field, murdering along with their soldiers? You wish to leave these politicians in their comfortable homes while "blacklisting" them, which is a slap on the wrist compared to the crimes they have committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) Blacklisting won't stop the official. You are talking under the assumption that the Martens family have only committed murder through politics - though isn't it true that the family is known to be on the field, murdering along with their soldiers? You wish to leave these politicians in their comfortable homes while "blacklisting" them, which is a slap on the wrist compared to the crimes they have committed. Then they were acting in the capacity of soldiers, you don't intend to put the army on trial do you? As for their crimes as I said, it doesn't matter what they did, all that matters is preventing future crimes. Criminal Justice as retribution achieves nothing, it just satisfies the blood lust of those issuing it. Giving a thief thirty lashes doesn't mean anything if they just steal again, in the same way cutting their hands off while preventing future theft is overkill. The martens like any other criminals are the the product of their environments. They have been taught and raised in a culture that teaches them to be contemptuous of the lives of others, and the ultimate result is a group of people who are inclined towards insane nationalism, and violent expansionist acts. They have proven this and therefore should never be allowed to take up the reigns of power again. That being said its unnecessary to utilize prison which is a device used to physically separate the dangerous from society. The goal of these trials should not be to "punish" or "give them what they deserve" as such a goal is neither rational or quantifiable, but rather to issue sentences which are preventative in nature. Edited June 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Alexander Murphy, the former Emperor of Wästerdyskreich, has been driving and traveling for quite some time, and because he was not in custody, instead he came on his own free will, there was surprise among the guards at the trials when he appeared, presented formal documentation as to who he was, and requested that he be tried for war crimes. The guard did not expect someone of such high stature, a leader of Nordland and their former Foreign Minister, to have appeared by his own free will, however he willingly went into the custody of the guards and was escorted inside. When the guards and other staff questioned him as to why he would come, why he would so willingly give himself up when he could have hid until the end of his days in Switzerland, he answered in metaphor. "How does one become a butterfly? You must want to fly so much that you are willing to give up being a caterpillar." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Then they were acting in the capacity of soldiers, you don't intend to put the army on trial do you? As for their crimes as I said, it doesn't matter what they did, all that matters is preventing future crimes. Criminal Justice as retribution achieves nothing, it just satisfies the blood lust of those issuing it. Giving a thief thirty lashes doesn't mean anything if they just steal again, in the same way cutting their hands off while preventing future theft is overkill. The martens like any other criminals are the the product of their environments. They have been taught and raised in a culture that teaches them to be contemptuous of the lives of others, and the ultimate result is a group of people who are inclined towards insane nationalism, and violent expansionist acts. They have proven this and therefore should never be allowed to take up the reigns of power again. That being said its unnecessary to utilize prison which is a device used to physically separate the dangerous from society. The goal of these trials should not be to "punish" or "give them what they deserve" as such a goal is neither rational or quantifiable, but rather to issue sentences which are preventative in nature. They may be a "product of their environment" but they knew exactly what they were doing and they had a clear choice not to do it. They should not only never be allowed to takeover but be punished just like everyone else - with prison. The man who murders another man is put into prison, why should the men and women who murder thousands of people lose their job and get confined to their multi-million dollar homes? No matter their environment, they did a crime and they will be punished like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Execution, House Arrest, or freedom are the only options we think will work here. If a leader is innocent, they goes free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) OOC: Then am I part of the Coalition? OOC: I wouldn't feel safe with you on the jury. You threatened on MSN to attack me with your carrier fleet if I pushed terms on Martens, and frankly, that shows a violent bias I don't want on the jury. Edited June 22, 2009 by BaronUberstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 Yes, we can discuss the theories of “nature verses nurture” later. If these men and women are guilty of any crimes they should be punished and if possible rehabilitated. In order to positively ensure these people can’t move themselves back in positions of power in their respective countries or any country in the world, it is necessary to confine them to institutions that can adequately separate them from the public. Institutions not unlike prisons. There high security correctional institutions and programs that can ensure their safety while they pay their debts. We don't want to see them harmed after all, we're humans not beasts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 OOC: Sounds like the Brotherhood needs to start printing more Honorable Writs of Execution... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) They may be a "product of their environment" but they knew exactly what they were doing and they had a clear choice not to do it. They should not only never be allowed to takeover but be punished just like everyone else - with prison. The man who murders another man is put into prison, why should the men and women who murder thousands of people lose their job and get confined to their multi-million dollar homes?No matter their environment, they did a crime and they will be punished like everyone else. That is a difference of opinion I don't think we will ever agree on. The Alliance as a matter of legal and ideological policy doesn't consider free will to exist. As such our criminal justice system is geared towards protecting society rather than issuing self gratifying punishments. If you could wind back time and place any of these criminals in the same circumstances they would commit the crime again and again. Yes they had a "choice" not to but their psychological profile which has developed based on their past guaranteed their decision at that moment. Our violent criminals are assessed and issued punishments that appropriately protect society by isolating them. Conversely our white collar criminals, and corrupt bureaucrats are stripped of office and made to do menial labor. We don't really care about what their past crimes are, who or how many they hurt, or what they deserve, all of that means little to nothing. You don't consider a sickness immoral, and you don't treat the person who got sick as deserving of retribution; you treat their illness, and if you can't do that then you isolate them. These criminals can never be trusted with power again that is agreed upon, but there is no reason to place them in a cage with lowly common criminals. That being said as there is absolutely nothing gained other than I guess personal satisfaction by sending them to prison vs keeping them under house arrest and blacklisting them here are some reason why sending them to prison is actually a worse option. *They are not presently violent criminals, placing them in prison could turn them into violent criminals and therefore contribute to the violent element already present in society. *Housing prisoners is quite costly house arrest however has to be paid for by the criminal in question. *Individuals intermingle in prison, and often times gangs and underground organizations form within them; prison is just another opportunity for these individuals to gain influence and commit harmful acts via proxies. A large influx of these powerful figures into them would only increase this potential, and spreading them out over many prisions would only widen the scope these powerful figures have. *Prison overcrowding doesn't need to be added to. *Political resentment in their home nations will only damage European unity and cooperation. Moreover home leadership being imprisoned in a foreign nation only increases nationalist fervor and creates a scapegoat. That being said keeping them under house arrest in their own nation blacklisted from political participation would prevent all of that and keep them isolated from prison societies from which they could harvest influence and connections. Edited June 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 That being said keeping them under house arrest in their own nation blacklisted from political participation would prevent all of that and keep them isolated from prison societies from which they could harvest influence and connections. To contain political fallout and keep them away from thugs? You could have said that without so many words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.