Michael McBride Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 "Maybe if they asked POLITELY instead of demanding such things with an air of arrogance, we would respond nicely. Has the world forgotten about diplomacy?"OOC: It's called RP. "We would ask you the same question, considering you are beginning to turn into the monster you once fought." OOC: Yes, and it allows you a convenient escape route if you are bested in RP. Or maybe your lack of legal knowledge has made you forget that a hung jury means that they are guilty with this system. Meaning that only a 12-0 (or however many people are on the jury) vote in favor of innocence will save the person. That is inherently unfair and a slap in the face to something called a "justice system". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 "We would ask you the same question, considering you are beginning to turn into the monster you once fought."OOC: Yes, and it allows you a convenient escape route if you are bested in RP. Or maybe your lack of legal knowledge has made you forget that a hung jury means that they are guilty with this system. Meaning that only a 12-0 (or however many people are on the jury) vote in favor of innocence will save the person. That is inherently unfair and a slap in the face to something called a "justice system". OOC: I don't see the issue, it's an IC thing. The jury needs to come to a complete yes or no, there isn't a grey "well...maybe he's guilty" IC: "If all you are going to do is make ridiculous claims without evidence, I see no reason to continue this conversation. Please come back when you have something worthwhile." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 "We would ask you the same question, considering you are beginning to turn into the monster you once fought."OOC: Yes, and it allows you a convenient escape route if you are bested in RP. Or maybe your lack of legal knowledge has made you forget that a hung jury means that they are guilty with this system. Meaning that only a 12-0 (or however many people are on the jury) vote in favor of innocence will save the person. That is inherently unfair and a slap in the face to something called a "justice system". OOC: For the last bloody !@#$@#$ time, Hung jury goes to a retrial. It isn't instant guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OOC: I don't see the issue, it's an IC thing. The jury needs to come to a complete yes or no, there isn't a grey "well...maybe he's guilty"IC: "If all you are going to do is make ridiculous claims without evidence, I see no reason to continue this conversation. Please come back when you have something worthwhile." "The way that you are conducting this trial is evidence enough of that. That you are too blinded by power and ambition to see it only makes it more disgusting." OOC: Again, you show your complete lack of legal knowledge. With yours, it isn't a "well... maybe he's guilty" thing if only some vote one way, it's a "well...maybe he's innocent" since this trial (reatardedly) starts by saying the person is guilty. In American criminal cases, the jury needs to vote completely one way or the other as well (and in some civil cases as well, I do believe), but without every juror saying that he's guilty, he isn't. Watch the movie "12 Angry Men" sometime... it will open your eyes as to why the American legal system works like it does and why this legal system is biased beyond belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OOC: For the last bloody !@#$@#$ time, Hung jury goes to a retrial. It isn't instant guilt. OOC: Yes, it goes to retrial where there is still a presumption of guilt. As I said, if you cannot see that this is the most biased system ever, then you are blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 "The way that you are conducting this trial is evidence enough of that. That you are too blinded by power and ambition to see it only makes it more disgusting."OOC: Again, you show your complete lack of legal knowledge. With yours, it isn't a "well... maybe he's guilty" thing if only some vote one way, it's a "well...maybe he's innocent" since this trial (reatardedly) starts by saying the person is guilty. In American criminal cases, the jury needs to vote completely one way or the other as well (and in some civil cases as well, I do believe), but without every juror saying that he's guilty, he isn't. Watch the movie "12 Angry Men" sometime... it will open your eyes as to why the American legal system works like it does and why this legal system is biased beyond belief. OOC: Okay, let me put it this way: I don't care if I know about the legal system or not. The American legal system is !@#$, it lets criminals sue homeowners they tried to rob and win. Now, this trial is happening in Norway/ADI, and it follows HIS laws. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Terra Di Agea Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) OOC: Pravus, stop claiming to be an unbiased fair man. You have a bias against Ubie that is more clear than the broadside of a barn from two inches away. If you can't be civil about this, you're off the jury. Calm down or shut up, there is a reason I had you on ignore for so long EDIT: By the way, I'm not going to post again in the thread until Feliks/ Brian Reimer posts his statements. I'm tired of the pointless OOC arguments Edited July 8, 2009 by Il Terra Di Agea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OOC: Pravus, stop claiming to be an unbiased fair man. You have a bias against Ubie that is more clear than the broadside of a barn from two inches away. If you can't be civil about this, you're off the jury. Calm down or shut up, there is a reason I had you on ignore for so long OOC: I'd like to hear that reason, along with specific posts that caused that to happen, because, before the recent time period, I wasn't very active. And no, I don't have a bias against Uber. In fact, I FOUGHT ON HIS SIDE. For a long, long time, I've fought on his side. I've always fought against the Nords. My only purpose here is to make sure the trials are actually fair, and if they aren't, I'm going to call you out on them. They aren't, so I'm calling you out. Period. If the Nords were conducting the trial, I'd be calling them out too. Hell, if ANYONE else were conducting this trial, I'd be calling them out. Unless you have actual evidence of bias by me against Uber, I'd ask you to refrain from your claims. Disagreeing =/= bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OOC: Okay, let me put it this way:I don't care if I know about the legal system or not. The American legal system is !@#$, it lets criminals sue homeowners they tried to rob and win. Now, this trial is happening in Norway/ADI, and it follows HIS laws. Get over it. OOC: Finally, you admit that you have no place actually running a trial of this magnitude. Thank you, was that so hard? Also, my continuing point is that ADI has no right holding this trial. It is a biased trial in a biased area with a biased judge, and, if the jury were any true indication (as they were supposedly taken from his and your citizens) a biased jury. All in all, completely unfit for holding a trial of this magnitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 ooc: Trials for crimes against humanity are not tried by impartial parties. The people who were harmed are the ones who usually take over the trials. Usually for war crimes the victors organize a military tribunal wherein there is no jury, but a panel of judges who decide guilt and pass judgment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 ooc: Trials for crimes against humanity are not tried by impartial parties. The people who were harmed are the ones who usually take over the trials. Usually for war crimes the victors organize a military tribunal wherein there is no jury, but a panel of judges who decide guilt and pass judgment. OOC: Actually, most war crimes trials are not by military tribunal, but instead by an international trial at the Huage. They don't happen much anymore, but it's not military at all and the judges are selected from the United Nations at random, usually from nations having nothing to do with the nation at all. The only war crimes trial that fits your description to my knowledge would be the Nuremberg Trials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OOC: Actually, most war crimes trials are not by military tribunal, but instead by an international trial at the Huage. They don't happen much anymore, but it's not military at all and the judges are selected from the United Nations at random, usually from nations having nothing to do with the nation at all. The only war crimes trial that fits your description to my knowledge would be the Nuremberg Trials. OOC: Which basically is exactly what they're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OOC: Actually, most war crimes trials are not by military tribunal, but instead by an international trial at the Huage. They don't happen much anymore, but it's not military at all and the judges are selected from the United Nations at random, usually from nations having nothing to do with the nation at all. The only war crimes trial that fits your description to my knowledge would be the Nuremberg Trials. ooc: Yes, that works for a world with widely recognized international laws, and a large organized international assembly/court, but sadly it doesn't work for cnrp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 OOC: Which basically is exactly what they're doing. OOC: Except the Nuremberg Trials were open to the world at large, instead of trying to keep people out as Uber has done. Also, the Nuremberg Trials had an international tribunal of five judges to make decisions, not just one. The Nuremberg Trials also had the death penalty, but if they hadn't, their most severe sentence would have been life imprisonment. The Nuremberg Trials were also incredibly fair, with a few being acquitted by lack of evidence and those that did not get life not receiving more than 20 years. There was also the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. For all of these reasons, plus the actual establishment of legal rules and regulations, these trials are nothing like the Nuremberg Trials. ooc: Yes, that works for a world with widely recognized international laws, and a large organized international assembly/court, but sadly it doesn't work for cnrp. OOC: Something we should work on perhaps. These countries were not the only ones who fought Nordland in the last war, however. Hansa took the brunt of the fighting when hit by the nuclear weapon, and countless other nations around the world fought and were not consulted about the trials prior to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 (edited) OOC: Except the Nuremberg Trials were open to the world at large, instead of trying to keep people out as Uber has done. Also, the Nuremberg Trials had an international tribunal of five judges to make decisions, not just one. The Nuremberg Trials also had the death penalty, but if they hadn't, their most severe sentence would have been life imprisonment. The Nuremberg Trials were also incredibly fair, with a few being acquitted by lack of evidence and those that did not get life not receiving more than 20 years. There was also the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.For all of these reasons, plus the actual establishment of legal rules and regulations, these trials are nothing like the Nuremberg Trials. ooc:Although I'm not entirely happy with the way these trials are organized, it's too early to decide if they are unfair. The first defendant pled guilty and was basically given a life sentence. I can also assure you that not everyone put on trial is going to be found guilty or given life sentences. I'm fairly sure certain people will be acquitted, or shown leniency. OOC: Something we should work on perhaps. These countries were not the only ones who fought Nordland in the last war, however. Hansa took the brunt of the fighting when hit by the nuclear weapon, and countless other nations around the world fought and were not consulted about the trials prior to it. ooc:I don't disagree with you there. Edited July 9, 2009 by Justinian the Mighty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: If there are no complaints...I will be happy to handle the trails at this point...just offering. I'm not a law student, but I'll at least promise to try and do this as fairly as I possibly can. Up to both sides. But I'm here if you need me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) OOC: For people wondering what I meant by rules vs. procedures... click this link: http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMen...nt/2009case.pdf Pages 6-30 is basically everything you need to know to run a trial, and pages 18-30 are simplified courtroom rules. (It's a 98 page pdf document, so it may take a while to load on slower computers) Edited July 9, 2009 by Pravus Ingruo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: You can holy trials if you want, but we are doing this now, nobody else has even mentioned trying to do the trials themselves, we are taking action. For the last time, a JURY decides guilt or innocence. And I'm not blocking people from the trial, I just want them to ask nicely. If you march into a courtroom yelling "I DEMAND TO SEE ALL TRIALS IT'S MY RIGHT", I don't think they are going to be very nice to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: You can holy trials if you want, but we are doing this now, nobody else has even mentioned trying to do the trials themselves, we are taking action. OOC: Actually, before you did this I had already told people I was going to do the trials and was even getting it ready but you decided to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: Actually, before you did this I had already told people I was going to do the trials and was even getting it ready but you decided to do it. OOC: How could YOU do the trials, you were not in the war. <__< >__> These are victory trials, not an international court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: How could YOU do the trials, you were not in the war. <__<>__> These are victory trials, not an international court. OOC: I declared war but everyone surrendered before anything happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavo Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: Alright so, regardless of how good or bad, biased or unbiased, these rules and laws are, they still are the laws of ADI, which is where the trials are taking place. And as the court has agreed/is going by these rules, well, they are the laws being used for better or for worse. It's fine if you criticize them ICly for not being great and such, but this OOC bickering is uncalled for, so stop it. This is the GM ruling, unless of course Hawk has something to add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: I'll respect the GM's decision about OOC. IC: The nation of Xaristan calls upon the international community to condemn these trials in ADI as nothing more than a sham, a final grudge against the former leaders of Nordland. While we think that these leaders should be put to trial, it should happen before an international court, not before a single judge from a nation who has long held a grudge against Nordland. The ADI justice system is one that is inherently flawed, which gives no room for the accused to call witnesses in favor of themselves nor the prosecution to call witnesses against the accused. The current system also operates under a system of "guilty until proven innocent", a system which is incredible biased against the accused and puts the burden of proof against those who are usually less well-funded and less educated than their accusers. Therefore, Xaristan formally calls for international pressure on ADI and RoM to release these prisoners into international hands, to allow them to have a truly international war crimes trial with a panel of judges and a fair legal system. We especially call for nations who fought against Nordland, as we did, and who were not consulted before this trial began to join in on this protest until the fugitives are released for international trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 OOC: Alright so, regardless of how good or bad, biased or unbiased, these rules and laws are, they still are the laws of ADI, which is where the trials are taking place. And as the court has agreed/is going by these rules, well, they are the laws being used for better or for worse. It's fine if you criticize them ICly for not being great and such, but this OOC bickering is uncalled for, so stop it. This is the GM ruling, unless of course Hawk has something to add. OOC: With all due respect the jurors should have a say in this jury members are still part of the court and none of us agreed to any thing. I assumed upon my signing up that the jury members would be consulted at least so that rules could be made to prevent all this OCC bickering about sentencing, etc... Regardless of the fact that this is RP'd in ADI, there should be mutually agreed upon rules; same way both sides have to agree on a RP time to RL time, there should have been agreed upon rules here to make everything fair. I think we need to scrap this trial and agree upon a set of rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) "This is not an international trial, but a victory trial over those who lost the war. If they are innocent, they will be released to the world. People need to realize that this isn't an INTERNATIONAL trial, it never was." -Vilho Gustafsson OOC: I'm not scraping the trial. You signed up, it was your choice to not ask questions, we laid out how it was going to go. Edited July 9, 2009 by BaronUberstein 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.