Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 04:18:58 PMThere are certainly some changes that could be made to our system of law, but there's already a requirement that an accused individual be informed within seven days of a charging instrument being accepted. I think it would be a bad idea to require public disclosure, since it's very possible some proceedings might be sealed for the sake of victims.Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent trials all public on Witt? What difference would making indictments public make then? If a case does end up being sealed, just seal the indictment with it.
QuoteIt would be wiser to put in a decision point in that regard, instead. The person who really needs to know is the accused, and it's not otherwise always in the public interest to require publication of unproven charges and information about criminal activity. Prompt the judge to decide, with a direction to default to public proceedings.For one, all charges start off as unproven before they come before a judge, right? Isn't that how trials work? For two, regardless of one's stance on making indictments public in general, since we are talking about potential election interference, I'd say it is absolutely in the public interest in this case.
QuoteI'd suggest another concern is that it doesn't seem possible to collect affidavits or sworn testimony without first beginning cort proceedings, which is why charges were filed.How would public indictments stop one from collecting affidavits and sworn testimony?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 03:54:16 PMSo, wait. Am I to understand that the Ministry of Justice had a charging document all drawn up already against a Talossan citizen, and now that's not going ahead?
Or was the charging document a "John Doe" type of thing, name to be filled in later?
In any case, let this serve as notice that, to the next Cosa, I will present an amendment to El Lexhatx G.6.1, which will make it clear that when the Ministry of Justice lodges a charging document, it will be open to public view. If the Government have enough evidence to take someone to court, it only serves natural justice that they have the confidence to name a name, even if some of the evidence has to stay secret until trial.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 09:29:35 AMQuote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on Today at 09:26:21 AMDidn't really want to know who voted just a running total like you see on tv in the United States
You don't have that in the US either, what you see during Election Night are the numbers coming in as they count all the ballots after the polls are closed.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Today at 09:29:35 AMQuote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on Today at 09:26:21 AMDidn't really want to know who voted just a running total like you see on tv in the United States
You don't have that in the US either, what you see during Election Night are the numbers coming in as they count all the ballots after the polls are closed.