digibutter.nerr

[Die4Less]

My Idea...

1: Francis is the Judge with final say.

2: Add more mods to make it 7 total, they are the Jury.

3: Select 6 members, 3 are prosecuting attorneys, 3 are defense attorneys.

4: Whoever reported/got a post striked, is the plantiff. They make choose one of the three prosecuting attorrneys to help them.

5: Whoever is on the recieving end of the report/strike that was issued, is the defendent. They may pick one of the three defense attorneys to help them.

It works like this. As soon as the defendent is striked, a topic is placed in court. The defendent will choose one of three options. Guilty, not Guilty, No Contest.

1: Guilty means that, you know you did it, but think you have a vaild reason explaining why you did it. You will fight for your innocence, but if convicted anyways, you will recieve less punishment.

2: Not Guilty means that, you know you didn't do it, and will prove that you didn't do it. You will fight for your innocence, but if convicted anyways, you will recieve more punishment.

3: No Contest means that, you know you did it, but do not want a trial. You will take whatever the standard punishment is, and the court topic is deleted/locked.

In the event of 1 or 2, the plantiff will make their case. After that, the defendent will make their case. Either side may offer evidence if they choose to do so.

[optional]Once both sides are done, Witnesses may be called to the stand (People who posted in the same topic as the defendent.)[/optional]

After all the witnesses have been called, the plantiff makes a closing argument. The defendent does the same. Then, the Jury(Mods) spend however long they want deliberating. When they all finish, they give their verdicts of Guilty, or Not Guilty. With seven mods, there will never be a tie.

After everything is done, Francis will decide if the Verdict is sensible, the evidence is not faulty, etc., and either validate the mods verdict, or void it.

This way, everyone gets what they want. A right to a free trial, and a better chance at proving their innocence or guilt. Francis can also keep a close eye on the case. With this, I believe that everyone will get what they want in a fair way.

It could work, we just need to try it.

[Cherry]

You're combining several forms of judicial system. You can't have a jury AND give the judge the final say.

[Ligador]

Having defence attorneys and prosectuing attorneys is pointless here.

Let's not forget we're not dealing with real crime. We're not detrermining if the defendant did it -- we're determining if what he did should be considered a rule break.

[lovegod703]

Hey, I think it's good! Go for it!

[Frozenwinters]

The Court system is fine how it is, no need to make it more complicated. And your way wouldn't work if someone decided not to come online or something, it would just take too much time and nothing would get done. The current system is quick and effective.

[Manpersonguything]

I think this is usless and addeds unneeded things that just make it more complicated. Having a poll to have EVERYONE decide Guilty or not it fine. I don't think it needs a overhaul right now anyway.

[ohclizlE]

[Super Ultimario]

I like the idea of No Contest/Guilty/Not Guilty options, but the Defense/Prosecuting attorneys and the jury I don't like. It just makes the system slower and less effective, it's a better idea to just have members vote/comment on what they think and have Francis have the final say.

[Spell Seal]

I don't like that system, but I think the current one is worse. No chance to plead our case. No way to state our opinions. We are told nothing. They just throw is in Court and say defend yourself, but as soon as you try to, they lock the topic. The current Court system won't work.

[Paper_Waluigi]

My god, it's an INTERNET FORUM. We don't need a whole *crag* judicial system; even the current court system is too much.