Criminal justice system of Urcea: Difference between revisions

Ecclesiastical courts were established in [[1589]] as part of the {{wp|counter-reformation}} in an effort to root out heterodoxical or corrupt members of the [[Levantine Catholic Church|Catholic]] clergy. These courts were originally subject to the [[Imperial Inquisition]] and were largely responsible for issuing {{wp|indictment}}s against priests accused of corruption or heresy, with the indictments forwarded on to higher inquisition institutions. With the [[Recess of the Julii]], the ecclesiastical courts were separated from the Inquisition and made subject to the State with the approval of the Urcean bishops in 1817. The courts continued to primarily try corruption and heresy cases until [[1874]], when [[Aedanicus VIII]] successfully passed a law ending heresy prosecutions, which had largely ceased by 1850. The ecclesiastical courts were, instead, given jurisdiction over all criminal and civil accusations against the clergy, and its composition was significantly reformed.

Much of the modern provincial court system came into being with the reorganization of [[Urcea]]'s internal apparatus initiated by the [[Administrative Reorganization Act of 1892]]. The Reorganization Act provided each province, state, and crownland would be subject to its own court which would have coterminous jurisdiction to the province. The reorganization created a commission to study the issue of the creation of a {{wp|Supreme Court}} and replacement of the preeminence of the Archducal Court, but said commission did not complete its work by the time of the restoration. The reorganization kept the conrudimental court system as most parties agreed it was one of the most successful reforms implemented prior to the reorganization, but the conrudimental courts now had specific, well-defined provincial jurisdictions.  

During the administration of Aedan Escrow in the 1980s, a considerable focus was placed on criminal justice reform - Escrow's focus was on removing partisan influence from the courts, bucking a trend many good government groups viewed as a "concerning, creeping" development since the 1950s. In [[1989]], the [[Concilium Daoni]] under the leadership of [[Michael Redder]] passed the "Judicial Appointment and Term Act", which removed the partisan appointment to each level of the court by the respective Governor or the [[Procurator]]. The new act created an appointment process which required the judges from higher levels to appoint qualified candidates for the lower courts, and for a non-partisan commission to select the initial group of "non-partisan" judges beginning for the term 1990.

The tiered court system is the method by which judges are appointed in [[Urcea]] in a method created in [[1989]] in an attempt to remove partisan influence from the courts. Judges typically serve staggered ten year terms, with the exception of the Archjustice of the Archducal Court of Urceopolis, who serves at the pleasure of the [[Concilium Daoni]]. At the diocesan level, the provincial court is responsible for identifying and nominating potential candidates, with the national standard requiring that nominees are members of their respective provincial bar, are at least 30 years old, and are a baptized [[Levantine Catholic Church|Catholic]]. Once a pool of candidates, typically ten, are identified, the Governor is responsible for choosing the final selection for judge. The provincial appointment process is largely similar, although a third of all judicial appointments for each provincial court are reserved for the [[Apostolic King of Urcea]]. Contrary to popular opinion, these appointments - called "Royal Judges" - are not necessarily made according to {{wp|constitutional advice}}, although most judges are appointed at the recommendation of the sitting [[Procurator]] and [[Chancellor and Temporary President]] with significant input from the King. Unlike other judges, the King does not have to select from an unlimited pool, and also unlike other judges, his nominations must receive final approval from the respective provincial legislature. The remaining, non-Royal Judges, are choosen by the Governor from an eligible pool of candidates chosen by judges from the conrudimental court. The conrudimental courts have a different system of appointment from the other courts, but still serve ten year terms and have the same eligibility requirements. Provincial courts have the ability to suggest a pool of candidates, but unlike the other processes these suggestions are non-binding. Appointments are chosen by the [[Procurator]] from any eligible individual living within the conrudiment and must be approved by a three-fourths vote of the [[Concilium Daoni]], with the vote threshold established to protect against partisan nominees. If the Procurator and Daoni fail to agree on a nominee within three months of the opening, the [[Apostolic King of Urcea]] is allowed to appoint a judge on his own authority, and said judge serves a two year term, only after which point the Procurator may attempt to make another nomination.  

Ecclesiastical courts are limited-jurisdiction courts which are responsible for trying criminal and civil cases where ordained members of the clergy - priests, bishops, and deacons of the [[Levantine Catholic Church]] - are the defendants. These courts are also the only courts which are competent to try cases relating to {{wp|Code of Canon Law|canon law}}, which are included as unconsolidated portions of the [[Consolidated Laws of HMCM's Kingdom and State]] with the force of law for the clergy. These courts are organized at the conrudimental level, with a fifteenth court established for [[Urceopolis (Archduchy)|the Archduchy of Urceopolis]]. The courts are composed of three canon lawyers appointed by the [[Urcean Conference of Catholic Bishops]] and three judges selected by the [[Apostolic_King_of_Urcea#Household_Office_for_Judicial_Appointments|Household Office for Judicial Appointments]]. Ecclesiastical courts do not have the ability to issue sentences, and sentencing reverts to the conrudimental court in the cases of a guilty verdict. Two special correctional facilities exist for the detention of priests.

The classes and types of crimes are established by Urcea's [[Consolidated_Laws_of_HMCM%27s_Kingdom_and_State#List_of_chapters|Penal Law]], which provides for minimum sentencing requirements and whose classifications determine what type of court tries a case. The penal law provides that the court shall determine the sentence, but provides for maximums and minimums for each type of national crime. Provinces may adopt laws assigning penalties which exceed national law, and in those cases higher courts defer to provincial law for sentencing. There are five types of crimes established nationwide - class A felonies, violent felonies, non-violent felonies, misdemeanors, and petty misdemeanors. Petty misdemeanors are tried by diocesan courts, while the remainder of these federal violations can be tried by the conrudimental courts or by provincial courts with federal charges added in addition to the primary charge brought forward by the province.  

Class A felonies have three primary classifications. A Class A-1 Felony carries with it a mandatory life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole or the death sentence in the case of a few specific crimes. A class A-2 felony carries with it a mandatory minimum of fifteen years and the maximum of life with possibility of parole. A class A-3 felony carries with it a mandatory minimum of eight years and a maximum of life with the possibility of parole. Most class A1-3 felonies relate to grave crimes, such as treason, rape, and murder, each of which can be punishable by death, as well as kidnapping, regicide, criminal conspiracy in the first degree, and criminal conspiracy to overthrow the state. Practically speaking, however, the [[Capital_punishment_around_the_world#List|death penalty]] has not been employed in [[Urcea]] since the 1970s.

Class D felonies carry a maximum term of seven years and a minimum term of one year for nonviolent felonies and two years for violent felonies. Examples of class D nonviolent felonies include criminal trafficking of religious icons, theft of the {{wp|Eucharist}}, bribery, forgery, promoting prostitution, perjury and examples of class D violent felonies include abortion in the first degree (including by doctors in an intended abortion or by the loss of a child following an assault or murder), assault of a priest, or assault in the second degree.