Criminal justice system of Urcea: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "Concilium Daoni" to "Conshilía Purpháidhe" Tag: Reverted |
m Text replacement - "Concilium Daoni" to "Conshilía Daoni" |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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 [[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. | 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 [[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. | ||
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 [[Conshilía | 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 [[Conshilía 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 [[Index of Urcean legislation|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. | ||
==Hierarchy of courts== | ==Hierarchy of courts== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
[[Urcea]] has a three-tiered court system, and each tier of court is divided into appeals, civil, and criminal divisions which share the same physical infrastructure as well as some personnel and judges. Each tier serves as the appeals court for the lower tier. The lowest tier are the Diocesan Courts, which serve the [[Government_of_Urcea#Local_Government|civil dioceses]] which constitute every subdivision of Urcea. These courts are the most common and typically are responsible for overseeing civil disputes between individuals or firms. Diocesan courts also oversee prosecution of petty misdemeanors (including those established under provincial and national law) and violations of municipal ordinances and local laws. Above these courts are the thirty four subdivision wide court, whose name varies based on the [[Government_of_Urcea#Subdivisions|type of subdivision]], but the most common title is "Provincial Court" or "Supreme Court". The provincial court tries felony cases and civil cases where the two parties are from different dioceses. The third tier of courts are called the "''conrudimental courts''", with conrudiments (''[[Lebhan language|Leb]]: "rounded areas"'') being comprised of two to three provinces. The conrudimental courts are responsible for trying violations of national crimes as well as civil cases with parties originating from different provinces; if a civil case involves parties from different conrudiments, the [[Ministry of Justice (Urcea)|Ministry of Justice]] is responsible for choosing which conrudimental court will try the case. The two autonomous states have conrudimental courts entirely coterminous with the respective states. | [[Urcea]] has a three-tiered court system, and each tier of court is divided into appeals, civil, and criminal divisions which share the same physical infrastructure as well as some personnel and judges. Each tier serves as the appeals court for the lower tier. The lowest tier are the Diocesan Courts, which serve the [[Government_of_Urcea#Local_Government|civil dioceses]] which constitute every subdivision of Urcea. These courts are the most common and typically are responsible for overseeing civil disputes between individuals or firms. Diocesan courts also oversee prosecution of petty misdemeanors (including those established under provincial and national law) and violations of municipal ordinances and local laws. Above these courts are the thirty four subdivision wide court, whose name varies based on the [[Government_of_Urcea#Subdivisions|type of subdivision]], but the most common title is "Provincial Court" or "Supreme Court". The provincial court tries felony cases and civil cases where the two parties are from different dioceses. The third tier of courts are called the "''conrudimental courts''", with conrudiments (''[[Lebhan language|Leb]]: "rounded areas"'') being comprised of two to three provinces. The conrudimental courts are responsible for trying violations of national crimes as well as civil cases with parties originating from different provinces; if a civil case involves parties from different conrudiments, the [[Ministry of Justice (Urcea)|Ministry of Justice]] is responsible for choosing which conrudimental court will try the case. The two autonomous states have conrudimental courts entirely coterminous with the respective states. | ||
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 [[Conshilía | 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 [[Conshilía 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 [[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 [[Conshilía 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. | ||
A special exception to the standard court tier system exists in [[Urceopolis (City)|Urceopolis]] and the Archduchy of [[Urceopolis (Archduchy)|Urceopolis]]. The Archduchy is exempt from organization within higher judicial conrudiments, and so the Archducal Court is the highest court in which an issue can be brought, serving as a [[Prime court|prime court]]. The Archducal Court does have legal jurisdiction to try civil and criminal cases within the Archduchy, but has not done so since [[1934]] and formally abolished its civil and criminal divisions in [[1958]]. Additionally, the City of Urceopolis is not divided into or subject to diocesan courts but rather has a single municipal court which is responsible for resolving all civil and criminal charges, regardless of level or type of crime (including national crimes), within the city. Outside of the city, diocesan courts within the Archduchy also have authority to try all types of crimes and civil matters regardless of type of level. | A special exception to the standard court tier system exists in [[Urceopolis (City)|Urceopolis]] and the Archduchy of [[Urceopolis (Archduchy)|Urceopolis]]. The Archduchy is exempt from organization within higher judicial conrudiments, and so the Archducal Court is the highest court in which an issue can be brought, serving as a [[Prime court|prime court]]. The Archducal Court does have legal jurisdiction to try civil and criminal cases within the Archduchy, but has not done so since [[1934]] and formally abolished its civil and criminal divisions in [[1958]]. Additionally, the City of Urceopolis is not divided into or subject to diocesan courts but rather has a single municipal court which is responsible for resolving all civil and criminal charges, regardless of level or type of crime (including national crimes), within the city. Outside of the city, diocesan courts within the Archduchy also have authority to try all types of crimes and civil matters regardless of type of level. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Special courts=== | ===Special courts=== | ||
Special courts are courts with special, specific jurisdiction created by an act of the [[Conshilía | Special courts are courts with special, specific jurisdiction created by an act of the [[Conshilía Daoni]]. There are two primary types currently operating, both of which pertain to overseas administraton. | ||
====Overseas administrative courts==== | ====Overseas administrative courts==== | ||
Overseas administrative courts (OACs) are courts established by a special act of the [[Conshilía | Overseas administrative courts (OACs) are courts established by a special act of the [[Conshilía Daoni]] which have jurisdiction over one or more of [[Urcea]]'s [[Government_of_Urcea#Overseas_Possessions|overseas possessions]]. Many of these OACs also have jurisdiction over Urceans in territory in which Urcea is not directly sovereign. Rather than being associated with a specific territory, OACs are based on set regions of the world and can encompass multiple countries and overseas territories. Some OACs are adopted as the chief judiciary of an associated nation as established by a treaty. A pool of eligible local judges for OACs are selected by the [[Apostolic_King_of_Urcea#Household_Office_for_Judicial_Appointments|Household Office for Judicial Appointments]] and chosen by the [[Procurator]] to serve terms which coincide with the terms of the Procurator and [[Conshilía Daoni]] and must be approved by a simple majority of the Daoni. If no local judges are eligible, the Household Office can select a qualified [[Levantia|Levantine]] candidate or, in some cases, contract out to other nearby [[Occidental]] powers for eligible candidates. OACs are responsible for trying all cases in the jurisdiction area, criminal or civil, in accordance with the [[Consolidated_Laws_of_HMCM%27s_Kingdom_and_State|Rectory and Overseas Territory Law]] and any applicable local laws or treaty provisions. | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
Latest revision as of 14:04, 4 September 2024
 | This article is a work-in-progress because it is incomplete and pending further input from an author. Note: The contents of this article are not considered canonical and may be inaccurate. Please comment on this article's talk page to share your input, comments and questions. |
The criminal justice system of Urcea is the apparatus by which the laws of Urcea are enforced. In Urcea, each crownland, province, and state also maintains its own criminal and civil code in addition to nationwide statutes, and most crimes are prosecuted at the subdivision level.
History
Trials for crimes and civil suits in Urcea are first attested to during the medieval period, with most occurring under the auspices of arbitrators appointed by the Apostolic King of Urcea or by local nobles, with irregular procedure followed in most cases. Modern courts gradually took form over the late Renaissance and early modern period. The right of Urceans to trial on various matters was affirmed in the Great Bull of 1811, greatly increasing the importance and relevance of the courts as a political and social institution. 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 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.
Ecclesiastical courts were established in 1589 as part of the counter-reformation in an effort to root out heterodoxical or corrupt members of the Catholic clergy. These courts were originally subject to the Imperial Inquisition and were largely responsible for issuing indictments 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.
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 Conshilía 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.
Hierarchy of courts
Urcea has a three-tiered court system, and each tier of court is divided into appeals, civil, and criminal divisions which share the same physical infrastructure as well as some personnel and judges. Each tier serves as the appeals court for the lower tier. The lowest tier are the Diocesan Courts, which serve the civil dioceses which constitute every subdivision of Urcea. These courts are the most common and typically are responsible for overseeing civil disputes between individuals or firms. Diocesan courts also oversee prosecution of petty misdemeanors (including those established under provincial and national law) and violations of municipal ordinances and local laws. Above these courts are the thirty four subdivision wide court, whose name varies based on the type of subdivision, but the most common title is "Provincial Court" or "Supreme Court". The provincial court tries felony cases and civil cases where the two parties are from different dioceses. The third tier of courts are called the "conrudimental courts", with conrudiments (Leb: "rounded areas") being comprised of two to three provinces. The conrudimental courts are responsible for trying violations of national crimes as well as civil cases with parties originating from different provinces; if a civil case involves parties from different conrudiments, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for choosing which conrudimental court will try the case. The two autonomous states have conrudimental courts entirely coterminous with the respective states.
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 Conshilía 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 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 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 Conshilía 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.
A special exception to the standard court tier system exists in Urceopolis and the Archduchy of Urceopolis. The Archduchy is exempt from organization within higher judicial conrudiments, and so the Archducal Court is the highest court in which an issue can be brought, serving as a prime court. The Archducal Court does have legal jurisdiction to try civil and criminal cases within the Archduchy, but has not done so since 1934 and formally abolished its civil and criminal divisions in 1958. Additionally, the City of Urceopolis is not divided into or subject to diocesan courts but rather has a single municipal court which is responsible for resolving all civil and criminal charges, regardless of level or type of crime (including national crimes), within the city. Outside of the city, diocesan courts within the Archduchy also have authority to try all types of crimes and civil matters regardless of type of level.
Unlike many other Occidental democracies, Urcea does not have a specially constituted supreme court. In practice, the court of final appeal is the Archducal Court of Urceopolis. While the Archducal Court, de jure, is equal in legal stature and scope to other provincial and subdivisional courts, it serves as the national appellate court. The legal mechanism giving the court national jurisdiction comes from the theoretical ability of the Apostolic King of Urcea to refer any case to any court for any reason or to directly decide cases himself; in practice, this power is used as a constitutional mechanism for appellate of conrudiment-level decisions, which occurs on the constitutional advice of the Archjustice.
Some courts may be skipped due to the stature of the crime, requests for change in venue, or to avoid the appearance of impropriety. These cases are typically moved to a higher tier on the authority Apostolic King of Urcea, typically on the request of the Governor of a province. In the event that a province assigns a higher criminal penalty to an act than the national government, any higher court will defer to the lower jurisdiction for sentencing.
Ecclesiastical courts
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 Catholic Church - are the defendants. These courts are also the only courts which are competent to try cases relating to 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 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 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.
Special courts
Special courts are courts with special, specific jurisdiction created by an act of the Conshilía Daoni. There are two primary types currently operating, both of which pertain to overseas administraton.
Overseas administrative courts
Overseas administrative courts (OACs) are courts established by a special act of the Conshilía Daoni which have jurisdiction over one or more of Urcea's overseas possessions. Many of these OACs also have jurisdiction over Urceans in territory in which Urcea is not directly sovereign. Rather than being associated with a specific territory, OACs are based on set regions of the world and can encompass multiple countries and overseas territories. Some OACs are adopted as the chief judiciary of an associated nation as established by a treaty. A pool of eligible local judges for OACs are selected by the Household Office for Judicial Appointments and chosen by the Procurator to serve terms which coincide with the terms of the Procurator and Conshilía Daoni and must be approved by a simple majority of the Daoni. If no local judges are eligible, the Household Office can select a qualified Levantine candidate or, in some cases, contract out to other nearby Occidental powers for eligible candidates. OACs are responsible for trying all cases in the jurisdiction area, criminal or civil, in accordance with the Rectory and Overseas Territory Law and any applicable local laws or treaty provisions.
| Name of court | Jurisdiction region |
|---|---|
| North Cronan Regional Overseas Administrative Court (NCROAC) | New Harren, Atavia, the Unnuaq Mission State, the Unnuaq Chain, Urcean nationals in Housatonic and Pachaug |
| South Nysdra Regional Overseas Administrative Court (SNROAC) | The Seneca Islands, Urcean nationals in New Veltorina, Quetzenkel and occupied portions of Varshan |
| North Nysdra Regional Overseas Administrative Court (NNROAC) | Venua'tino and Levantine Union nationals in the International Nature Preserve |
| Oceanic Regional Overseas Administrative Court (OROAC) | Herciana, Ventotene, and Medimeria |
Cronan military-administrative tribunals
Cronan military administrative tribunals, commonly called "C-MATS", are special adjudication units established in Urcean supervised areas in Crona. These courts are established typically in remote villages where military officers in command of local garrisons will adjudicate criminal and civil cases between locals. These tribunals, commonly called "garrison justice", were established following the establishment of Urcean supervision of Venua'tino and are typically comprised of the five most senior officers within a garrison. The decisions of these courts can be appealed to the overseas administrative courts (OACs), and most garrisons have a civilian attaché from the regional branch of the OACs to guide proceedings and receive requests for appeals.
C-MATS began to be employed on the frontlines of the Final War of the Deluge apart from their garrison responsibilities. These frontline variants of the C-MATs primarily served as bodies to issue indictments for war crimes for non-state combatants, such as Veltorine collaborators. These indictments were forwarded along to the International Justice Court.
Types and classes of crimes
The classes and types of crimes are established by Urcea's 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 four types of crimes established nationwide - class A felonies, violent felonies, non-violent felonies, and general misdemeanors. Most 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.
Felony sentencing classes
A1-3 Felony
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 regicide, 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 death penalty has not been employed in Urcea since the 1970s.
B Felony
Class B felonies carry a maximum of 25 years and a minimum of one year in the case of nonviolent felonies or six years with the possibility of parole after three years for violent felonies. Examples of nonviolent B felonies include robbery or witness intimidation whereas violent B felonies include rape in the second degree, assault in the first degree, assault of the Pope or King, or gang assault.
C Felony
Class C felonies carry a maximum sentence of fifteen years and a minimum sentence of one year for nonviolent offenders and three years for violent offenders. Nonviolent C felonies include criminal possession of narcotics with the intent to sell, criminal diversion of pharmaceuticals, and instances of insurance fraud. Examples of violent C felonies include assault of a bishop and lesser degrees of sexual abuse, burglary, and manslaughter in the second degree.
D Felony
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 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. The majority of crimes related to promotion of the illegal vice trade are included within class D felonies.
E Felony
Class E felonies carry a maximum of four years and a minimum of one year in the case of nonviolent felonies or eighteen months for violent felonies. Examples of nonviolent E felonies include traveling abroad with the intention of procuring an abortion, solicitation of or conspiracy to take part in simony, abandonment of a child, cemetery desecration, criminal interference of a worship service whereas violent E felonies include menacing, lesser degrees of rape, and assault of an individual while partaking in a religious service (including all types of religious services).
Misdemeanor sentencing classes
A Misdemeanor
Class A misdemeanors carry penalties of up to 364 days in jail or a fine not to exceed ₮750. Examples of a Class A misdemeanor include petit larceny or damage to public property.
B Misdemeanor
Class B misdemeanors carry penalties of up to 3 months in jail or a fine not to exceed ₮250. Examples of a Class B misdemeanor include public lewdness or loitering for the purpose of using illegal narcotics.
Criminal procedure
Urcea's code of criminal procedure traces its current form to the Seventh Statement of the Great Bull of 1811, which guarantees Urceans a speedy trial and trial by a jury of their peers. This Statement forms the basis of the Constitutional rules for the rights of the accused. The Great Bull is silent on the matter of criminal investigation by the police, but courts have interpreted the Eighth Statement and other statutes to apply a general entitlement to due process and presumption of innocence by the accused.
Investigation and arrest
National police
Provincial police
Local police
Bounty hunters
Prosecution and trial
Additional charge practices
Prosecutors in Urcea will often, if the evidence presents itself, add additional charges to an individual being prosecuted that have to do with otherwise decriminalized activities considered to be immoral by the state, including sodomy and fornication. This practice, informally known as "no-no tack-ons", is the primary source of nearly all convictions on a number of crimes against morality, as many of them - such as the aforementioned sodomy - never being an offense that would be prosecuted alone. In many cases, these tack-on offenses are ones to which those accused of other crimes will plead guilty to as part of a plea bargain. This practice has been criticized by many groups across the political spectrum - ranging from the former Julian Party to LGBT activist groups - as hypocritical and a lack of a serious enthusiasm for the actual moral laws of the country.
Victims rights
Appeals
Corrections system
Incarceration in Urcea is a primary form of punishment and rehabilitation for the commission of felony and other offenses.
The vast majority of prisons within Urcea are operated by the crownlands, provinces, and states, with three hundred and eight remaining facilities operated by the Ministry of Justice including two ecclesiastical facilities.
The Urcean incarceration system uses penal labor extensively, with more than 72% of Urcean prisoners doing at least some work during their term of incarceration. Within the culture of Urcea, work is viewed to have a redemptive value, but is also considered to be a gateway to reducing recidivism and equipping convicts to be suited for gainful employment upon their release from prison. The majority of prison labor is devoted towards some type of simple manufacturing, though an increasing number of prison programs are devoted to more complex labor which involves training programs for inmates. Most prisoners want to work, but most work is also involuntary. Prison labor pay varies by jurisdiction, with Ministry of Justice and ecclesiastical prisons paying forty cents per hour. Prison laborers are the sole group of laborers in Urcea not subject to the guild system. The Government of Urcea almost exclusively procures furniture
Ecclesiastical facilities
Two medium-security prisons are maintained for members of the clergy sentenced to a term of imprisonment in Urcea. These prisons, St. Michael Correctional Facility and St. Gabriel Correctional Facility are located in Gabban and North Ionia respectively, and are overseen by the Agency for Ecclesiastical Correctional Affairs, which provides for facility security and administration, and the office of Censor's Department for Ecclesiastical Crime Management, which provides programs for the incarcerated. As part of their incarceration, convicted members of the clergy must complete five hundred hours of remedial theological education related to their particular failing. Additionally, clergy guilty of violent felonies or sexual abuse must complete terms of hard labor.