13,832
edits
Criminal justice system of Urcea: Difference between revisions
Criminal justice system of Urcea (view source)
Revision as of 10:41, 20 January 2022
, 20 January 2022→History
m (→History) |
m (→History) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | ||