thoughts on 'trials', judge, jury and the court room

[PlayaCharacter]

Or perhaps allowances for creative  punishments or some collaboration with whoever is about to lose their PC  OOCly as to whether they would like things sped along if possible so  they can get back to doing something they enjoy.

This does not have to be OOC at all. The accused player can simply  plead guilty. Perhaps there could even be a sign placed in each of the  cells explaining that "If you are ready to face the judgment of your  god, CONFESS!"

I think the enjoyment of trials by the playerbase  is demonstrated well enough by the number of players who consistently  show up for them. The courtrooms are usually packed with half the active  server whenever one begins.

The biggest problem I see with the  trials is purely IC: the court procedures are inconsistent and absurd. I  recall one trial where the prosecution called the defendant as  their first witness. This resulted in the absurd spectacle of the  defendant, who represented themselves as their own defense, cross  examining themselves before ever even presenting their defense case.

For those of you who don't know, there are quite a few basic things wrong here:

• The defendant was being asked to testify against themselves.
• The  prosecution should never call a hostile witness (in this case the  defendant) in order to make their case. That's not a presentation of  fact, it's an interrogation, which should have been done before the  trial. It's also a good way to lose control of the case.
• The  orderly process of prosecution ==> defense ==> verdict was  disrupted, making the trial about thirty minutes longer than it should  have been. The defense got to make their case twice.

That's  just one example. All of these Sanctuary trials are legal farces in some  very basic ways and would be laughed out of even an 18th Century common  law tribunal.

My recommendation is to come up with maybe four or five very simple rules of order, based on common law, which simply dictate the flow of the process, nothing more. This could be done either ICly or OOCly. We just need a simple set of rules to ensue that trials are consistent and orderly.

[The Old Hack]

I am somewhat irritated by the 'foregone conclusion' accusation that is thrown out as if it were a... foregone conclusion. It is, quite simply, not true. At most half the capital crime trials that I have witnessed (and I have sat in on a number of them) have ended with a conviction and not all of these resulted in a death sentence.

Also, given that one of the objections raised here is the length of the trial, I also feel that it should be pointed out that in those open-and-shut cases where the result actually is a foregone conclusion, the trial rarely lasts very long. And these are usually cases where someone is clearly guilty of murder (tons of eyewitnesses, caught red-handed, etc.).

As to the persons on trial never being allowed to defend themselves, that is a patent absurdity. I am actually not sure what I have seen more of, trials where the defendant pled their own case or where they had an assigned defender. Only if the defendant is completely uncooperative do they normally get gagged. (Ironically, I once saw a case where a PC ran their own defense and where I was convinced he was headed for acquittal when the player suddenly started to scream how unfair the system was and that he might just as well plead guilty and get it over with.)

There's a number of ways to deal with someone sitting in a cell and being bored. You could allow the player to log out and just check in again in half an hour to see if the trial was ready. If the player feels the trial is a foregone conclusion and/or doesn't want to go through it, you could work out a trial outcome on IRC/in Tells and just say the trial already took place. Or, as was actually done once or twice when I was a Watcher, when the accused was a citizen of some note or repute they were allowed freedom to move around against bail or some other such measure.

It's extremely easy to find ways to avoid PC boredom in this. All you need is OOC goodwill and a few minutes of discussion. There is no need to lay into the legal system itself and scream about how it is all showcase trials and foregone conclusions. And frankly, what if it was? This is Sanctuary, not some bloody hippie commune. Some of the trials may indeed be rigged and that is part of the game, too -- if the player then feels they don't want to waste time on it, once again polite OOC discussion is the easy way to deal with that.

~tOH.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, I agree with everything PlayaCharacter just said. I've wished for proper IC procedure for the longest time. And again, at least some people must think trials are not boring or they wouldn't be attending them.

[Blue41]

I agree with PC's points. I've never been put on trial personally and have only seen a few, and they can be entertaining, if a little confusing to watch. I don't mind the idea of the law being a little subjective in Sanctuary, it seems to fit the theme of the place that I could commit the same crime in front of two different Watchers and receive very different penalties for it. But I do think that the general flow a trial should follow should be explained- OOCly or ICly- to the prosecution and defense prior to beginning the trial, especially considering that in some cases, PC's can simply volunteer to represent one side or the other in a trial. Some loose form of structure would go a long way.

[Spiffy Has]

I think it's very deliberate that there is no process or structure to trials, PCs are EXPECTED to make it fun, and if they fail to do so, should find a different avenue to pursue.

Take a book out of director crane, he sentenced someone for assault to have dinner with a PC as punishment. You can do what you want in terms of sentencing, it doesn't have to be exile/capital punishment/fine.

[MaimedGod]

Trials are an important and fundamental part of my character's existence- she is a Tyrran, after all! She found her start in the city, initially, by being a defender in numerous different trials and those roles available offer an excellent way to dive headfirst into politics/the legal system in general.

Trials are no different from any other public event. They are like rituals, games, competitions, etc. They offer an opportunity for communal roleplay. That they bore some players is too bad really but no one is required to sit through them if they don't want to.

As someone who has probably presided over more trials than I am even comfortable saying, I vehemently disagree with the implication that Sanctuary law is a farce and that the trials are like Stalinist show trials or something. I personally have had my character put a great deal of thought into each side's arguments and weigh them against one another before coming to a conclusion. Length is usually a required factor when the evidence is mixed and the trial could go "either way"- a fair trial requires that the defense is given ample time to counter the points of the prosecution. Arguably the most corrupt trials have been the ones that lasted the shortest amount of time!

Generally though it is never a perfect thing and there will always be people who are unhappy with trials for whatever reason. I will note that when players send me a tell informing me that they have to leave I do my very best to make things go very fast.

[MaimedGod]

I do agree with the procedural complaints but while I've long contemplated a set procedure for trials the meta-realities that we face mean that it's probably never going to happen. DMs want the flexibility to come in and say "Okay this guy is innocent" or "Okay this guy is guilty" if they want to, and they certainly don't want to have to go checking the Sanctuary procedural legal code subsection 5b to do it.

[granny]

Has there ever been an incident in EFU:R in which a player underwent a trial and was dissatisfied with the length of it?

I know when I run a NPC trial I am usually in and out within 5 minutes. If players (including the accused) prefer to make it more elaborate I see no harm in it.

Yisilda's trial was cut short by the time of her defense (the prosecution was ruled without shortcuts) ICly under the excuse that more important issues should be dealt with. I was both ICly and OOCly displeased with it, but  understood that OOCly the general people involved were tired and needed to be busy with other things. I don't need to say that it ended bad to her.

So, I'm the occasional nerd that would whine about having it cut short and I did whine. No, I don't like the idea of having it cut short because it often will mean keeping the accusation and fastening the defense, not allowing you to build up the persuasion that could save your PC.

[Divine Intervention]

My personal opinion is that in cases of clear cut guilt the judge should be able to move to summary sentencing hearings.  I.E. half a dozen witnesses watched you cut down someone in cold blood, fairly conclusive murder case.  I think one of the main issues is that the accused rarely has time to prepare a defense, and in cases like banditry/killings as part of some evil cult/gang they have made no attempt to disguise themselves thus making it a foregone conclusion that is simply dragged out at times.

[Mia]

There is always the option for criminals to plead "Guilty, punish me now, save me from this torment" at the start of any trial.

Edit: Here is an example of what pleading guilty can get you.

[MaimedGod]

Honestly, trials in general should be reserved for cases where things aren't clear-cut and a trial is actually needed to determine guilt (generally capital cases and the like). There is nothing requiring a trial for any crime and if it's totally obvious then there is absolutely nothing wrong with rendering judgement without trial.

[Crump]

My main complaint with trials is that the person being tried, who has the most to lose, has the least amount of involvement and roleplay in the entire process. Sometimes they don't even get time to speak with the person being appointed to their defense. Spectators don't have to come, and can leave if they aren't enjoying the process, but the victim is generally forced to just sit there for 30m to 2 hours or whatever just casually emoting staring at the mirrors or whatever.

I would like a process that involves the accused a bit more than as a prop piece.

[tala_kai]

There is always the option for criminals to plead "Guilty, punish me now, save me from this torment" at the start of any trial.

If someone is going to plead guilty, I suggest it happens even before the trial, because why do we need a trial, sendings, arranging defense and prosecution and what not if it's going to end in less than 5 minutes.

also, when my PC accidently confessed during interrogations with the watcher he made a crime, a DM possessed one of the directors, said there is really no need for a trial because he already confessed, passed the punishment and it was over in less than 10 minutes. as D_I said, a lot of the times, a trial is unnecessary.

[PanamaLane]

I really enjoy trials and have probably been involved in all facets of them at one point or another (accused, lawyer, judge). I do think its quite funny when PCs show up for a trial and spend the entire time emoting "yawns" or whatever. If you don't enjoy them, don't go to them? I do enjoy them, so I don't see length as a serious issue. But to play devils advocate...

One thing I do think would really help speed along the process, is some set of regulations. I.E. the prosecution/defense is allowed to call only -1- witness (better pick the right one), that limits be set on the number of questions that can be asked, etc.

I am also not a fan of the current system in that the accused is pretty much forced to pick a lawyer instead of defending themselves. Often their lawyer has no knowledge of the case until a few minutes beforehand. This can lead to a rambling set of questions or misinformation takes time without providing much substance.

It might be a lot quicker just to have three people involved, accused, prosecution, judge. Hey, maybe the only witness that can be called is the accused who must defend the accusations/evidence of the prosecution personally with the judge asking for elaboration here and there.

[Kotenku]

Bring back Stoning please.

[granny]

Guys... trials are not only to define if the person is guilty or not. They're to define how bad are the deeds and the most appropriate outcomes based on what happened.

This mindset of "guilty or not guilty" is the one that focuses on "FD or not FD" the PC. There are other options beyond these two.