Amend power of Inquisition

The Senate to create the powers detailed by Jorma Steelhail in his Statement of Principle within the Synod during Winter 379 summit.

These powers are the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance. The intent of these powers are to conclude and proclaim the outcomes of Inquisition that cannot be reasonably included under Condemnation.

The powers of Castigation, Vindication and Penance are escalated from Inquisition in the same manner as Condemnation and the powers and responsibilities are detailed below:

• Castigation: The target is believed by the Assembly to be guilty of Unvirtuous deeds and nature and is formally rebuked.

• Penance: The target is believed by the Assembly to have engaged in both Virtuous and Unvirtuous behaviour. The judgement recommends how the target can correct their Unvirtuous behaviour.

• Vindication: The target is believed by the Assembly to be innocent of any accused Unvirtuous acts levelled against them and/or be of a Virtuous disposition and is formally lauded as Virtuous.
  

Proposed by the Conscience of the Senate, Seconded by Redoubt

Overview

• This motion was to modify the Synod power of Inquisition
• Passed

Date

• Autumn 380YE

Constitution

The Constitutional Court note that there is an ambiguity in the wording of the Senate motion. The implication is that the author intends that castigation, vindication and penance are raised from an inquisition - but does not explicitly mandate that. Furthermore, the simplest legal interpretation of the opening line of the motion is that the Senate wish the Synod to have access to the judgements of castigation, vindication and penance. The intent may be that these powers will be used only after an inquistion, but that is not the legal protocol for a judgement. Intent will guide the judgement of the Synod, but is never legally binding.

In cases where there are different possible interpretations of a motion, the Constitutional Court restrict their deliberations to those interpretations which are constitutionally valid. It is the decision of the court that it would not be constitutional for the Synod to have access to the judgements of Castigation, Vindication and Penance but not be able to submit them without first submitting an inquisition. "Voting in the Synod will be performed by such assemblies as are rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, in accord with their nationality and authority." If condemnation does not require an inquisition first, then there is no constitutional basis to prevent an assembly by rightfully able to weigh the virtue of an action or individual, with regard to vindication, castigation, or penance. Therefore the only constitutional interpretation of the law is one in which the Synod may submit these new judgements - exactly as if they were a condemnation.

OOC Note: It is not completely clear if the Conscience intended to allow the Synod to submit the new judgements without first submitting an inquisition, but we have ruled that the new judgements must follow exactly the same rules as condemnation in the interests of keeping a simple set of rules that players have the best possible chance to understand.

Campaign Outcome

• The Imperial civil service are updating the procedures for the Synod to encompass the new options now allowed under Imperial law following this motion.