(A)
The
Attorney General should replace the Governor General in Chapter Three section
seventy-two of the Constitution, but a person who
can be appointed to become a justice of the federal high court, must be
proposed by the Attorney General to the Senate and approved by the Senate. The
Prime Minister should replace the Governor General and the Queen in Chapter Three section
seventy-three and section seventy-four of the constitution.
(B)
The person who can be
appointed become a justice of the Federal High Court, after this amendment
should
1. Have
no criminal record by the Commonwealth
2. Not
be a current Official or General Personnel of the Commonwealth
(C)
There
can be no more than five justice of the Federal High Court who are member of
the same political party, whenever, a Federal High Court has up to five
justices whom are members of the same political party, any other person whom
are member of such political party, must resign from such political party
before becoming a justice of the Federal High Court and if any existing
justices of the Federal High Court want to become a member of such political
party, he must resign from been a justice.
(D)
After
a person served as justice for eight years, the Attorney General can remove a
person serving as justice but require approval of the absolute majority of the
House of Representative and the absolute majority of the Senate. If either less
than half of the members of the House of Representative or less than half of
the members of the Senate approve of such dismissal, such person serving as a
justice of the Federal High Court should not be dismissed and whenever over
half of the Senate or over half of the House of Representative disapprove of
removing a person serving as a justice of the Federal High Court, the Attorney
General cannot again make a case of dismissal to remove such person from been a
justice of the Federal High Court, for another eight years. When contradiction
occurred between this amendment and Chapter Three section
seventy-two of the Constitution, the Commonwealth
should act according to this amendment. A person serving as a justice of the
Federal High Court should not be removed by any other form of method, other
than that presented by this constitution.
(E)
The
power to define the Constitution and the law of the Commonwealth should be vest
upon the Federal High Court.
(G)
The
Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister has the right to grant pardon,
reduce sentence and call for a mistrial, but his exercise of such power must be
subject to the law of the Commonwealth and this constitution.
(H)
The
Attorney General has the right to call for a mistrial and reduce sentence, but
his exercise of such power must be subject to the law of the Commonwealth and
this Constitution.
(I)
The Prime
Minister has the right to restore a person's lost or stolen civil right and to
order compensation to a person for their lost or stolen civil right, but his
exercising of this power must be subject to the law of the Commonwealth and
this Constitution.
(J)
Any
citizen of the Commonwealth that is over the age of twenty can sue a law of the
Commonwealth for violating the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Such trial
should be trial by the Federal High Court and if the Federal High Court decides
such law is in violation of the Constitution, such law should be
abolished. Such trial should be trial by a panel of five justices,
accompany by a panel of at least fifteen juries and the decision of such trial
of the Federal High Court, should be determined by a vote of the five
justices and agree upon by the jury, whenever the jury and the
justices cannot agree with each other, there should be a retrial. But if,
at least, four of the five justices voted for the same decision, the agreement
of the jury is not necessary.
(K)
Any
person who is a justice of the Federal High Court, would seize been a justice,
upon gaining a criminal record, by the Commonwealth
(L)
1. Juries been manipulated
or emotionally compromised, due to not professionally qualified, thus, acting
unfair.
2. Judges not acting
appropriately as a professional, thus, acting unfair.
3.
Judge or jury not acting professional or acting unfair due to prejudice or
corruption.
Would increase the chance of a trial that is neither fair or just, as a result, increase the chance of guilty people get found not guilty of a crime they committed, innocent people getting found guilty of a crime they did not commit, this is unjust, unfair and a violation of human right, for victims and innocent accuse.
Hence, to increase the chance of having a trial that is both fair and just. The trial on indictment of any offence should be co-trial by a judge and a panel of at least twelve juries, within the initial trial and initial trial after a successful appeal, such trial should be led by the judge and whenever the judge and the juries of such trial gives a different verdict, the case should be retrial, but if the judge and the juries gives the same verdict, the verdict should stand, unless successfully appealed, the juries should make their verdict first, after the juries announced their verdict to the court and the judge, the judge should make his verdict. The verdict of such initial trial should be guilty, not guilty or insufficient evidence.
Before
each appeal, there can be up to at least eleven retrials, after the
initial trial and initial trial after a successful appeal, but should have no
more than eleven of such retrials, before each appeal. The first ten of such
eleven retrial should be co-trial by a judge and a panel of at least twelve juries,
such trial should be led by the judge and whenever the judge and the juries gives
a different verdict, the case should be retrial, but if the judge and the juries gives
the same verdict, the verdict should stand, unless successfully appealed. The juries should
make their verdict first, after the juries announced their verdict to
the court and the judge, the judge should make his verdict. The verdict of
such retrial should be guilty, not guilty or insufficient evidence
The final retrial of such eleven retrial should be conducted by the Federal High Court, it should be co-trial be a panel of at least five judges and a panel of at least twelve juries, the five judges should elect one of the five judges to lead the trial, such elected judge, should lead the trial. The juries should make their verdict first, after the juries announced their verdict to the court and the panel of the five judges, the panel of the five judges should make their verdict. The verdict of such trial should be guilty, not guilty or insufficient evidence and if
1. The verdict of both the panel of five judges and the juries for the accuse is guilty, then the verdict for the accuse, should be guilty
2. The verdict of both the panel of five judges and the juries for the accuse is not guilty, then the verdict for the accuse, should be not guilty
3. The verdict for the accuse should be insufficient evidence if
a. the verdict of the panel of five judges is guilty, but the verdict of the juries is not guilty or insufficient evidence
b. the verdict of the panel of five judges is insufficient evidence, but the verdict of the juries is guilty or not guilty
c. the verdict of the panel of five judges is not guilty, but the verdict of the juries is guilty or insufficient evidence.
If the verdict is insufficient evidence, it should not be consider as the verdict for the accused is not guilty or guilty, but merely a verdict that conclude that there is insufficient evidence to make a guilty or not guilty decision.
All accuse should be consider to be innocent until proven guilty.
(M)
With the exception of soldiers
With the exception of soldiers
1. Such initial trial, initial trial after a successful appeal and such first two retrials should be held by the judicatory branch of the District where the offense was committed and if the offence was not committed within any District the trial shall be held by the judicatory branch of the Province such offense was committed and if the offence was not committed within any Province the trial shall be held by the judicatory branch of such State it was committed and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held by the Federal High Court.
2. Such third, fourth and fifth retrial should be held by the judicatory branch of the Federal District, State District or Province where the offense was committed and if the offence was not committed within any District or Province the trial shall be held by the judicatory branch of such State it was committed and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held by the Federal High Court.
3. Such sixth, seventh and eighth retrial should be held by the judicatory branch of the Federal District or State where the offense was committed and if the offence was not committed within any State or District the trial shall be held by the Federal High Court.
4. Such ninth, tenth and eleventh retrial should be held by the Federal High Court.
If the person who committed the offense is an Official or General Personnel of the Armed Force of the Commonwealth, the initial trial and first eight retrials should be held by the military court, the last three retrials should be held by the Federal High Court
Chapter Three Section
eighty of the constitution should no longer be used.
(M)
Police investigators not
properly investigating the case before making a person the accuse of a criminal
offense, can dramatically increase the chance of innocent people going to
prison and guilty people getting away for a crime he committed, this is
especially the case, if the police did not even investigate the case at all and
even more especially if the police not only did not properly investigate the
case or did not investigate the case at all, but is only interest in looking
for example and constructing opinions in favour of the believe of who they
concluded to be guilty and ignore all contradicting evidence, withhold all
contradicting evidence or sabotage the possible emergence of contradicting
evidence. This is both unfair and unjust for both the accuse if he is
innocent and the victim, as it mean, an innocent person is accuse of committing
a criminal offense and probably been found guilty for it, while the real guilty
party get away, due to the authority responsible for it, cannot be bother to
properly do his job.
Hence, to the best of the ability of this constitution to ensure the investigator has to the best of their ability properly investigated the case, a person can only be charged for criminal offense, by a public prosecutor of the Commonwealth or a State, District, Province or military court, but no person other than Officials and General Personnel of the Armed force can be charged by prosecutor of the military court, such prosecutor should be a member of the judicatory branch of the Commonwealth, military court or such State, District or Province. The public prosecutor can only charge a person for criminal offense, after the police, Jinyiwei or Government Monitoring Senior Committee or other organizations deem fit by the law to investigate the case, has investigate the case. Before the case can go to trial for criminal charges, the prosecutor need to provide the court with reports of the investigation of the case and the judge leading the trial must be satisfy all necessary investigation has been properly conducted and is been properly conducted to the level of satisfaction of such judge and all report of such investigation has been properly conducted and handed in to the court and is been properly conducted to the level of satisfaction of such judge, otherwise the judge can have the charges dismissed or order further investigation of the case, including ordering certain specific investigations, to allow the charges not to be dismissed.
If the judge leading the trial at any stage of the trial believe not all relevant investigation has been properly conducted or is not properly conducted to the level of satisfaction of the judge or the investigation report of such investigation handed in to the court is not properly conducted or is not properly conducted to the level of satisfactory of such judge, the judge can dismiss the charges or order further investigation of the case, including ordering certain specific investigations, for the charges not to be dismissed.
If the criminal charges been laid against the accuse, is in regards to murder or manslaughter the investigation report been handed in to the court must also include crime scene investigation reports and autopsy reports of the deceased, if either one of the two is missing, the judge leading the trial must be satisfy gaining access to conduct crime scene investigation or autopsy is not possible and the prosecutor has also to the best of his ability gain access to crime scene investigation reports and autopsy reports and a judge can order for the case to be re-investigated if such judge believe access to crime scene investigation or autopsy has become available, after the re-investigation has been order, if the accused already been found guilty of such criminal offense is not again been charged for such criminal offense, within three years, the decision of the previous trial that found him guilty of such criminal offense should be null and the charges against him should be dropped, if such person is again been charged for such criminal offense, there should be a re-trial and decision of such trial should replace the decision of the previous trial.
In regards to missing
person, the policy of the Commonwealth should be "To find the missing
person dead or alive" (活要見人死要見屍策略). The missing person case should remain open regardless of
circumstances until the missing person has been found dead or alive. This is
because just because a person is assumed dead it does not mean he is dead and
even if the person is assumed murder and a person has been charged and found
guilty of the murder, it does not necessary mean such person been found guilty
is the killer or if such person assumed murder is dead and such person assumed
murder might for example still be alive and is been kidnapped and is been
locked away in a dungeon as a sex slave, by a third party completely unrelated
to the person that has been charged and found guilty for murdering her, thus,
making it a great unjust for both the missing person and the person in prison
for her murder, while the person who kidnapped her and is locking her in
a dungeon as a sex slave is getting away for such crime. Even worse if a
corrupt investigator took bribe from criminal organization and charged a
man for murdering his attractive looking young wife for the insurance money, to
cover for the criminal organization, whom kidnap and sold the wife into
underground sex trafficking and the jury found the husband guilty of murder,
not only is it a great unjust for this couple, but what would make it an even
greater unjust, is if the policy of the police is to stop looking for her
afterwards, considering, if the missing person case remain open, by another
unrelated police investigator, then at least it is possible that the wife could
be found and rescue from sex trafficking and her husband would be release from
prison for her murder.
This is especially considering there have been cases of people been charged and found guilty of murder within the Commonwealth, with little or no evidence and sometime such little evidences are highly circumstantial evidences and later it found out the person thought to be murder, is not even dead, but a missing person assumed dead, but is in fact very much alive.
(N)
No comments:
Post a Comment