In response to several comments made in my last post...

[callistotoni]

...as well as mastersantiago' most recent post, I have the following to say:

I -- and I strongly suspect most of you, my readers -- have no data currently available that supports the idea that Their Majesties bear any ill-will towards Ysabella, or that the Exile was done maliciously. All I/we know is that somehow the SCA Seneschal received accusations against Ysabella from persons or persons, and that the SCA Seneschal [edited correcton] *recommended* that this Exile be leveled. According to the available data, SCA process was followed in that Ysabella was duly notified before the Exile was implemented, and that the SCA has 10 days to inform Ysabella what the specific charges are. As mastersantiago has said, the best thing we can all do is to not speculate or spread rumors. Truth will out, I am sure.

This specific incident aside, however, I am deeply troubled by the following general observation, namely, that SCA Corporate has demonstrated that it can, according to the rules, punish an individual before that individual has been given the opportunity to respond to charges made against them. This gives me the creeps.

Of course, in cases where local civil or criminal law has been violated, those cases are (or at least should be!) handed over to those authorities and worked out in a court of law. I would argue, however, that people are still innocent until proven guilty in our country, and that that the SCA should withhold punishment until such an individual is convicted of a crime.

But what this event is telling me so far is that I can be accused of something serious enough to merit punishment by the SCA (underwater basketweaveing with minors!) but not serious enough that it merits the attention of civil authorities or law enforcement, and that I can be punished before I know exactly what I'm being accused of, who is accusing me, and before I have had a fair opportunity to defend myself. Once this specific incident (i.e. Ysabella's exile) is resolved I plan to write some letters to the BoD arguing for a more fair process; one where individuals are, indeed, presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Comments

[bonacorsi.livejournal.com]

I'm with you all the way on this. I have been on edge since this whole thing started. I do not feel safe in the SCA. I feel like if it can happen to her, it could happen to me. The SCA was my safe place to land, all of a sudden it's about covering my ass. This whole thing makes me sick.

The last exile that I remember was Robert of I-can't-remember-the-name. By the time any action was done by the SCA, there were very few who didn't see it coming. There should to be a way that the Royals can request a review of a situation by the BoD *before* such sanctions are made. Right now it's convict before acquit and that just asks for abuse.

I also believe that anything that warrants a banishment this severe aught to have gone to the civil authorities. If it doesn't warrant the authorities, it doesn't warrant an exile, and even then, only after a conviction.

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

"Robert of I-can't-remember-the-name" was Robert of Westmarch who was banished for (among other complaints) drinking at Dry Sites. IIRC, his banishment was no surprise because two sets of west crowns asked for people to write letters to the BoD about his behavior.

[lifeofglamour.livejournal.com]

THis was the Society Seneschal's work, not the royalty? I hadn't heard that. That is extremely troubling.

[mad-duchess.livejournal.com]

Even if so, I fail to see how that absolves the Royalty of speaking with Ysabella before taking the action so that it did not drop like the bombshell it did. It's not like They didn't know it was coming, and it's not like she was unreachable on tour in the wilds of Amazonia at the time. Poor form.

[hunrvogt.livejournal.com]

If it helps I think of this step not so much as a conviction, but more as an indictment/impeachment. An investigation was done, evidence pointed to a need for incarceration (banishment), and the accused will be given a chance to answer the charges (mundanely the Prosecution has some time to turn over the evidence too). Those involved in the original investigation don't get to talk to the media - on some levels it's not all that different than the mundane legal system.

When this situation resolves somewhat I do look forward to seeing your suggestions on improving the system. Having been involved with marshallate sanctions in a couple of areas, I have seen (heard about me) many of these same complaints on a *much* smaller scale - I for one would love any ideas that streamline the system while taking into account all stakeholders and objectives.

[callistotoni.livejournal.com]

>>If it helps I think of this step not so much as a conviction, but more as an indictment/impeachment....Having been involved with marshallate sanctions in a couple of areas, I have seen (heard about me) many of these same complaints on a *much* smaller scale...

I'm afraid this doesn't make me feel any better; in fact it makes me feel worse because it says to me that Guilty Until Proven Innocent is SOP in the SCA. Again, I'm not talking about actions by individuals that break civil law. If that is true than those cases should be handed over to the appropriate authorities. This also appears to counter what I thought our SCA grievance process it.
As to an idea, what is wrong with informing the accused of the charges before the investigation begins? Then they have a chance to tell their side of the story/produce evidence at the same time as the prosecution? This seems to me like it would save time immediately by bringing the apparently current proactice of 2 trials (one in absentia and one where the accused can defend themselves) down to one (where both sides present their case to an impartial arbater/jury/whatever).

[hunrvogt.livejournal.com]

Well, there are certainly folks out there that are less than enamored of the grand jury/indictment process, so you aren't alone.

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

From a marshallate perspective (and speaking only from a marshallate perspective), the warning thing is interesting.

In many cases, candidates miss that the repeated conversations and emails from marshals are indeed verbal and written warnings that if left unheaded could lead to more severe sanction. On other cases, I've seen marshals very clearly state that these conversations and emails should be construed as verbal and written warnings that might be a prelude to sanction.

In the first case the candidates say they had no idea that their behavior was viewed as problematic. In the second, the marshals get accused of bullying and abuse of power. I tend to think the reality is that no one likes being investigated (and I don't blame them) and any process is going to produce complaints that can't be fully addressed (that doesn't mean there isn't some room for improvement).

Now maybe, there needs to be a form of "bail" that could be introduced into the system, to make the punative results less severe. On the other hand, the more complex any process becomes, the greater need for oversight, the more people that need to be involved, the more opportunities for things to break.

[syrwolf.livejournal.com]

I suggest that you revisit the whole episode regarding Count Aveloc in An Tir. This sounds much like how the SCA proceeded in that matter. In the end, He was R&D'd from the SCA without anything close to a fair hearing. And the SCA ended up paying out a settlement when he filed mundane civil changes against the SCA.

Throwing the whole issue of whether the SCA is or is not justified in its action towards members, the EXILE/R&D process needs to be totally reworked to provide fairness and openness to the process.

I hope it all works out, but given the way the SCA tends to act. I doubt it.

Syr Garan

[ppfuf.livejournal.com]

No shit, really? I didn't think anyone has successfully sued the SCA over an R&D. Do you know if Aveloc sued in Califorina or Oregon?

[acanthusleaf.livejournal.com]

I've thought some more about my own initial horrified reaction to this event, and most of it comes from living in Caid through the entire Dirk episode. He was an individual that IMO needed to go away long, long before he did. He physically and emotionally injured many, many people. We had the advantage that lots of the injuries happened on the field, and the marshalls quickly learned to document everything. He was caught drinking at a dry site and lost Caid the use of that site. He was king at the time, and to my knowledge there were no consequences to him from that. He and his minions duct-taped some poor guy to a tree at a war and left him there for someone else to find and rescue. (these are just a couple of random things I remember from a long saga) This was a real problem person, and it took *years* of him ignoring the gradually increasing official sanctions to get him R&D'd. He had to get drunk at an event and *threaten a child* before final action was taken.

I have a real big problem with misusing powers of banishment when other sanctions have not been attempted first, because when we really need those powers I don't want them diluted further.

I too was unaware that this action had come from the Society Seneschale rather than from our Crown. I agree with whoever its was in another thread that suggested that lack of transparency might very well lead to more lawsuits than declaring the charges up front. As I understand it, the SCA Inc. gets lawsuits filed against it on a very regular basis. People are going to sue when they feel wronged, but it doesn't mean that they win, and even when they have won, it has not brought the organization down yet. I am more concerned about our official procedures being fundamentally fair to all parties.

[khalja.livejournal.com]

Odd. If the Society Seneschal was involved, I would have thought that she would have used her adminitrative sanction powers (which is what I thought they were created for) rather than create a situation where the West Crown has to shoulder the back lash.

I, too, have grave concerns over how due process seems to have been skipped. This entire situation is deeply disturbing.

Correction

[roswtr.livejournal.com]

No, it was not the Society Seneschal's decision. Per Corpora, only the King and Queen have the authority to banish somebody. The reason the Society Seneschal and the BoD are involved is that any banishment above a Level 1 (banishment from the Royal Presence) is automatically referred to the BoD for review.

Due process was not overlooked.

Re: Correction

[callistotoni.livejournal.com]

Replied privately.

Thank you Rose!

[lifeofglamour.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that clarification - I was confused because I didn't think a banishment and exile was a motion that the Soc Sen could/would take and hearing that this had started there was confusing and troubling. so again, thanks for the clarification, as being half a world away is making things very confusing.

Bannishments

[valgards.livejournal.com]

are the great Achilles heel of the SCA. The way our society is set up there are two power structures, one of which has symbolic authority (the Crown) one of which has legal authority (the BoD). The BoD is made of entirely and exclusively of long-time members of the SCA, most of them peers, so they understand the symbolic authority of the Crown. However, they are told when they join the BoD that they are the legal authority and also have legal responsibility for the SCA, and this both emboldens them and makes them a bit paranoid, not that the SCA will revolt but that they might screw up and destroy the SCA through a mistake. It's a bad combination.

This is a banishment on which I have a specific opinion which is negative, but it was made by royalty to whom I am probably closer than I have been to any royalty I serve (my mom is queen), so I personally just want to go away and hide after expressing my opinion (which I have done to them in private correspondence).

My opinion on the general idea of banishment, however, is public:

NO one should be banished from the SCA unless one of two things has happened. Either (a) a formal court of chivalry has been called and found them guilty of actions detrimental to the kingdom or the SCA--this action should NEVER be initiated by the Board: or (b) felony charges directly involving the SCA or other SCA members have been brought against a member of the SCA--this action can and should be initiated by the Board, but such a banishment should not be automatic and should be temporary until the mundane legal issues are resolved, at which point further action may be taken. The Board should never initiate on its own any actions which could lead to an R&D. Only the crown should be able to do that.

In this case, whether they were advised to do so by the SocSen or not, it was the Crown who banished Ysabella. So far so good. However, no court of chivalry has been called that I know of. So far so bad.

Note I said Bannished from the SCA (R&D'd) not banished from the realm. The crown should have the authority to banish from the realm for any reason whatsoever, without offering an explaination. However, this level of banishment should only last the durration of the reign. That type of banishment from the realm no longer exists. Nowadays the banishment from the realm carries with it an automatic referal to the board for further actions/sanctions. This means that it is the BoD (and not the peers of the realm) who decide a persons fate, and because of the BoD's secrecy they do it in a star chamber with no recognizable due process--or at least none that we would consider just.

However, as a matter of law, nobody has a right to participate in the SCA. It is a private organization that can exclude members for any reason other than gender, racial, or disability bias, because those are the only three protected classes of people in the Unite States. Peers are not a protected class.