Castigation
Synod Judgement
Overview
The Synod is responsible for more than just investigating those whose virtue falls short - the Imperial Constitution calls on it to ensure that the behaviour of individual citizens does not debase the Empire. The Synod has three different judgements that can be used to punish those it deems a risk in this regard, they are castigation, revocation and writ of Excommunication. The latter two are usually seen as the more weighty, due to the legal consequences associated with them, but castigation can be used to call out lesser misdeeds without invoking immediate consequence.
Castigation was part of a suite of changes implemented by the stormcrow Jorma Steelhail to expand the options available to the Synod. The Senate agreed to expand the scope of the Synod's powers in line with the demands made by the Synod.
A judgement of castigation indicates that the target is believed by the assembly to be guilty of unvirtuous deeds and nature and is formally rebuked for them.
Judgement
The must state who is being castigated and what action or actions they are being called out for. The judgement must individually name each person being castigated. A judgement may only name more than one individual if they are members of the same oathsworn band - either a banner, sect, or coven at the time the judgement is raised. Castigation should only be used in this way, where members of the band acted together in unison on the thing they are being castigated for.
A castigation may be raised by any assembly of the Synod. When the judgement is raised in a national assembly, it may only be used to castigate members of that nation. The virtue assemblies may castigate anyone - but they are expected to focus their judgement on matters concerning their virtue.
Any castigation requires a lesser majority to pass.
A tree is known by its fruit, not by its leaves.
Marcher ProverbOutcome
A successful judgement of castigation will be noted and recorded in the official Synod records, but it is the responsibility of the priest who brought the judgement to ensure that all are aware of the outcome.
Legal Consequences
Castigation can be very important from a legal perspective. A defendant at trial may plead clemency if they can find a priest to put their case for them. In theory no priest will plead clemency on someone's behalf unless they genuinely believe that that person has acted virtuously - in practice the Synod is large with many members with disparate political views and even the most heinous criminal may find someone prepared to stand for them.
Castigation gives the Synod a tool to help weigh in on such pleas. It has no legal impact on any related trial - but it will usually be taken into account by any magistrate trying a case. It is significantly harder for a citizen to submit a plea of clemency if they have been castigated for their actions. Castigation by a virtue assembly usually carries more weight than that of a national assembly, if the virtue is relevant to the clemency plea. If a Virtue assembly castigates someone with a greater majority then it makes it almost impossible for a citizen to successfully plead that Virtue in their defence, unless the priest representing them presents a truly exceptional plea. A successful judgement by the General Assembly is likely to carry at least as much weight, if not more so.
Inquisition
A priest who conducts an inquisition may choose to escalate the inquisition to a castigation if they believe it is appropriate. To do this they submit a new judgement of castigation for consideration by the Synod. This judgement does not count against the limit of one judgement per priest per summit, provided it is submitted by the same priest who submitted the judgement of inquisition and to the same Assembly. It must not name a new target not named in the inquisition; it may use less names than the original inquisition, but it may not add a new name to the list.
Further Reading
Core Reading
Click Expand to see a summary of judgements and other pages related to the SYnod.