We have appointed justices, we as in the clan leaders, in hopes of finding a suitable means to allow those that deserve a second chance be allowed back into society. This is not to say, there have not been attempts to corrupt this system of justices. On the contrary there have been a few justices, even in my day, that have been, lets say "Shady" in their dealings. Yet even with this justice has still prevailed.

Is it the clan leaders responsibility to make the policy of the Justices? This question has plagued us for some time now. The clan should, nor be allowed, to set policy on the handling of outlaws. We have appointed our voices of reasoning, knowing they are capable and shall fulfill their duties. After all, if you don't trust the one you appointed, why put them into such a position?

This council was formed as a neutral body. Being made up of one member from each clan, yet still able to walk the middle ground which clouds so many of us at times. A clan's views are often seen entering the fray of a trial, but must be put aside for the simple reason that most of the time they have little bearing on the case. For example, one outlaw being denied pardon due to his affiliation with another clan. Albeit there are special cases and circumstances.

Yet one fact remains and is clearly evident. Regardless of who or what case is heard. The outlaw, already having committed a crime against clan laws or morally known to be considered wrong acts against a person or persons. They are currently being punished for these. Is is the Justices place, purpose and cause to decide if these outlaws have learned and repented for their lawbreaking.

*Noble's Seal* Daggath Greenleaf Quinthalas, King of [NOBLE]


.