-under construction-

It will take some time to bring up all my suggestions and proposals and copy/paste together the good ideas from other threads/posts - Please gimme time unitl friday!

I'll bump this thread up once I'm done.... :bump:

I created this thread since it was somehow proposed in another thread and because this branch will be a very powerful one... In fact, IMHO it will be a major challenge to balance the branches of our government powerwise... I'll try to emphasize on the way HOW this branch should work. Input will be greatly appreciated (please post here and I'll edit the first post then - no need to copy things from the "constitution"-thread: I'll take care of this...).

I'm not a lawyer and I'm new to DG so please be patient AND gentle! :D

Getting back to you!
Stilgar

Lets keep it the same, Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender... That works quite well... Infact don't change anything about the Judiciary from last game, if it ain't broke don't fix it
There is no need to balance the branches imo, if someone wants alot of power they can run for president

I agree with keeping the judiciary mostly the same, but was waiting for someone else to say it. ;)

We do want to "sanitize" the judiciary by splitting the laws regarding it into two sections, the non-changing part in the Constitution and the changing part (if any) in the Code of Laws.

I agree with keeping the judiciary mostly the same, but was waiting for someone else to say it. ;)

We do want to "sanitize" the judiciary by splitting the laws regarding it into two sections, the non-changing part in the Constitution and the changing part (if any) in the Code of Laws.
also we should have the third tier(like in the last game) which allows the Judiciary to define how it operates, as long as their procedures don't violate the constitution or code of laws, this is was very nice last game...

i think they should just have 3 judges. no need for the titles, they are unneccesary

It's all well and good to say let's keep them the same and all that, but before I can or would agree to that I need to know what it was like it in the past. Will someone please explain it to me and all the other new people?

-the Wolf

We have tried two major judiciary systems in the past:


Chief Justice (organizes the court), Judge Advocate (prosecution attorney), Public Defender (defense attorney)
Chief Justice (organizes the court), 2 Associate Justices (general purpose members of the court), with appointed per-case prosecutor and defense attorney The court's proceedings have been organized in three different ways


Specific procedures laid out in the law
Specific procedures set by the court, term by term
No specific procedures Decision making of the court has been organized in several different ways (this is a multiple choice list because various DGs have seen various combinations of these ideas)

Separate citizen forum discussion thread for all matters
Discussion held in the Judiciary government thread, except for trials and special items
Justices banned from commenting on cases other than their official rulings vs Justices allowed to discuss rulings
Formal proceedings on all questions vs Informal rulings on obvious points of law
Anonymous complaints allowed vs no anonymous complaints allowed
Allowing complaintant and defendent to come to an out of court settlement instead of going to trial General duties the court has had for all / most previous games

Interpreting questions of law, especially where laws were too vague or different sections said different things about the same concept
Reviewing new laws to ensure they don't conflict with existing laws
Determining if there is enough evidence that a law has been broken to proceed to trial
Conductin a trial / mediation on issues where there is sufficient evidence
Declaring government members absent and their offices vacant
Appoint a President if the office becomes vacant and there is no Vice President, or if there are no accepted nominations for the position
Determining and posting the census in cases where a quorum is required for some actions
Posting official polls for amendments to the law Ideas for things the judiciary could do which got consideration but didn't actually get implemented (as far as I can remember)

Interpreting whether instructions by officials to the DP are valid
Compelling an official to change instructions which are not valid
Determining which instruction prevails when multiple officials post conflicting instructions on the same area
Replacing / overriding instructions which are found to be invalid
Determining validity of elections

also we should have the third tier(like in the last game) which allows the Judiciary to define how it operates, as long as their procedures don't violate the constitution or code of laws, this is was very nice last game.

Not that i had anything against the procedures that were used, i think we should have them written down in law.

Not that i had anything against the procedures that were used, i think we should have them written down in law.
that makes them hard to change

i think they should just have 3 judges. no need for the titles, they are unneccesary
that was horrible when we did it! the problem was CC investigations... With the new system they take 10 days max, with that old system we first had to find a prosecutor and defendant lawyer, which sometimes took weeks or never happened, and the entire judiciary stalled

The system we have currently works fine. I would not allow anonymous CCs, I would keep the titles, the CC system, make all rulings 'formal', all discussion as it is currently... in short: what we have works.

I agree with Black_Hole and Ginger_Ale.

Ok then, but why all the fuss about the Judiciary branch in the constitution-thread???

Oh, and btw: Keep it as it is
is not at all a fresh start and nobody said it's fine that way before...

Yeah, you're right: I'm huffy now... ;)

Which of the 2 mentioned ways do you want to keep then?

Cheers, Stilgar.

P.S.: (Maybe it should be a poll?) Otherwise mods could close this thread anyway...

P.P.S.: I'm glad I checked this page before starting to REALLY work on it (just copied/pasted so far) :rolleyes:

Since no compelling reason came up to change things, I'll go ahead and write the constitution section based on what we've used in Civ3, with a Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender system. A lower form of law may specify judicial procedures, or may require the judiciary to create its own procedures.

I am idiot and never got around to this thread like I said I would. There is one stipulation I would like: that one may choose their own defense counsel, if they so choose. The elected advocated may not like the defendant.

-the Wolf

I am idiot and never got around to this thread like I said I would. There is one stipulation I would like: that one may choose their own defense counsel, if they so choose. The elected advocated may not like the defendant.

-the Wolf
I believe that has always been the rule. The PD takes over until the Defendant arranges for counsel. It's only fair.

I believe that has always been the rule. The PD takes over until the Defendant arranges for counsel. It's only fair.

Thanks for correcting me, I had no clue.

-the Wolf

Judiciary
The Judicial Branch will consist of the Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate.
These three justices are tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations.
The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.
Justices are responsible for at least the following tasks.
The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.
The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes.
The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.
A lower form of law may specify judicial procedures and standards for the conduct of Judicial Reviews and Citizen Complaints. If the law does not define such procedures, then the responsibility for setting procedures is granted to the Judiciary, with the consent of the people.