Term 3 Judiciary

mhcarver · Oct 3, 2004

As is stated by the honerable CJ Gert-Janl a settler cannot be included in the instructions of the defense minister and a galley is not a domestic minister. But I believe that the military minister should have full control of galleys. Therefore, control of galleys regardless of their cargo goes to the military minister.
-mhcarver

ravensfire · Oct 3, 2004

I've got a different suggestion for the sentencing options - one that's a bit more consistent and (personal opinion) fair.

[pre]J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll
is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence,
the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. The options should be arranged in order from most severe to least, and listed above
in J.1
4. A vote for an option is consider approval of that option, and all less severe options.
5. The sentence will be the most severe option that a majority of voters approve of.
Example: Option A has 8 votes, Option B has 4 votes, Option C has 9 votes,
Option D has 10 votes and Option E has 1 vote, for a total of 32 votes.
Option A is approved by 8 voters, B by 12 voters (8+4), C by 21 voters
(8+4+9), D by 31 (8+4+9+10) and E by 32 voters (8+4+9+10+1). The
sentence chosen is C, as it is the most severe sentence that a majority
of citizens approve of.
6. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.
[/pre]

This system allows citizens to vote for their preference, for the most severe sentence they approve of, without fearing that they are "throwing their vote away". For example, if 2 options have 9 votes each, and they prefer a more severe option (which has no votes) that those two option, there would be a feeling of a wasted vote. Under this system, no vote is wasted, and the collective will of the people is determined.

-- Ravensfire

Sir Donald III · Oct 3, 2004

The only problem I see with your suggestion, Ravensfire, is at the top. There are some times I feel that Impeachment from office would be an improper Sentence, while "Moderator Action" would be perfectly Reasonable. And vice versa. The former usually deals with breaking a rule as a Citizen (i.e. posting in an Investigation thread before the PD or the accussed) while the latter would be abuses of power (i.e. altering a build queue w/o permission.) And there may be the rare instance when both Impeachment and Mod action are appropriate.

Now, if I think that for an offence where an Officer violated procedures in a way that is not an abuse of power, and that I think that Mod action is needed, but not a full impeachemnt, then I would have to debate as to whether to impeach a guy for a Citizen's Mistake, or else let someone off with a Warning when I feel that the Mods need to sanction that person as well...

Of course, we can also have all Elected Officials per term take an "Oath of Office" which would include a promise to do their best to follow and enforce all laws of Japanatica. Then, if there's an action severe enough to warrent Mod Action, I can also rest easy in impeaching that person as he/she violated an Oath of Office.

KCCrusader · Oct 3, 2004

Cyc said:
And this of course would be a true sign of a Kangaroo Kourt. "Let's change the rules after the game has started! That way we're sure to win! Won't that be fun?"

The current procedures give no indication as to HOW a sentencing poll passes. Plurality? Majority? Unanimity?

If you think this court could let an impeachment (or even a no punishment) stand with only 1/3 of the citizens supporting it, think again.

Cyc · Oct 3, 2004

Well, Sir KCCrusader. YOUR approved procedures state the defendant must comply with the results of the poll. YOU can bend and twist the rules of the court if you want, but that would be the same as one of the defendant's fellow Mods coming in to stop the Court action through Moderatoe Action. Totally unfair. As precedence, take any other poll that does not have specific parameters attached to it, or is declared a preliminary poll. When you look at the "results" of the poll, can you enter in your personal feelings in interpreting the winner of the poll? If there is a clear winner, meaning one option received more votes than another, then NO, you can't. In a crooked game with crooked rules, you could say "Well, this option won, but I feel we need to change the winning option to this, as my judgement is better than yours". I know you don't have any difficulty reading, but you spend way too much time determining the facts. You must be smoking some good stuff.

Go ahead and make your claim, that you are above the rules. It will probably be a futile move any way. You're just going to make yourself look bad.

Strider · Oct 3, 2004

I must oppose the ratification of this courts procedures, it is lacking, and needs SEVERE changes. It does not say what shall happen if a Judicial member is CC, and fails and several other major points, also.

The Court Procedures shows a severe lack of thinking, and I must request that the Judicial correct the many mistakes. I will have a summary of many soon.

JackA · Oct 3, 2004

This Judical office is a bunch of cowards who dare to insult CT!

Moderator Action: JackA - warned. Stop being personal and insulting people. Final warning - Rik

Nobody · Oct 3, 2004

JackA - contempt of court.

Strider · Oct 3, 2004

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

It says this inside of our constitution, no need to repeat ourselves.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities.
A. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
B. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
C. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable to fulfil their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
F. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
G. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

This should not be here, you need to push for the duties of the Justices to be solidified into the constitution. I would also recommend fighting for the right to have a deputy for two main reasons:

1) If a Justice goes missing
2) If a Justice is the one being CCed

However, I do not believe that a Justice should be aloud to choose there own deputies. Maybe make say the Chief Justice choose the Judge Advocates deputy, the Judge Advocate choose the Public Defenders deputy, and the Public Defender choose the Chief Justices deputy. There are many possible ways, I'm sure you can think of something.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position, as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

One person SHOULD NOT beable to possibly act as the whole judiciary. Everything else, is okay.

4. Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocence of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount an effective defence.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

It's okay, seems lacking, give me a few hours and I'll think of something that should be added or changed.

5. Judge Advocate
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonymous accusers.

I do not believe the Judge Advocate should be tasked with these duties, see my thread in the Citizens forum over Article F. A link to the discussion is here.

All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.

So short, you can't really go wrong on this one.

7 Judicial Review.
A.quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request will be included in the Courts Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The existing Law must be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request will be included in the Courts Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".

Lacks in any information or data on how a judicial review, or an investigation, over the fairness of a trial should be held. The only thing it handles is the clearification of the constitution. Oh, sure Section 10 says alittle bit about it, but does not define how it should be handled.

8. Citizens Complain ~
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Courts Docket
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above) to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for a brief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
3. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

A1 and A2 can be combined, and should be combined.

Section F1 instead of being handled publicly, needs to be done in private. Both the defense and prosecution submit a PM to the Judge Advocate, stating there case. They are then added into the thread, which is opened to the public, and the defense and prosecution is also allowed to reply to eachothers cases.

Section I There should be no time limit on an investigation, it should just simply state "48 hours after the discussion has petered out, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial Poll."

KCCrusader · Oct 3, 2004

Cyc, as the voting stands now (IMpeach:10,FW:3,Warning:9,No Punishment:12) would you be comfortable giving CT No Punishment?

I would not. I'm not putting personal feelings into this topic. Im just stating an obvious fact that 34% of the population should not get to choose the appropriate action. The meaning of democracy insinuates a majority. 34% is not a majority. There is a statistical 3 way tie right now.

I am saying that as the vote stands RIGHT NOW (could change) I support splitting the difference of severity and issuing a warning. Right now there is very little chance I would support either extreme (Impeach or nothing).

Cyc · Oct 3, 2004

KCCrusader said:
Cyc, as the voting stands now (IMpeach:10,FW:3,Warning:9,No Punishment:12) would you be comfortable giving CT No Punishment?

As I stated in my last post, "It will probably be a futile move any way." At the time I wrote that it appeared my choice for a sentance would not win in the poll. And that is why I wrote that. You people want to pull a move that should only come from a Dictatorship or some other lobby-controlled type Judiciary and change the rule mid-stream. That's your choice. Make yourself look like Darth Vader.

What I wrote means that you may not need to do this, as "Warning" or "No Punishment" may win the poll, and you may be humiliating the Court for no reason.

So the poll result I wanted doesn't win. So what? It's what the people choose. Just because the option I chose doesn't win, doesn't mean I should cheat. That's what this CC is all about. Or have we lost sight of that? :rolleyes:

gert-janl · Oct 3, 2004

The court reckonises the need for reviewing its procedures concerning CCs. We'll start this discussion as soon as CC#1 is closed. So Strider, we'll get back to you.

Cyc: noone is cheating, not now, and definitely not in the future. Let's wait the final results of the sentencing poll, before already insulting this Judiciary.
Order! :hammer:

Black_Hole · Oct 3, 2004

gert-janl said:
The court reckonises the need for reviewing its procedures concerning CCs. We'll start this discussion as soon as CC#1 is closed. So Strider, we'll get back to you.

Cyc: noone is cheating, not now, and definitely not in the future. Let's wait the final results of the sentencing poll, before already insulting this Judiciary.
Order!

Mr CJ:
Could you please clarify whether we are using the poll winner or a median/math formula to figure out the poll winner?

Thanks for your time

gert-janl · Oct 4, 2004

The Court will announce its interpretation of the poll results after the poll is closed. I understand that people already want to know how to read the poll results, but in the interest of the rights of the accused ánd the well-being of our Mods we won't publish it yet.

gert-janl · Oct 4, 2004

Jury's Verdict DG5CC#1
President Chieftess has been found guilty by the Japanatican people for violating article D of the constitution.

More specificially, she is has been found guilty, during the Sept. 26, 2004 Turn 170 A.D. Turn Chat, of violating legally posted orders of the Province of Zarnia's Deputy Governor RegentMan. The President, according to the people, set the city of Zojoji to build a swordsman, rather than the stated instruction to build a colosseum.

CJ's Verdict DG5CC#1

The people have judged that the accused has not followed an legal instruction. This is a violation of article D of the constitution. Violating the constitution should never be unpunished. In the light of upholding the Constitution, a task of the Judiciary, as provided in article F, the CJ dismisses the sentence no punishment.

During the tense discussion of the jury, several speakers rose the point of possible conspiracies, or the possibility of the accused to follow her own agenda, without taking guidance of her officials, a condition set by Constitutional article D.
The CJ will not take into account any crimes committed by any ancestors of the accused and henceforth dismisses the crime of either a conspiracy, either a hidden agenda, due to a lack of evidence.

The CJ takes note of several citizens suggesting how to interpret sentencing poll results. We have seen most of all references to a system used for CCs/PIs in DG3. A good summary is made by ravensfire & Donovan Zoi, in the judicial discussions. This system results in a Warning for this CC.

Considering that no-punishment is too light for a crime against the Constitution, and impeachment from office too severe for a first time crime, and taking note of the DG3 interpretation of sentencing polls system, the CJ comes to the conclusion that a Warning is an appropriate sentence for the accused.

Black_Hole · Oct 4, 2004

gert-janl said:
Jury's Verdict DG5CC#1
President Chieftess has been found guilty by the Japanatican people for violating article D of the constitution.

More specificially, she is has been found guilty, during the Sept. 26, 2004 Turn 170 A.D. Turn Chat, of violating legally posted orders of the Province of Zarnia's Deputy Governor RegentMan. The President, according to the people, set the city of Zojoji to build a swordsman, rather than the stated instruction to build a colosseum.

CJ's Verdict DG5CC#1

The people have judged that the accused has not followed an legal instruction. This is a violation of article D of the constitution. Violating the constitution should never be unpunished. In the light of upholding the Constitution, a task of the Judiciary, as provided in article F, the CJ dismisses the sentence no punishment.

During the tense discussion of the jury, several speakers rose the point of possible conspiracies, or the possibility of the accused to follow her own agenda, without taking guidance of her officials, a condition set by Constitutional article D.
The CJ will not take into account any crimes committed by any ancestors of the accused and henceforth dismisses the crime of either a conspiracy, either a hidden agenda, due to a lack of evidence.

The CJ takes note of several citizens suggesting how to interpret sentencing poll results. We have seen most of all references to a system used for CCs/PIs in DG3. A good summary is made by ravensfire & Donovan Zoi, in the judicial discussions. This system results in a Warning for this CC.

Considering that no-punishment is too light for a crime against the Constitution, and impeachment from office too severe for a first time crime, and taking note of the DG3 interpretation of sentencing polls system, the CJ comes to the conclusion that a Warning is an appropriate sentence for the accused.

i would like to correct you in that she broke article d, but actually she broke article D twice, first by not following the deputies prefferred winner of the poll(and it tied), not giving the culture minister opputrtuninty to break the tie, and then finally switching from a colloseum to swordsman

just wanted to make sure you knew the entire picture

gert-janl · Oct 4, 2004

Whatever happened, what you are stating now is not included in the official accusation, as formulated by former JA Octavian X.
The trial poll was only about these charges, and the jury found the accused guilty of these charges.

Therefore these extra charges were not taken into consideration when determining the punishment.

Cyc · Oct 4, 2004

Anticipation

an·tic·i·pa·tion [ an tìssi páyshn ]

noun

1. expectant waiting: the feeling of looking forward, usually excitedly or eagerly, to something that is going to happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8.J.3 ~ In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.

mhcarver · Oct 4, 2004

with a three way tie I am forced to decide between three options

No Punishment-sorry, this is to little in my mind

Impeachment--I do not believe their was enough support for this, and that the punishment may not fit the crime , this is to much and will cause to much uproar

Warning--This is in my mind the best option, as it condemns the president for her actions and doesn't let her get off

Therefore I rule that the President Chieftess will receive a warning. Though the Public Defender has not ruled this brings the matter of People V Chieftess to close. this has been a trying time for all of us as tempers have flared high, lets cool down, People of Japanatica, let us be countrymen again. :beer:

-Mhcarver
Office of the Judge Advocate

Cyc · Oct 4, 2004

Actually, nothing has been ruled yet, as according to Court Procedure 8.J.3 ...

"...the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll."

Niether of the Opinions posted by the two Justices has been posted at the end of the Sentancing Poll. Without that, according to Court Procedure, the above is just discussion.

Term 3 Judiciary

Newspaper Mogul

Member of the Opposition

Emperor

Defending the Holy Land

Looking for the door...

In Retrospect

Master Trainer

Gangster

In Retrospect

Defending the Holy Land

Looking for the door...

Alive!!!

Deity

Alive!!!

Alive!!!

Deity

Alive!!!

Looking for the door...

Newspaper Mogul

Looking for the door...

Similar threads