DG4 Discussion: Reforming the Judiciary

[Octavian X]

I bring up the subject of the judiciary in an attempt to reform in, to bring a fairer system of justice to the nation.

I believe that the current system is basically flawed. We ask two judges to make decisions in cases where they are practically biased, because they've been asked to defend two different sides of a case. All of them are elected each term, almost making them make popular decisions over the correct ones.

I propose a different system, to reduce bias for the benefit of all.

1. The Justices
- three, the most senior citizen being the Chief Justice
- elected to three month terms - allows decisions to be made without great fear of public backlash
- staggered: one justice elected every month - sake of rotation of justices
- term limited: only allowed one term during the entire game - gets 'new blood' on the bench

2. Additional powers
- by unanimous vote, may block unconstitutional decisions of leaders
- by unanimous vote, may halt gameplay to allow legal issues to be resolved.

3. Checks on Power
- If President or other two justices feel one is clearly abusing power, may call a vote of no-confidence to prevent justice from acting, and to launch a proper investigation.

4. Offices of the JA and PD
- mostly same as before
- elected monthly
- For legal purposes, deputies of Chief Justice. allows CJ to appoint new ones, and allows PD and JA to hold other offices (except for spot on bench)

Thoughts? Other proposals?

 

[Cyc]

So what you're saying is the first month we would have the 1st Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

The second month a new Justice would be elected to serve with the Chief Justice. This means 4 in the Judiciary.

The third month, a new Justice is elected to serve with the other two Justices.

The fourth month, the Chief Justice is forced to retire and a new Justice is elected. The second Justice elected then becomes the Chief Justice, and the rotation remains. The PD and the JA are re-elected each month?

Seems kind of complicated, Oct.

quoting Octavian X:
1. The Justices
- three, the most senior citizen being the Chief Justice
- elected to three month terms - allows decisions to be made without great fear of public backlash
- staggered: one justice elected every month - sake of rotation of justices
- term limited: only allowed one term during the entire game - gets 'new blood' on the bench
______________________________________

 

[Bootstoots]

Okay, I am for some of this proposal. I think having three Justices makes for a much better Judiciary, however I have some major changes to that to propose:

1. The Justices should be elected every month, not every three months. Assuming a six-term demogame, each Justice will be in office for half the game and will not be holding any other office during that time, and Judicial resignations may become common, which would throw off the staggering system. Also, there would be either an election of three Justices in Term 1, which would cause trouble both with the staggering system and the concept of seniority determining the Chief Justice, or a Judiciary that has only one Justice during Term 1 (as Cyc pointed out). In a one-month term system, the Justices could be determined in one of a few ways:
--There could be three separate elections, one for Chief Justice and two for the Associate Justice positions (I favor this option).
--There could be one large poll for everybody interested in becoming a Justice, with the top three runners becoming Justices, and the top candidate would become the Chief Justice.
--They could be appointed and confirmed somehow. (My least favorite option)
--Something I didn't think of.

2. I like both of the additional powers, but I think that it should be two of three Justices rather than a unanimous vote in the event that one of the Justices is not present at the time.

3. Looks good to me.

4. I think we should change this to make the JA an appointee of the Chief Justice and subject to an approval vote in a citizen poll, to make the office less official. Also, I think we should sack the position of PD as we know it now but allow the defendant in a PI to seek his own attorney.

How does this sound?

 

[Rik Meleet]

I think you're going the wrong way here, because the thought of what Judiciary is supposed to do is not properly worked out. In my opinion the Judiciary's task is fairly simple; it studies and decides on the topic: 'has person/official X done something illegal, described in the "rules" or not ?'

To determine these rules I follow Donsigs proposal that we start with very few rules and invite citizens to put oup bills or laws and we vote for them. Judiciary first has to decide whether these bills are "smart" (that is possibly restict us later in the game) and when these bills are excpted in a poll, see to that these laws are followed.

What I mean by "smart" is: a bill stating: "Don't go into French territory" is not smart; it limits us when:
A) we are in war with an opponent who is situated on the other side of France; we can't move for them without an illegal set of actions.
B) we are allied with France
c) we have an RoP with France
etc.

The Judiciary bench could instead propose: "Don't move military units into French territory without RoP, MPP or MA with France, or as long as we can get out of their territory in 1 turn, or as long France doesn't ask/demand us to leave".

This (although probably not complete) allows us some freedom, but blocks, by law, a war with France. So it should be, perhaps "Don't move military units into French territory without RoP, MPP or MA with France, or as long as we can get out of their territory in 1 turn, or as long France doesn't ask/demand us to leave, or we have no deals/agreements with Frnace other than war."

An essestial part of this is that no law can 'destroy' a previously accepted law. If we make a law stating: "China is not to be attacked" than there is no way we can attack China, ever. If we go to war with China, ever, it can only be a defensive war as we blocked ourselves from attacking China. Even if we accept a law stating: "We are allowed to capture Chinese cities"; it is not allowed by the first accepted law: "China is not to be attacked".

In my point of view Judiciary should first evaluate law-proposals (bills) before they go to a vote on their "smartness" (not content), and secondly whether (proposed) actions are allowed or not.

That way it makes it clear to everyone if a move is allowed / forbidden or not.

 

[Bootstoots]

I have to disagree with you, Rik.

There should never be any laws stating something like "Don't go into China" or anything similar. Those are the domain of the respective leaders as backed up by citizen polls as needed to post into the turnchat instruction thread.

In addition, the Judicial bench should not be proposing things like that; that is again the task of the respective leaders. A member of the Judiciary may, however, independently post a new law proposal for something procedural that should have a law in place. I also don't think the Judiciary should have the power to check to make sure that bills are "smart" though they should use Judicial Reviews to check for conflicts with other laws. Whether the law is "smart" should be up to the people to decide.

Also, regarding this:

To determine these rules I follow Donsigs proposal that we start with very few rules and invite citizens to put oup bills or laws and we vote for them. Judiciary first has to decide whether these bills are "smart" (that is possibly restict us later in the game) and when these bills are excpted in a poll, see to that these laws are followed.

We tried to have a small ruleset this game, and it was basically a failure; the only laws that were passed had to do almost entirely with PI's.

 

[Sarevok]

I think this is a good idea, bias is never aq good thing.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

This is an interesting concept, and one we should explore thoroughly. Let me catch up here.....

Octavian

1. If we were to adopt a system like this(or similar), I think it would be only fair for an accused citizen to appoint his own council. The three judges and JA(Prosecutor? DA?) could still be elected by the people.

For judges, I would recommend no more than two-month terms, with all justices being re-upped at the same time.

2. I don't see how the justices would be able to act on your proposed situations unless all three are present at the turnchat. If they are reacting to delay the chat due to an ongoing legal crisis in the forums, this idea could work. For the record, I am all for similar checks and balances within the three branches. Keep 'em coming.

3. I like this idea as well.

4. Once again, if we were to adopt a three-justice system, I think it would only be fair that a defendant be allowed to pick anyone from the citizenry to represent his/her case. This would obviously eliminate the need to elect a Public Defender. I am not sure if I would want the CJ to be able to appoint defense council either.

Boots

Great minds indeed.....would you believe that I typed the preceding and then read your post? Probably not, but I am not rewriting it now....

I will have to give some more thought into how we would elect three justices at once.

Of course, I agree that we must clarify as much as we can now, so that we don't have a repeat of DG3. We cannot have a game of checks and balances with the Constitution alone.

Rik Meleet

I remember when the idea of savegame-related laws was tossed around awhile back, and I really don't think there is a way to implement it. However, I would like to revisit the topic once we get a traditional ruleset in place.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

i think that if said citizen could not find anybody to represent him/her, then the CJ could appoint a public defender, or we have a public defenders office if someone chooses to go that route.

All and all good ideas octavian

 

[zorven]

My thoughts...

1. The Justices

I don't like having the Chief Justice determined by seniority of citizenship. I don't know if our poll system allows this, but a good way to do it would to have one election where each citizen votes for 3 candidates and the 3 top vote getters win office and the top vote getter is chief justice. Otherwise, we should just have 2 "regular justice" elections and a chief justice election.

I think they should be elected every month, no staggering. And I don't like term limits.

2. Additional powers

Would these be initiated by the judiciary, or does a citizen have to make a complaint first?

3. Checks on Power
I don't like votes of no confidence or recalls in this game. Ravensfire has put forth my arguments pretty well.

4. Offices of the JA and PD

I like having these as seperate offices from the judiciary. However, I don't really see the point of a PD - just let the accused represent themselves or pick thier own counsel. And whether the JA is elected or appointed, I don't think they should hold another office.

 

[ravensfire]

Interesting idea, Oct.

I like the halting a chat - of course, that's assuming that the Judiciary is actually at the chat. Bad, bad assumption. I assure you that many times nobody was there. Not to mention, presumption of chat sessions.

Keep elections for judiciary each month.

JA and PD as appointments - I don't like that. I like the current structure. I personally feel that if a person runs for an office, they ought to know what they are in for. The madness in T3 is a great example - that was a direct failure of certain members of the Judiciary to uphold the duties of their office. Distasteful or not, the duties of the Judiciary, while infrequently needed, require utter impartiality, regardless of the situation. Even when prosecuting a case, or defending a client, the Justice MUST remain open to evidence. The JA should recognize when new evidence proves innocence, and move to drop charges. The PD is a bit tougher, as they must go with the wishes of the accused. A rigorous defense, however, is one of the strongest rights all citizens have. Can it cause conflicts - sure. We've seen them. But is that a failure of the system, or a failure of the citizens to elect individuals capable of fulfilling the duties of that office?



I like the reverse uncon. actions. However, I think it should only be done if a citizen requests it. If the citizenship doesn't complain about an illegal instruction, it implicitly has support by them. The only way this will work is if all instructions must be posted 24 hours prior to gameplay session to allow for adequate review and challenges. I like that idea.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Rik,

Ah, someone defining the role of the judiciary! Bravo!

I agree with you on the resolution of questions of fact, but would add the following:
-- Review proposed legislation for compliance with current law
-- Resolve questions of law

I would not, however, allow the Judiciary to halt a legislative proposal simply because it's not "smart". Good or bad, the Judiciary should only decide the Constitutionality of a proposal. Responsibility for the "smartness" of a law is that of every citizen. The Judiciary may comment on a dumb proposal, but that should be it.

I would also allow a law to repeal an existing law, or modify an existing law. Laws should not be static in nature, defining a boundary for all time. Future events may require changes, we need to allow that.

Finally, the main reason we didn't see many laws passed in DG3 was simple - apathy. Several discussions were started, then died out. The citizens of DG3 appropriately got the legal framework they deserved because they were not willing to put forth a little effort. The PI went through because Peri started it, and I pushed it through. I challenged people to do the same for the other proposals, and the best that happened is the old threads were revived with a "look at this" post. Unpleasant, yes. Accurate, yes.

In general, the nature of this forum is to abide by the status quo. People may complain about it, launch long diatribes, but they won't put forth the effort to change it. When changes are proposed, often the comments are either negative or not about the change, but about future decisions. Various people do put forth effort, significant effort in some cases, and make strong suggestions. Even if the suggestion is to nix the proposal, the reasons are clean, the tone is positive.

Wow - this did wander some. Sorry, Oct - didn't mean to go off topic. Much of it is still on point though, and what isn't, may provoke discussion elsewhere (broad hint!).

-- Ravensfire



Boots, how can you NOT support a law that limits a leader? Consider that all duties of a leader are defined BY laws. If the citizens vote, in accordance with the appropriate standards, to modify the limits of a leader, how can that possibly be wrong? It may not be smart, but it cannot be wrong.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Distasteful or not, the duties of the Judiciary, while infrequently needed, require utter impartiality, regardless of the situation. Even when prosecuting a case, or defending a client, the Justice MUST remain open to evidence. The JA should recognize when new evidence proves innocence, and move to drop charges. The PD is a bit tougher, as they must go with the wishes of the accused. A rigorous defense, however, is one of the strongest rights all citizens have. Can it cause conflicts - sure. We've seen them. But is that a failure of the system, or a failure of the citizens to elect individuals capable of fulfilling the duties of that office?

If we are to keep the Public Defender as an elected position, we should make a law that states that he may not hold a deputy office within the Legislative or Executive branches. When a PD is involved in decisions during the actual game, we run a severe risk of impartiality should he become involved on either side of a conflict. As a matter of fact, I believe that we should ask this of all members of the Judiciary Branch.

However, I still don't see a problem with an accused leader appointing his own council or resresenting himself.

Also, I still like the idea of three impartial justices that have no role within a possible PI process. This is true impartiality, with no more 2-1 votes(as is now standard, since by definition the JA and PD would almost always disagree.)

 

[Octavian X]

Wow, this may take a while...

I still believe we need to elect PDs and JAs, in case the accused/accuser can't find somone to volunteer to try the case. The two would still be there as a final backup.
People would have the options of representing themselves, appointing someone else on their own, or using the PD/JA.

RE Three month terms - There is simple reasoning here. In the beginning, one justice would serve one month, and the second two months, with the third having a full term, so that the terms may the staggered.

If people are against the three-month terms, I'd be willing to accept shorter ones, still with the understanding that justices are limited to one term, period. The goal of longer terms/term limits is simple. If justices need to be be looking out for their own reelection, they won't be making the best decisions, only ones that would further their electoral goals.

RE Stopping gameplay: The idea wasn't that the court would stop a chat during the middle of it. It was more along the lines of what eyrei, as a moderator, did during term thre. If you'll recall, he called a halt to all game play sessions.
If the court was in the middle of a big investigation, was about to begin one, or was deciding an important constitutional issue, the court would issue an injunction, preventing the save from being played at all, putting off the next TC until the injunction was over. Obviously, when the formal law is written, the court would be required to, when it places in the injunction, set a specific date for it to be lifted.

RE Selecting CJ and associates: how about this...
Under my staggered system, during Term 1, all those who want to be on the bench put their names onto the ballot.
Top three vote-getters win. The one with the most becomes CJ for three months, number two gets the two month term, and third gets the one month term.
With each month, the Justice who's been on the bench longest gets to be the CJ.

Under different term lengths, top vote getters would get the top spot.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


If we are to keep the Public Defender as an elected position, we should make a law that states that he may not hold a deputy office within the Legislative or Executive branches. When a PD is involved in decisions during the actual game, we run a severe risk of impartiality should he become involved on either side of a conflict. As a matter of fact, I believe that we should ask this of all members of the Judiciary Branch.

However, I still don't see a problem with an accused leader appointing his own council or resresenting himself.

Also, I still like the idea of three impartial justices that have no role within a possible PI process. This is true impartiality, with no more 2-1 votes(as is now standard, since by definition the JA and PD would almost always disagree.)

Very good points DZ. Your first two I absolutely agree with, especially with all members of the Judiciary having only that office, no deputy position.

On the third point, I guess we have philisophical differences. To me, the role of the JA is potentially the most challenging position in the game. They must review any accusation not with an eye towards a trial, but to a fair and reasoned analysis. The JA needs to take the viewpoint of a modern Grand Jury - is there Probable Cause that the crime happened. If not, toss the charge out. If there is, make the charge.

Only then do the roles of JA and PD become emotional, as they must use the powers of reason and debate to persuade the jury (the citizens) towards their side. We go with a fairly low burden of proof - majority of jurists is the decision. Of course, that's because we have a very lienient punishment system.

I look at the roles of PD and JA to be open-minded and impartial up until the trial begins. That is the only way that Justice can be done - fair and open. I would not compare the JA to a modern day DA. I don't know if there is an equivalent to my concept of a model JA. They should be skeptical about a charge, viewing all evidence in a neutral viewpoint to determine if a charge should be pressed.

But as I said, that's my philosophy.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Oct,

Thanks for the clarification on some points - it did help.

My main concern about enlarging the Judiciary, especially with one term and out, is do we have enough citizens who are willing, and able to fill those roles.

I see your viewpoint about the 3 month term, and it would establish some stability to the court. Of course, Peri did that himself in DG3 - I think he spent 3 or 4 terms on the court! I don't know that people would be looking for reelection with their decision, but I can see the concern there. I have no problem with term limiits per se, just that all consequences be considered.

Should we want to go with a three month term, I would suggest that the top vote getter have the 3 month term, and be deemed the most junior Justice. The 2nd place has a 2 month term, and is number 2 in seniority. The 3rd place has a 1 month term, and starts out as CJ. Or, reverse the places. This prevents having the same person as CJ for 3 terms. I would then not count the 2nd and 3rd place positions as "terms" for term limit purposes. Require the citizen, after leaving the Judiciary, to not run for the Judiciary for at least 2 terms, then do as they please.

Stopping the play of the game.
Thanks for the clarification - I agree with your point. I would stress that clarification so that we don't have someone trying to use that to stop a particular game play session in midstream.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Wow, this may take a while...

I still believe we need to elect PDs and JAs, in case the accused/accuser can't find somone to volunteer to try the case. The two would still be there as a final backup.
People would have the options of representing themselves, appointing someone else on their own, or using the PD/JA.

Wouldn't a CJ appointment work just as well if not better for this position? If we wish to make this a deputy position, I think it would make sense to have them appointed by the CJ with the approval of the citizens (or perhaps just a majority of the Judiciary). In this case, if there were any conflicts and a PD or JA were necessary, the CJ could appoint a new one quickly.

RE Three month terms - There is simple reasoning here. In the beginning, one justice would serve one month, and the second two months, with the third having a full term, so that the terms may the staggered.

If people are against the three-month terms, I'd be willing to accept shorter ones, still with the understanding that justices are limited to one term, period. The goal of longer terms/term limits is simple. If justices need to be be looking out for their own reelection, they won't be making the best decisions, only ones that would further their electoral goals.

I think the terms should be only one month long, to stay within the ordinary term length and prevent Judicial resignations from people who wish to hold another office while they are still in the Judiciary. I also don't see the need for a one-term limit, as I don't feel that the Judiciary rules with reelection in mind. I would be willing to accept a rule against consecutive Judicial terms, but I think eventual reelection should be allowed.

RE Stopping gameplay: The idea wasn't that the court would stop a chat during the middle of it. It was more along the lines of what eyrei, as a moderator, did during term three. If you'll recall, he called a halt to all game play sessions.
If the court was in the middle of a big investigation, was about to begin one, or was deciding an important constitutional issue, the court would issue an injunction, preventing the save from being played at all, putting off the next TC until the injunction was over. Obviously, when the formal law is written, the court would be required to, when it places in the injunction, set a specific date for it to be lifted.

I would be in favor of the Judiciary placing an injunction, providing there were controls on it.

RE Selecting CJ and associates: how about this...
Under my staggered system, during Term 1, all those who want to be on the bench put their names onto the ballot.
Top three vote-getters win. The one with the most becomes CJ for three months, number two gets the two month term, and third gets the one month term.
With each month, the Justice who's been on the bench longest gets to be the CJ.

Under different term lengths, top vote getters would get the top spot.

I'd rather see a Term 1-type election implemented every election cycle with the Justices under one month terms, or three separate elections, as covered above.

 

[Octavian X]

It's apparent that, once we decide on term lengths, we'll need to work on the elections. That specific item is best left for another discussion.

Here's something else to think about. Rather than set investigation procedure in law, why not allow the Bench to set up it's own PI procedure? Mandate that the judiciary develops and votes on it's own prodcedure, and have the CJ write it down somewhere.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by ravensfire

On the third point, I guess we have philisophical differences. To me, the role of the JA is potentially the most challenging position in the game. They must review any accusation not with an eye towards a trial, but to a fair and reasoned analysis. The JA needs to take the viewpoint of a modern Grand Jury - is there Probable Cause that the crime happened. If not, toss the charge out. If there is, make the charge.

-- Ravensfire

I wouldn't say that we have philosophical differences, Ravensfire, as I still have several reservations about Octavian's proposal. And you are correct about the JA: in most cases, the position has been handled exactly as you have stated -- with complete objectivity.

Here are my issues with the new system:

1. No term limits for the Judiciary! This is the one aspect of the game where we should not force someone out early. If we are lucky enough to find someone who is adept at interpreting our laws, that person should stick around as long as the voters will have him.

2. I am not really buying into the idea of staggered terms. How will this help our nation? What criteria will determine who gets the 3-month term as opposed to the 1-month term? I am willing to extend Judiciary terms to two months, as long as the election cycle is the same for all jurists.

3. I don't think that one "top three" election poll is the best way to choose our Judiciary, as the vote totals would not be a true respesentation for the three positions. And if we allowed a multi-choice poll to pick the best two(or three) candidates, there would be no way to effectively ensure that people voted accordingly. But if we did individual polls, what would distinguish the three judge positions? As you can see, the election process alone would add too much ambiguity and confusion.

4. What would the three judges do that is not currently being done by the CJ, JA and PD?

-----

If this looks like an about face on my part, it really isn't. I had wanted to get some questions answered about the new proposal and now that I have, I do not see enough benefit to warrant such a change.

And now Ravensfire's comments have strengthened my loyalty to the existing system. My only concern would be in lieu of the elected PD, that the accused be allowed to appoint his own council if he wishes.

 

[Sarevok]

im ok, so long as there isnt a bias against people we would have a good system. But if thee is bias, kill it! I for one will not stand for corruption in our government structure

 

[Donovan Zoi]

OK, this thread died out but we still need to decide this issue.

Do we devise something new for our Judiciary a la Octavian X's proposal? Or do we go with the tried and true?

And actually, Octavian, I really think we need to iron out the electoral ramifications of your proposal now, lest we approve the measure and then it unworkable due to confusing election restraints.

Let's get this discussion back on track so that we can poll it in a few days.