DG4 Discussion: Reforming the Judiciary

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Actually, this thread should really have nothing to do with PIs. While the discussion taking place here has been very valuable, at the basis of all of it lies one simple question:

Do we want to change the structure of our Judiciary(CJ, JA, PD) or not?

That's really where I was trying to go, though I'd put it a little differently

What kind of judiciary do you want to see in DG4?

• Keep the previous system, with Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender
• Change to a Chief Justice and an even number of Associate Justices, and leave definition of roles and procedures to a lower law.
• Another structure (please specify)
• Abstain (Decision -- we don't need no stinkin' decisions!)

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by DaveShack


That's really where I was trying to go, though I'd put it a little differently

What kind of judiciary do you want to see in DG4?

• Keep the previous system, with Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender
• Change to a Chief Justice and an even number of Associate Justices, and leave definition of roles and procedures to a lower law.
• Another structure (please specify)
• Abstain (Decision -- we don't need no stinkin' decisions!)

I wasn't trying to talk about PI's either. I was talking about the process we're going through. DZ's question is absolutely correct. DS's statement is also correct, although I would also through in a bit about the JA and the PD in regards to PI's in Article.

 

[zorven]

DG2 Constitution:

F. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three leaders, one who is tasked with upholding the laws (Judge Advocate), one who is tasked with defending the citizenry (Public Defendant) and headed by the Chief Justice, who will have the power and authority of both lower offices.

So, the question we arrive at is do we want any changes to this section of the constitution? Before you answer, think about whether any changes you would like to see need to be addressed here or could be addressed in a lower level of law.

My answer: leave it as is except "who will have the power and authority of both lower offices". This is ambiguous and we either need to make it clear here or delete it and address it in the CoL. I think it should be deleted and handled under a section related to absenteeism and vacancies.

 

[Cyc]

@ zorven. Correct. I'm suprised you're the first one to post Article F in this thread. I believe the answer to your second question is that we will not only change Article F in the Constitution to read something like the original above, but to start that Article stating that 3 Justices would be elected to oversee the courts and handle all legal activities (or something to that effect), and that the JA and PD will be elected to handle their appropriate jobs in all PI processes.

Of course there would have to be laws in the CoL that list the ways in which our Justices will be resticted in their operations and there would also be procedures listed in the CoS giving guidleines for everyone in the Judicial Department to abide by.

And everything I've said here is dependant upon the results of the poll to determine if we actually want to change the structure of our existing Judicial system.

 

[zorven]

Cyc - you have me slightly confused. You answered my second question, but I only see one question...

And, my frame of reference from here on out is that we already have a DG4 constitution and it looks exactly like the one from DG2. So, when you you say "we will not only change Article F in the Constitution to read something like the original above", I am not sure what you mean.

I guess I am just a little too tired to think clearly at the moment

Anyway, it appears that you would like to see 3 justices and seperately elected JA & PD, right? I just don't see the need if we use a PI system like we had in DG3. You would have 2 justices doing nothing in a PI because their roles are now being fulfilled by a seperate JA and PD. Also, I think it is potentially problematic to be adding elected positions when we seem to have problems filling positions as it is.

 

[Cyc]

Very true, zorven. Your second question was unasked. It was kind of directed at the "lower level of law". The reason I mentioned the three Justices was because there has been quite a bit of discussion about them in this thread. One reason that these discussions are so hard to follow is that no one is contributing to them. Maybe one or two post a day.

The DG2 Con is up for changes at this time. There are discussions going on to change these Articles. When the Con is done we will move onto discussions to change the CoL, and so on. The items discussed in this thread were not mine, I was just going with the current flow.

I think its time for me to stop trying to hold these together.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm going to revive this discussion - looking at what's happening on Article D, and with Preamble/A/B/C polling, this is coming up soon.

In hopes of trying to speed the discussion up some, let's start on what the judiciary should do, not how it's structured.

So, my starting question is this:

What duties do you feel should the Judiciary be charged with?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Public Investigations, Judicial Reviews (to include rulings on issues raised by citizens, unconstitutional Laws, and other legal matters), keeping the census, and being a role model in the legal portion of the game.

 

[Octavian X]

Cyc has the right idea - a general body for mediation when two people (or bodies) come into conflict.

 

[ravensfire]

So, to be fairly formal, and avoid using current terms, the Judiciary should:

• Maintain an accurate census of the People
• Review all proposed legislation
• Resolve Questions of Law (JR)
• Resolve Questions of Fact
• Oversee all Citizen Trials

I would also like to add the following:

• Oversee all election proceedings (not handle them, just make sure it's done right)
• Arbitrate Private Disputes of Citizens (RPG - not codify it, but just to bring it up)
• Advice Citizens on matters of the Law
• Review Instructions prior to Game Play Session if requested
• Halt game play during a crisis
• Provide a mechanism for a speedy resolution of a Question of Fact if such Question is minor (small claims)

I've tried to bring in various ideas I've seen, and some stuff from Beyond - feel free to reach farther than I, or try to control my wild ideas.

Anything else that needs to be added, or questions about what is up there?

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Next question, how should the court be structured, in terms of number of justices. The previous courts have used 3 - Chief Justice, Judge Advocate and Public Defender.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

As a seperate discussion, the text for Article F.

DG2 Article F:

The Judicial Branch will be formed of three leaders, one who is tasked with upholding the laws (Judge Advocate), one who is tasked with defending the citizenry (Public Defendant) and headed by the Chief Justice, who will have the power and authority of both lower offices.

DG3 Article C.2:

The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is tasked with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting rules, and determining when violations occur. Each also has a specific area of additional responsibility.

My initial proposal:
The Judicial Branch will be formed of XXXXX Justices. The Judiciary is charged with deciding Questions of Law, deciding Questions of Fact, ensuring all Elections are handled Fairly, keeping an accurate Census and reviewing all proposed Laws.

Everything else will end up in the CoL or CoS.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Octavian X]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Next question, how should the court be structured, in terms of number of justices. The previous courts have used 3 - Chief Justice, Judge Advocate and Public Defender.

-- Ravensfire

I'm inclined to stick with three justices. This allows for an easy tiebreaker, and is also small enough to ensure that we won't have a justice shortage.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by ravensfire
My initial proposal:
The Judicial Branch will be formed of XXXXX Justices. The Judiciary is charged with deciding Questions of Law, deciding Questions of Fact, ensuring all Elections are handled Fairly, keeping an accurate Census and reviewing all proposed Laws.

Everything else will end up in the CoL or CoS.

-- Ravensfire

1) I think 3 justices would be fine.

2) My first thought upon reading this was what does "Questions of Law & Fact" mean? Couldn't you replace both phrases with Questions of Legality?

3) I am not sure where ensuring fair elections overlaps with the moderators - what did you intend here?

4) The census is a mathmatical formula - why does anybody need to keep it?

5) This text implies that all proposed laws must be reviewed - for what purpose does this need to be defined in the constitution? Let the court choose to review legislation or wait until a citizen requests a review.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by zorven


1) I think 3 justices would be fine.

2) My first thought upon reading this was what does "Questions of Law & Fact" mean? Couldn't you replace both phrases with Questions of Legality?

3) I am not sure where ensuring fair elections overlaps with the moderators - what did you intend here?

4) The census is a mathmatical formula - why does anybody need to keep it?

5) This text implies that all proposed laws must be reviewed - for what purpose does this need to be defined in the constitution? Let the court choose to review legislation or wait until a citizen requests a review.

2. Question of Law = Judicial Review
Question of Fact = PI

3. It's more of ensuring that mods don't have to get involved, that schedules are posted, etc.

4. We ought to have a person who, at the beginning of each term, determines what the census is. We use various voting levels to determine quorum, etc, this way everyone will know what those are.

5. There are two types of reviews - the typical JR usually involves scenarios not envisioned by the framers. The review I want to see is to ensure no obvious problems exist, and that the proposal is pointed at the correct book of law.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

quoting Ravensfire:
The Judicial Branch will be formed of XXXXX Justices. The Judiciary is charged with deciding Questions of Law, deciding Questions of Fact, ensuring all Elections are handled Fairly, keeping an accurate Census and reviewing all proposed Laws.

This works for me.

 

[ravensfire]

Okay - looks like the one big decision left for this article is the number of Justices.

Going through this thread, I've found the following proposals. What do you all think?

• Status Quo - Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender
• 3 Justices + 1 Judge Advocate + 1 Public Defender (5 total offices elected)
• 3 Justices, JA and PD are appointed by CJ (3 total offices elected)

I *think* I got them all, several ideas were stated multiple times. Let's keep pushing on this, folks. The number of elected officials in the Judiciary will be the only limiting factor on the Judiciary in the Constitution. Everything else is granting rights to the Judiciary.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Vander]

I back the elected justices (3) and the appointed JA and PD. Those two really are more like deputies than officials. I would rather they be appointed because for one, it would mean less elections for our citizens. Having too many elections to go through leads to "ballot fatigue", or a citizen quiting the voting without voting in all of the elections,

 

[zorven]

For the number of Justices, I say "status quo". I see no need for seperate PA and JA unless we intend to radically change how the PI process is setup.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I am intrigued by the opportunity to have three impartial(to the PI process, mainly) justices with the JA and PD appointed.

To this I would add that the accused should reserve the right to appoint his own defense council, which would make a PD appointment unneccesary.

However, I share zorven's concerns that this change may add more time than we have to related CoL issues. I still think we can make it work with a minor tweak to existing laws.