Discussion on Codifying the Judicial Guide.

[Sir Donald III]

For two terms, the Judiciary has published procedures on what goes on in their Courts.

However, as I have learned these past few hours, since they have not been officially codified, these have no actual weight of law.

In the interests of space, I place a link to the Term 2 Guide.

Shall we try to codify this? Modify then Codify this? Or just scrap this and go with something new.

Given the Author of this Guide is going abroad for a Term, I would like to have the specific opinions of the Term 3 Justices.

My personal opinion is, if we keep this, Sections 1-6 and 9-10 should constitute CoL Section F(1), Section 7 (Judicial Review) Section F(2), and Section 8 (Citizen's Complaint) Section F(3).

 

[KCCrusader]

I feel you CANNOT codify it, as it may very well change with each Chief Justice. The CJ is given the power by the constitution to "organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch." (Article F). Therefore each CJ may choose to organize the affairs differently. Perhaps the CJ wants to change the procedue to allow more citizen participation? The Constitution provides for a very loose Judicial strcuture for a reason, I feel we should keep it that way.

 

[MSTK]

Can you summarize that so I can understand it? No offense intended, but can you tell me the main gist of what you are trying to say?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

No, I'm against adding more rules to this game. Short and simple.

 

[gert-janl]

As KCCrusadar already pointed out, the current constitution specifically enables the Judiciary to organize the Judicial affairs the way they deem fair.
The Judicial Guide, as published by my predecessor Cyc, were published to inform all citizens about the judicial organization of cases.

I strongly support an open organizational structure of the Judiciary, and will therefore also publish the Judicial procedures, just as Cyc did in his two terms.

But codifying and inserting this 'judicial guide' will make it very hard to amend some parts. And since the constitution allows the Chief Justice to organize and conduct judicial affairs, it would infringe upon the constitutional rights of the Chief Justice to codify a 'Judicial Guide'.

When my term officially starts I will publish the rules of procedures of the third term judiciary. (I will use most of Cyc's excellent guide, though)

 

[Cyc]

I have mixed feelings about this.

1. I would be honored if the Court Procedures from my Terms as Chief Justice were codified into a supporting document of the Constitution. No two ways about it. That would be a great tribute.

2. Because I see a great opportunity for game development, I would prefer not to have the Court Procedures codified. This opportunity for development can be an example of a new way for the game to be played. Right now there is a thread about "How the Game is going" (something like that), in which people are discussing ways to improve the game. This "opportunity for development" can be one of those ways.

I used the current Court Procedures for two Terms. I kept up to date listings of all Court actions in the first group of posts. I kept an up to date posting of the Judicial Log with explanations and links to the appropriate posts. I encouraged citizen involvement as much as I felt was necassary. And I tried like hell to make sure procedure was followed.

Now, because our Court Procedures are not codified, as a new Chief Justice takes Office, new Court Procedures can be implemented. The new procedures could vastly improve the ones I used. Or, if key items went the wrong way, the new procedures could wind up unworkable. That's all up to the Chief Justice. That's what the people need to concentrate on. In all of the positions, in all of the Branches, none have so detailed a program or guidelines as the Chief Justice. None. If they people see a Judicial Branch that works, it is not only because of the way the CJ and the PD and the JA work together, it's the framework of the procedures they work within.

Ok, before I lose some of you, what I'm saying is that at Election time the people should examine the effectiveness of the Judiciary and realize that they should be basing their opinion on the Court Procedures drawn up by the Chief Justice. Were those procedures concise? Were they simple to follow? Were they fair to the people? Did everyone get a fair shake in the long run because of the procedures?

By basing their opinions on the Court Procedures (ammendable by each new CJ), voters would have detailed, pre-election platforms to consider before voting. You are already aware of the current CJ's procedures, examine the procedures of a rival candidate before you consider voting for them. It is, after all the guidelines the CJ lays down for the Courts actions that determines its success.

This "concept" is transferable to all the other Branches and positions. It will lead away from popularity contests and allow an avenue for improvement in the game that may be stifled now. Know your options, know your future Leaders before you vote.

 

[blackheart]

I'm against codifying. It would just add to more reading and rule digging later on. What I propose is that if a major change is made by the court's ruling the current laws should be changed in accordance with the rulings.

 

[mhcarver]

I am in agreement with the other incoming members of the court that it should be able to change with CJ since the people may eventually dislike those rules and could then just elect another CJ rather than constantly change the laws. I would also like to say that I do think CJ Cyc did a very good job with the previous code.

 

[ravensfire]

Nah - we don't need to codify 'em.

My philosophy on creating a ruleset would be to setup the positions, the duties of each positions and a few basic rules - then stand back.

This is exactly how the Judiciary has worked thus far, and has done well. Consider the courts of today - standards of behavior aren't part of law, but part of each court's rules. The infamous "contempt of court" is the Judicial equivalent of big hammer to keep order. We have mods willing to help the Judiciary maintain order in a thread, as was done.

It seems to be working, even if it did take some time, and working well.

I think part of the problem is the general lack of respect of official positions that has permeated the game.

-- Ravensfire

 

[KCCrusader]

After recent happenings, my view on this issue has swung 360. I shall be posting within the hour

 

[KCCrusader]

While I initially posted against the idea in the judicial thread, I have seen by the travesty of the latest Citizen Complaint that it would protect the citizens and the game if these procedures were legalised so that trials would have to be fair in order to be accepted. Also, It seems that the affairs of the court can be "organized" by the judiciary even if the actual procedure is coded. This will also prevent the Chief Justice, or any member of the bench from setting up a system weighted against any defendant (innocent until proven guilty)

In the last (and first) CC, I encountered numerous challenges in trying to uphold my duty to defend the accused Chieftess. In Cyc's organization of the trial, as mandated by the law, the posted proceedings of the court were blatantly violated. I list the offenses here to bolster support for making court procedures official:
Broken Judicial Procedures(list can be found here) :

8.D: At no point in this CC was I contacted by the honorable Octavian X
with regards to the charges brought against Chieftess, but rather was
left to stumble upon the charges in the judicial thread.

8.F:While the original investigation thread was opened by Octavian X, Chief
Justice Cyc opened the second (flawed) version.

8.F.1:The first two posts of the investigation thread are obviously not a
Combonation of Chieftess and myself. When I arrived to post an opening
defense, I found the invevtigation already cluttered and closed due to
the fact that people had violated this very clause (F.1). Cyc opened a
new thread dedicated to the investigation, but once again, the defense
was disenfranchised the right to present an arguement. Before a 24 hour
period had passed, the Chief Justice opened the thread to the public.
When I arrived with arguments in mind, I found the investigation cluttered
yet again! The opinion was already completely biased towards a guilty
verdict, and there was no ability to submit a defense.

8.I: Honorable Justice Cyc issued a message on the investigation thread
issuing the debate closed. No where in the procedings is anyone given
the power to close the investigation, especially after essentially NO
defense has been presented at all! While the thread is technically still
open, newcomers to the thread will cease reading after the "closed"
message, hindering the defendants right to a fair trial.

These digressions from procedure currently cannot be challenged because the proceedings are not written into law. Obviously, a defendant cannot recieve a fair trial when the procedure is allowed to be manipulated by the bench. The period of time in which the investigation was closed happened to be the time I had to post my defense. The thread was not open for 48 hours continuously, therefore barring the defense (who checks in at least every 24 hours) from issuing any statements to help Chieftess.

It is in my opinion, after this egregious infringement of Chieftess's rights as listed in Article A, the procedure MUST be scribed into law.

Please voice your opinions so that any further support can decide whether a draft is required.

Thank you.

 

[Cyc]

While I initially posted against the idea in the judicial thread, I have seen by the travesty of the latest Citizen Complaint that it would protect the citizens and the game if these procedures were legalised so that trials would have to be fair in order to be accepted. Also, It seems that the affairs of the court can be "organized" by the judiciary even if the actual procedure is coded. This will also prevent the Chief Justice, or any member of the bench from setting up a system weighted against any defendant (innocent until proven guilty)

In the last (and first) CC, I encountered numerous challenges in trying to uphold my duty to defend the accused Chieftess. In Cyc's organization of the trial, as mandated by the law, the posted proceedings of the court were blatantly violated. I list the offenses here to bolster support for making court procedures official:
Broken Judicial Procedures(list can be found here) :

8.D: At no point in this CC was I contacted by the honorable Octavian X
with regards to the charges brought against Chieftess, but rather was
left to stumble upon the charges in the judicial thread.

Sept. 27th 8:23pm
Completed. Also, my clarification is done. I for one am much happier with the result. I shall begin looking at Cheiftess's innocence soon .

Finally Thank you for your two terms as Chief Justice. You really helped me get into the groove of this demogame when I had no idea what I was supposed to do! I look forward to further participation later in the game as either CJ or an advisor post. Thanks again!
-PD KCC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyc
Also, Public Defender KCCrusader, could you post as to whether or not the CC has merit? We need to move this up to the next level.
Thanks,CJ Cyc

As you can easily see from the PM posted above, the Chief Justice PMd you about the CC. My statement at the bottom indicates further discussion, so it's plain to see you were notified. Your opinion of "Merit" for the CC came before the chronological order of the JA sending you a PM. So you didn't stumble upon it. You had already worked on it. As you know JA Octavian X had a habit of slow work in our matters, that's why I had to cover for him sometimes.

8.F:While the original investigation thread was opened by Octavian X, Chief
Justice Cyc opened the second (flawed) version.
When I saw the fiasco caused by the Defense in the first Investigation Thread, I tried for a long time to get the situation taken care of. The only reason Black_Hole had posted was inexperience. He felt he needed to clarify the charges. True he should have used the Judicial Thread for this, but as I say, he has no experience with CCs. Chieftess on the other hand was the second person to have a PI filed against them in DG1. So she has lots of experience. She posted twice in the begining of this thread claiming 3 reasons for her defense in the first post.

I had made several posts in different locations trying to get the situation rectified. Finally Rik Meleet came back and said he would delete the posts in 4 hours. What was I to do. As soon as he did this people started posting again, even through the Instructions were clearly posted at the top of the thread. I even went into the chat rooms looking for a Mod, but they never answered my requests for help. After I signed off, Moderator eyrei came to the Investigation Thread. This Investigation Thread which was opened at 11:33pm 9/27, was then closed by Moderator eyrei at 6:29pm 9/28. Post is shown below:
Moderator eyrei ~ 6:29pm 9/28

Thread closed. I hate to inconvenience the judiciary, but it will just be easiest if you open another. Please note that the 24-hour rule will be enforced by myself.

I didn't come back till later and saw the thread closed for the first time. I also noticed you had shown up and were unable to post in it because it was closed. So I opened a new thread and PMd you right away. You will notice that from the time the first thread was opened to the time it was closed, 19 hours had elapsed. This meant that the initial 24-hour period had only 5 hours left in it. The Defendant had posted twice and 8 out of the first ten posts were for the defendant. This also means that you never checked the Investigation Thread for the first 22 hours or so. None of this was planned by the Chief Justice and, in fact, I tried my best to keep within procedure. The Defense was mostly to blame for the first thread's problems (check the thread) . Had you returned to the new Investigation Thread, as my PM asked you to, our had even come back to the forums, I'm sure you could have done a lot better job at defending CT. In the mad rush, I did my best to re-construct the first post of the second thread, I'm sorry you weren't happy with it.

8.F.1:The first two posts of the investigation thread are obviously not a
Combonation of Chieftess and myself. When I arrived to post an opening
defense, I found the invevtigation already cluttered and closed due to
the fact that people had violated this very clause (F.1). Cyc opened a
new thread dedicated to the investigation, but once again, the defense
was disenfranchised the right to present an arguement. Before a 24 hour
period had passed, the Chief Justice opened the thread to the public.
When I arrived with arguments in mind, I found the investigation cluttered
yet again! The opinion was already completely biased towards a guilty
verdict, and there was no ability to submit a defense.

As I said above, I PMd you right away. You took your time coming back, even though you knew the first thread had been closed. And I copied the defense's first post to the second thread immediately following the charges. So CT's statement was covered.

8.I: Honorable Justice Cyc issued a message on the investigation thread
issuing the debate closed. No where in the procedings is anyone given
the power to close the investigation, especially after essentially NO
defense has been presented at all! While the thread is technically still
open, newcomers to the thread will cease reading after the "closed"
message, hindering the defendants right to a fair trial.

In the Court Procedures you worked within for two Terms and have just submitted your approval of for Term 3 is Procedure 8H. 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.
There's one example of the CJ closing the Investigation Thread. So you're mistaken there. The reason I closed it was so that the citizens knew it went on to the next phase. The thread had gone past the 24 hour period for the PD and Defendant to post, yet only the Defendant showed enough interest to do so. The thread had been open far beyond the minimum 48 hours required of it. I would have thought that if you had wanted to participate AT ALL in CT's defense, you would have done so by then.

These digressions from procedure currently cannot be challenged because the proceedings are not written into law. Obviously, a defendant cannot recieve a fair trial when the procedure is allowed to be manipulated by the bench.

The procedure was manipulted by the Defense, as shown in the first thread. Strider calls his posts outright a fillibuster. He meant to disrupt the proceedings on behalf of CT. This is not my fault.

The period of time in which the investigation was closed happened to be the time I had to post my defense. The thread was not open for 48 hours continuously, therefore barring the defense (who checks in at least every 24 hours) from issuing any statements to help Chieftess.

I did not close the first thread and opened the second as soon as I could. I also PMd you right away, to which you never answered. This is not the CJ's fault either. I did the best I could considering the circumstances. Look what Strider did to the Trial Poll, the same thing.

It is in my opinion, after this egregious infringement of Chieftess's rights as listed in Article A, the procedure MUST be scribed into law.

You may be right. The Procedures may need to be coded to stop people like Strider from doing the things he did. But CT's rights were not violated, except maybe from lack of help by the PD.

Thank you.

 

[classical_hero]

Boy am I glad I am not part of the Judicary. It seems to me to be the hardest job and is ver confusing at times with all this legal arguements. I'm sure some people would like an easier to understand format for the general citizens.

 

[blackheart]

Boy am I glad I am not part of the Judicary. It seems to me to be the hardest job and is ver confusing at times with all this legal arguements. I'm sure some people would like an easier to understand format for the general citizens.

100% truth there. All these legal matters has my head spinning.