Discussion: Term 6 Judicial Procedures

[DaveShack]

Please discuss the Term 6 Judicial Procedures here.

 

[dutchfire]

Could you say what's wrong with the current Judicial Procedures?

 

[Swissempire]

i think we shouldn't have procedures. We should have a court that dishes out vigilante justice. KA-POW

Actaully, I take that back and second Dutchfire

 

[dutchfire]

Actually, what are the current procedures?

 

[Vind2]

Little of topic but are you sure this is in the right place?

 

[dutchfire]

it's not, but a request to move it has already been made

 

[donsig]

Judicial procedures have varied from term to term. The current (term 5) procedures are here.

The term 5 procedures varied from earlier procedures in the ares of recusals; the omisssion of the absence investigation; and the cluase which enables two concurring justices to make rulings. Might be more changes but I'm in a hurry to enjoy my day off.

 

[dutchfire]

well, they look alright to me, though they're a bit long

 

[Nobody]

One thing i always thought should be changed. When a CC happens the JA is responsable for creating the Trial thread and the first post. I think the CJ should do this, and pass on any instructions to the jury. So its like he is the court ect.

 

[DaveShack]

Could you say what's wrong with the current Judicial Procedures?

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with them. Someone whom I admire suggested that there should be an opportunity for discussion.

 

[Black_Hole]

One thing i always thought should be changed. When a CC happens the JA is responsable for creating the Trial thread and the first post. I think the CJ should do this, and pass on any instructions to the jury. So its like he is the court ect.

then we have to wait for the JA to post before the trial can begin along with the PD and defender... This would just add more time to the trial without any benefit in my opinion... Because the Judge Advocate could just be waiting around for the CJ to post his jurer instructions, which should already be known

 

[GeorgeOP]

A couple of ideas I would like to have changed in the Procedures

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint shall have the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender shall be tasked with defending each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent, or the defendant wishes to defend themself.

*changed text in Bold Underline.

I think it should be clear that the defendant has a right to defend themself, if they so choose.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation unless the judiciary finds new extraordinary evidence that they believe may change the outcome of the trial or verdict.

I'm not sure exactally how I want it worded, but I think new evidence should allow a retrial.

 

[donsig]

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with them. Someone whom I admire suggested that there should be an opportunity for discussion.

There were significant changes made in term five that departed from the procedures used in the first four terms. I made the changes on my own (though I did consult with Cyc). Since the original procedures were written by the term 6 CJ I am not sure if my changes will be carried over or not. I'm hoping this discussion will either confirm that my changes are good (and worth keeping) or give the new CJ backing if he wants to remove them.

I agree they are long but I think they are shorter than those used in the first four terms.

I'm not sure we should allow new evidence to be a reason for retrying someone. If we go through a trial and the person is found not guilty we should leave it at that. If a person if found guilty and new evidence exonerates him (or her) then we don't really need a trial to correct the wrong, do we?

As for posting the trial thread, I thought the term five procedures were more flexible in who did what. I tried to write procedures that allowed the judiciairy to function even if there was a CC against a judicial member. I really see no reason for judiciary members to recuse themselves if they are CCed. The judiciary is not the jury. The PD certainly should be able to defend himself as PD if he is CCed. If the JA is CCed then I tried to write procedures that would allow the CJ to act as JA for that specific CC whereas if the CJ was CCed the JA would act as CJ for that trial. (And after all that work no one even CCed a judicial member. )

 

[DaveShack]

(And after all that work no one even CCed a judicial member. )

Actually, someone did, but it was misinterpreted as a pending / future case instead of the real deal. As much fun as it would have been to pursue a CC, it was more fun to stretch the bounds of the "not defined elsewhere" clause.

I agree 100% with keeping the prohibition on double jeapordy. If "extraordinary" new evidence is found, it's probably found by a mod and such evidence is likely to result in a forum sanction anyway. If ordinary new evidence is found, shame on the prosecutor and complaintant for not doing a good enough job to find it the 1st time around.

I'm generally in favor of flexibility in who posts threads / polls, and order of postings by the various parties. The only reason we have the JA go first in a trial thread is that some RL justice systems do it that way. It would be equally valid for the defense or the accused to post first. The key is that both sides and the accused can post before the citizens.

 

[Swissempire]

I CC''ed you twice Donsig when you were a Justice, though i retracted both before they were ruled on....

 

[donsig]

Actually, someone did, but it was misinterpreted as a pending / future case instead of the real deal. As much fun as it would have been to pursue a CC, it was more fun to stretch the bounds of the "not defined elsewhere" clause.

Aw, darn. And it's too late now to do the CC.

[donsig scratches his head and wonders what DS means by that remark about stretching bounds...]

 

[GeorgeOP]

If "extraordinary" new evidence is found, it's probably found by a mod and such evidence is likely to result in a forum sanction anyway

That's a good point. I retract my second proposed change.

 

[DaveShack]

To all, thank you for your comments and suggestions. The draft Term 6 procedures can be found in the Judiciary Thread. I know, the extra section at the front makes it longer than ever but it's necessary to get some definitions out of the way.