OFFICIAL DISCUSSION: DG VI Judiciary

[DaveShack]

I don't necessarily agree with all the details of where Strider is going, but there is a lot to be said for having at least part of the judicial code in the rules. The problem is, the Judiciary may not be scheming saboteurs, but could still fold under pressure from the citizenry and refrain from pursuing an unpopular course of action. Failure to act against the guilty could have as much potential to damage the game as prosecuting the innocent might.

 

[Strider]

You seem to be assuming that the members of the Judiciary are scheming sabatours who want to derail the game. That's simply not true. Judges and candidates for the Judiciary are citizens of the Demogame just like everyone else.

Your counter-reply does help you.... it harms you.

They want to do the best job possible when they're elected. Except for a select few people on the forums, no one I've seen is partizen enough to blatently change the format of a trial just to punish a rival.

You obviously have not been around here that long, that or your far to blinded to be of any worth.

Also, remember that the Justices all need to agree on the Judicial procedures. A rogue CJ wouldn't be able to change the procedures without the consent of the other Justices, something extremely unlikey to happen if the CJ were in fact mounting a partizen attack on a rival.

Tell me, where does it say that all of the Judiciary must agree on he procedures? Last demogame it gave the Chief Justice the sole power to run the Judiciary. Check the facts.

You seem to be against the idea of Judges having power. But, the simple fact is that they have to. Someone has to act as a judge whenever there are disagreements or accusations of foul play. That's the reason we elect them. If you disagree with the policies of a certain judge, don't vote for them. But don't impose constraints on the Judiciary as a whole just because you worry about the possibility of corruption in the system.

You seem to be defending a loophole in our const. I wonder why? May it be for personal gain?

Actually, most of the time you don't have a choice in who the Judiciary is. And I'm not constraining them in the least bit. I am just allowing our citizens there right to a fair trial, you seem to be against that.

 

[ravensfire]

Strider, you bring up a good point about the Judiciary not having to confirm those procedures. It was done in some terms, so let's include that.

Add a clause the the Judicial section that a majority of the Judiciary must approve the procedures at the start of the term, and that all changes must be unanimously agreed to.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Strider, you bring up a good point about the Judiciary not having to confirm those procedures. It was done in some terms, so let's include that.

Add a clause the the Judicial section that a majority of the Judiciary must approve the procedures at the start of the term, and that all changes must be unanimously agreed to.

-- Ravensfire

As I said in the PM I sent to you just seconds ago, I think another good alterntive would be to allow the Judiciary to create there procedures, but then require the Will of the People to change them afterwards.

 

[ravensfire]

I don't necessarily agree with all the details of where Strider is going, but there is a lot to be said for having at least part of the judicial code in the rules. The problem is, the Judiciary may not be scheming saboteurs, but could still fold under pressure from the citizenry and refrain from pursuing an unpopular course of action. Failure to act against the guilty could have as much potential to damage the game as prosecuting the innocent might.

Basically, are you wanting to codify the people's right to try and sentance? How about "right to a fair and speedy trial by their peers"?

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

As I said in the PM I sent to you just seconds ago, I think another good alterntive would be to allow the Judiciary to create there procedures, but then require the Will of the People to change them afterwards.

I think either would work. Hmmm, changes to the Judicial Procedures are subject to a confirmation poll? So, if the change is obvious, no poll gets posted and life goes on. If the change is iffy, a simple, pre-defined confirmation poll is run. We know how they work, it keeps the section simple and gives everyone a chance to shoot down a bad change.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

I think either would work. Hmmm, changes to the Judicial Procedures are subject to a confirmation poll? So, if the change is obvious, no poll gets posted and life goes on. If the change is iffy, a simple, pre-defined confirmation poll is run. We know how they work, it keeps the section simple and gives everyone a chance to shoot down a bad change.

-- Ravensfire

Yeah, I'll make the modifications to my above proposal after I get done taking a shower. Expect it within the hour.

 

[blackheart]

You obviously have not been around here that long, that or your far to blinded to be of any worth.

WTF is that Strider? Insulting Ashburnham's intelligence or the fact that he is new isn't going to help anyone.

Just have a law regarding CC polls and the right to a fair and speedy trial, we don't need to micromanage the judiciary branch.

 

[Strider]

Okay, here's the new proposal per agreement:

Article F. The Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Section 1. Judicial Procedures
The elected Judiciary shall create there procedures once elect it, to be located in the first post of the Judiciary thread. Any change following the Judiciary's acceptance of these procedures will require the Will of the Citizenry.

 

[blackheart]

Why should Judicial procedures be managed by the WOTP when no other department's are?

 

[mhcarver]

I don't have any major problems with the proposed article F as I was considering polling the procedures for any future terms as CJ, howerver I would like to know why the procedures must be in the first post, In my memory(no I'm not checking so I could be wrong) they were usually in the second post as the first was used to make an intro statement and set Quorom and then the procedures and a docket would go up.

oh and BTW, this is just a clarification but would the judiciary adopt new procedures each term(as I prefer) or would any changes made after the term 1 judiciary require polling?

finally shouldn't it be "The elected Judiciary shall create there procedures once elected" instead of elect it, sorry hypocritical grammer police

 

[mhcarver]

sorry double post, please delete me

 

[Strider]

Why should Judicial procedures be managed by the WOTP when no other department's are?

Scroll up some and read. Daveshack, Ravensfire, and myself have all said good reasons why the Judiciary should be watched atleast alittle bit.

 

[Strider]

I don't have any major problems with the proposed article F as I was considering polling the procedures for any future terms as CJ, howerver I would like to know why the procedures must be in the first post, In my memory(no I'm not checking so I could be wrong) they were usually in the second post as the first was used to make an intro statement and set Quorom and then the procedures and a docket would go up.

oh and BTW, this is just a clarification but would the judiciary adopt new procedures each term(as I prefer) or would any changes made after the term 1 judiciary require polling?

finally shouldn't it be "The elected Judiciary shall create there procedures once elected" instead of elect it, sorry hypocritical grammer police

My orginal plan was that when a new judiciary is put in place, they do not have to poll there procedures, but if they were to want to make a change mid-term, they'd have to poll it.

Also, I said the first post, mainly because they should be easy to find and read, but the second post would be fine also. As long as there not far down in the thread.

How is this?:

Article F. The Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Section 1. Judicial Procedures
The elected Judiciary shall create there procedures once elected. Any change following the Judiciary's acceptance of these procedures will require the Will of the Citizenry. These Procedures must be easy to find and read at all times.

 

[mhcarver]

My orginal plan was that when a new judiciary is put in place, they do not have to poll there procedures, but if they were to want to make a change mid-term, they'd have to poll it.

Also, I said the first post, mainly because they should be easy to find and read, but the second post would be fine also. As long as there not far down in the thread.

excellent I give this plan my full support

 

[DaveShack]

One final point. I don't disagree with having the judiciary set their detailed procedures, but would like to see some guidelines at least. We need to set minimums or maximums on various steps in the process, and guarantee that those steps are contained in the process. Some examples would be the amount of time allotted to the accused to post a defense before a CC discussion is open to all (24 hours), minimum duration of the guilt/innocence poll, minimum duration of sentencing polls, CC and JR requests must be responded to within 2 days, etc. These should go somewhere in the law, or we'll be forced to leave them up to vague definitions of speedy and fair.

 

[Strider]

One final point. I don't disagree with having the judiciary set their detailed procedures, but would like to see some guidelines at least. We need to set minimums or maximums on various steps in the process, and guarantee that those steps are contained in the process. Some examples would be the amount of time allotted to the accused to post a defense before a CC discussion is open to all (24 hours), minimum duration of the guilt/innocence poll, minimum duration of sentencing polls, CC and JR requests must be responded to within 2 days, etc. These should go somewhere in the law, or we'll be forced to leave them up to vague definitions of speedy and fair.

Now you see where I stand, inorder to make a trial fair, you have to codify alot of the Judicial Procedures. However, as you see, when I tried to do this, it was called restricting and was frowned down upon.

I've tried my best in making the trials more fair, by setting up the Judicial Standards inside of my Proposed Constitution. However, I could not do much, for the same reasons as above.

If you think you can have any more luck beating the idea of a fair trial into these peoples minds, then have a go at it. You have my full support.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Now you see where I stand, inorder to make a trial fair, you have to codify alot of the Judicial Procedures. However, as you see, when I tried to do this, it was called restricting and was frowned down upon.

Maybe if you didn't insult those with legitimate points in the process, you would get more support. But after reading through all this, I agree that several judicial procedures should be codified. Kudos to DaveShack and Ravensfire for lending credibility to your unpersonable approach .

 

[Chieftess]

I will also post the process of the CC/PIs here for discussion. I'll let this thread be discussed a bit longer.

Someone posts in the judiciary thread.
Phase One - 24 hours
The judiciary (any member) has 24 hours to respond to it. "Respond to it" means that the justices acknowledge the CC/PI. BTW, I don't like the concept of "out of court settlements" now, since there's not much you can do except say "Sorry", and with personal vandettas running around, you're bound to get biased arguments and fighting. All the judiciary has to do is write, "CC/PI acknowledged. PM's will be sent).

Phase Two - 48 hours
The Public Defender defaults to being the defense of the accused. The Judge Advocate defaults to being the prosecuter of the person bringing the CC/PI charge.

The acuser and acusee will read and respond to their pm's. If they do so before 48 hours, then the next phase can begin.

If the justices wish, they can discuss together and determine if the case has merit. If it does, the PM's get sent. If not, they write in the judiciary thread.

Phase Three - 48 hours

The Chief Justice will post a CC/PI Thread, and list the charges. One they have done that, the people representing the clients will post their argument. Then, the thread will be 'opened' to discussion by the citizentry. The 72 hour timeframe starts when the discussion is opened.

Phase Four - 48 hours

This phase is the Guily/Innocent poll. The Chief Justice will post a poll with these options, and abstain.

Phase Five - 48 hours

This phase is only done if the accused is found guilty. The punishments are as follows:

1 - 1st Warning
2 - 2nd Warning
3 - 3rd Warning
4 - Resignation from office (or if they're a citizen, barred from nominations/appointments for the next term).
5 - Impeachment.
6 - Moderator Intervention of the accused.

Total Time Elapsed: 7-9 days.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

3rd Warning? You wish! That pretty much tells me that certain behavior can be tolerated for half the game if the citizenry is lenient enough.....

Other than that, it looks good to me. Phase Three should be 72 hours, right?