PI Procedure Discussion

[Peri]

Please give this your consideration.

Public Investigation Procedure

Riders
No current member of the Judiciary is allowed to initiate, draft, or sponsor a Public Investigation under any circumstances.
The accused may only be Investigated once for a particular event.
The verdict of the Judiciary in all proceedings is final.

Bringing a charge
1). If a citizen believes that someone has violated an article of the Constitution or a law in the
Code of Laws, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial in one of the
following ways only:
i). The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
ii). The allegation can be made privately to the Judge Advocate.
iii). The allegation can be made anonymously through a Moderator who shall pass the
allegation to the Judge Advocate.
2). Allegations of misconduct must include:
i). Name of the accused.
ii). Rule(s) believed to be violated (not necessary to state specific article, law, or standard violated)
iii). When/where the alleged infraction is believed to have taken place.

Investigating the charge
3). The Judge Advocate then confers with the accuser via pm to determine if there is any plausible evidence that a specific article of our constitution has been violated by the accused.
i). The Chief Justice will then make a post at his discretion giving guidance and explanation on the matter
The procedure cannot formally start until this post has been made.
ii). If the JA finds that there is plausible evidence of a constitutional violation then the investigation will proceed. In this event he files the charges with the Chief Justice via pm. He also posts a copy of these charges in the Judicial Thread specifying in detail the name of the accused, which laws he believes were violated, how they were violated and when/where this alleged infraction is believed to have taken place.
iii). If the JA finds no plausible evidence then these charges will have to be dismissed. In this event, he notifies the Chief Justice and Public Defender via pm and posts his findings and reasons in the Judicial Thread. This must be a full and complete account of his decision giving clear evidence that there was no violation.
iv). From this point the Public Defender should confer with the accused via pm regarding the accusations. It is important for all to remember that the accused is presumed innocent.
v). This entire process must be completed within 36 hours of the original accusation. If this procedure
is not handled within the 36 hour period, it must be noted in the Judicial Thread, with specific
reasons for delay.

Investigation proper
4). The Chief Justice opens an investigation thread detailing all necessary information relevant to this trial alone and giving any neccessary guidance.
5). The next post is used by the Judge Advocate to present the evidence and arguments against the accused.
6). The next two posts are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to post their defence
i). If the accused pleads guilty then move to Step 8 (i). If the accused pleads not guilty then move
to Step 7.
7). Each citizen posts his opinion on the charge in this thread only. This must stay focussed, calm, reasoned and on topic dealing only with matters of law not anecdotes and speculation. The Chief Justice reserves the right to moderate this discussion.
Any flaming trolling or spamming will not be tolerated and this will be enforced by the moderators

The verdict and sentence
8). When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed the Chief Justice will examine the need for a trial poll based on the majority opinion.
i). If the defendant pled "guilty" to the charges, the Chief Justice will proceed to posting a sentencing poll.
ii). If the majority opinion of the Investigation is in favour of the accused then the Chief Justice,
at his discretion, may dismiss the charges and no trial poll will be initiated.
iii). If the majority of opinion is against the accused then a trial poll will be initiated.
This will remain up for 48 hours. (This will include the choices: not guilty, guilty, abstain.)
9). In the event the trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary shall decided if the defendant is innocent or guilty.
If the triumvirate of the Judiciary cannot come to an agreement, the Chief Justice alone will decide the outcome.
10). If the accused is found guilty as a result of the trial poll then Chief Justice will set up a sentencing poll. The sentencing poll will remain up for 48 hours. The Chief Justice will choose the sentencing options

 

[Bootstoots]

Peri, I prefer eyrei's procedure. It looks much faster and to the point than the one you have proposed. The last one was bogged down for several days, then unilaterally dismissed by DZ who then resigned. We have to improve this a bit.

 

[Peri]

Considering the above procedure was not even used, it cant be blamed because the PI was such a mess.
If the people want speed rather than safety from their procedure then that is fine by me. I was only trying to show that safeguards need to be put into any procedure.

 

[Cyc]

I actually prefer this standard compared to eyrei's. To me, this is the way a PI should be.

 

[Peri]

I just want to clarify that I am not advocating my procedure, just arguing that it has many safety feaures which should be incorporated into the final version.
eg.
Double Jeopardy
Chief Justice's right to control proceedings
Judicial impartiality
Primacy of evidence

 

[Immortal]

id prefer if PI's were not started by posting in the judiciary thread, ie: the elimination of article 1.i

I am hesitant to support the reinstation of the trial poll/sentencing poll procedure as it has proved to be less then adequate in times before this.

additionally, while I agree that the trial poll itself should be handled by the citizenry, I do not agree that should apply to sentencing.

 

[Octavian X]

I prefer eyrei's closed allegations and vote.

A private allegation prevents the recent sensation the spontaneosly concerned. It also protects the rights of the accused: Speculation of guilt or innocence would only hopefully) occur once both sides have presented their evidence.

A closed, private jury (ex. a select random group of invidiuals not involved in the case, say a group of 6) would ensure help the vote be impartial. If the names and votes of the jurors were hidden also, it would prevent any potential reprecussions if the opinion was not a popular one.

 

[Immortal]

Originally posted by Peri
I just want to clarify that I am not advocating my procedure, just arguing that it has many safety feaures which should be incorporated into the final version.
eg.
Double Jeopardy
Chief Justice's right to control proceedings
Judicial impartiality
Primacy of evidence

I think by integrating these elements into the set eyrei proposed, I would be in full support of such a ruleset.

- No elected or non-elected official or citizen can be investigated for the same offense twice, it falls upon the JA to enforce the rules completely in the first investigation.

- to what extent should the cj be able to control precedings? is he able to end an investigation if it is found to be frivilous or if the citizenry is incapable of making an unbiased decision? is he then allowed to make a ruling himself?

- We should make a procedure whereby the ja must resign immediately and a new ja be appointed by the cj if the ja finds he is incapable of honest representation. Additionally this person is banned from serving in the judiciary for the remainder of the current demogame.

- evidence should be collected before the trial moves public in my opinion.

 

[Immortal]

upon further thought I agree with a secret jury vote as noted earlier

 

[Peri]

Perhaps I should have said direct rather than control. As the recent events show, there needs to be somebody not involved with either side directing proceedings to ensure that there is no foul play.

If the JA does a proper job then specious charges wont make it past the accusation stage.
Also if there is a major disregard of the rules by the citizens in the discussion thread then the CJ should be able to declare a mistrial.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Octavian X
A closed, private jury (ex. a select random group of invidiuals not involved in the case, say a group of 6) would ensure help the vote be impartial. If the names and votes of the jurors were hidden also, it would prevent any potential reprecussions if the opinion was not a popular one.

I would prefer if the jury were all Fanatican citizens except those in contempt of the court. Perhaps they could either cast their vote in an open thread vote or by PM to the Chief Justice, who would make note of the votes of these anonymous jurors. Also, perhaps the CJ could cast the tie-breaking vote.

And Peri, I do not believe that the CJ should be able to declare a mistrial, but the moderators should be able to enforce PI procedural rules if contempt of the court doesn't stop someone from breaking the PI procedure.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
And Peri, I do not believe that the CJ should be able to declare a mistrial, but the moderators should be able to enforce PI procedural rules if contempt of the court doesn't stop someone from breaking the PI procedure.

I am happy with that if the mods are happy to be that involved with the proceedings.

Also. On the other points raised, the dangers of doing any of this in secret is that it is open to abuse

 

[Bootstoots]

Yes...that is true...perhaps the jury votes should be by open forum instead of private.

 

[disorganizer]

just 2 things:

to the part of "The accused may only be Investigated once for a particular event"
this should be changed to "except if new evidence can be braught up by the accuser which persuades ALL members of the judicacy that the pi should be rediscussed."

to open votes
is it possible to conduct such a jury vote via pm using a moderator as balloting box?
this way we can also prevent those who "look at the result before they vote" to influence the result and maybe get better results.

or maybe we could elect a jury of at least 5 people not holding any office who will discuss the matter via pm after the discussion finished and all evidence was presented, and then come to a conclusive result which a speaker tells the public...
the jury should not be elected each term, but only once a game.
each election cycle, a jury approoval poll should be held to see whether the populace still trusts the jury. if they are not approoved, a normal nomination/election procedure is used for the jury.

 

[disorganizer]

sidecomment:
oh, and i would like to see the donsig case being handled with the old rules, as we only play rome but should not act in the berlusconi style with changing pi-rules in the process of a pi ;-)

 

[donsig]

I think the jury should contain an even number of jurors. I do not think jurors should ever be elected, especially before a PI is even opened! What if someone on the jury is PIed? do we hold up proceedings to get a replacement juror? I also think it is very important that the JA/accuser and PD/accused have some say in creating the jury as this will help to form fair and impartial juries.

 

[disorganizer]

donsig:
how can someone not holding an office be pi'ed? for which reason? the only would be playing the save...
also, an even number of jurors would lead to unconclusive results, an uneven number will always get a result, as an abstain will not be possible (only guilty/not guilty!).

the jury would be elected BEFORE ANY PI will take place. this way they will hopefully be as impartial as possible. if we elect a jury on creation of a pi, we would a) loose to much time and b) have a partial jury, because people would elect the persons they think will choose the decission they want and not because of their competence and fairness.

a compromise could be that we hold an election, and if ALL 3 members of the judicacy have concers with one of the members of the jury and can present evidence for that impartiality concerns, they could remove him. also, if a jury member would be pi'ed, then he would immediately be remove from the jury for that pi. to get a uneven number again, a random other member of the jury would temporarily be suspended for that pi.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
donsig:
how can someone not holding an office be pi'ed? for which reason? the only would be playing the save...

Well, I guess you just answered your own question...

also, an even number of jurors would lead to unconclusive results, an uneven number will always get a result, as an abstain will not be possible (only guilty/not guilty!).

Juries in the US have always been composed of 6 or 12 jurors. A split vote is a hung jury inwhich case the prosecution has the option of starting all over with a new jury.

the jury would be elected BEFORE ANY PI will take place. this way they will hopefully be as impartial as possible. if we elect a jury on creation of a pi, we would a) loose to much time and b) have a partial jury, because people would elect the persons they think will choose the decission they want and not because of their competence and fairness.

The main purpose in have a jury versus having all of Fanatica vote on guilt or innocence is to safeguard the process from a political vote, i.e., to ensure the accused is not voted guilty just because more citizens don't like some action the accused took. Now what is wrong with taking some time to ensure justice is done? If someone is seriously breakig the rules he or she will be promptly restrained and/or removed from the demogame by our active mods. If the supposed rule breaking is not serious then there is no reason to rush to judgement.

As for b), if you insist on having elected jurors you will never have justice. We would need a pool of prospecive jurors. We could choose from that pool randomly and give both the prosecution and defense a given number of vetoes over the use of individual jurors. For example, if we want 6 jurors we could start with a pool of 12 and give each side the right to exclude three jurors. We'd have to randomly order the juror pool. We'd take the first in line and if either the defense or prosecution does not want the #1 then he or she is out. Continue through the jurors until 6 are accepted (remembering that once a side has disqualified three jurors it can make no more exclusions).

 

[disorganizer]

in fact, this would be a good idea if we could be sure the people out of the juror pool really participate... now to the next compromise:

* at the beginning of a game, we start a juror nomination thread. each person posting their will to be a juror will be put on the list. excluded from the list (temporarily) will be any office-holders.
* 1 week before the end of a term, the list is randomly ordered and an "exclusion process" is begun to let the JA+PD exclude as you proposed. if not enough jury members are found for the next term, then the CJ determines the missing ones from the list. the new jury starts its work with the beginning of the term.
* at any time any juror can resign except if there is a running pi.

 

[ravensfire]

I would recommend that a jury pool be established at the beginning of each term.

The new Chief Justice, after creating the judicial thread, creates a new thread asking for volunteers to the jury pool. All potential members are cautioned that if they are selected to be in a jury for a PI, they are not allowed to comment on the case.

I would suggest a 6 person jury, with a minimum of 4 votes to convict. No hung jury stuff - 1 try, convict them or move on.

-- Ravensfire