Re-writing Article F. The Judiciary

[Strider]

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.

This Article is, to make it as simple as possible, is a piece of crap. The Judge Advocate should not act as the prosecution, it should be the person who asked for the CC's responsibility to act as the prosecution or to find someone to act in that role. It should be the Judge Advocates role to handle the posting of CC's and judicial reviews. This makes sure that only the MOST severe cases are submitted, and should save the judiciary from putting up with abunch of pointless crap.

Here is a summary of what they should do:

Chief Justice
* Handle the basic affairs of the judiciary, including the writing of Court Precedures.
* Appoints a Judge Advocate or Public Defender in the case of none being elected
* Handles Constitutional re-writing, and all judicial reviews concerning the constitution.

Public Defender:
* Acts as the defense for a citizens, even if the citizen appoints someone else to act as defense on there behalf.

Judge Advocate:
* Posts investigation threads, trial polls, and sentencing polls.
* Makes sure the above is as fair as possible
* Handles the judicial reviews over the fairness of investigation threads, trial polls, and sentencing polls.

I'm sure there are many things that I will think of in a few hours, and many others will think of sooner or later. Pretty much, it gives the Chief Justice the duty of handling all constiutional affairs, while the Judge Advocate handles all affairs concerning the breaking of the constitution.

 

[KCCrusader]

Personally I don't like it. As it stands now, the justices are equal in all aspects except CC's. And it would also be wrong for the JA to handle both forming and investigating Trials and investigations. It simply gives them too much power over the complaint system.

 

[Sir Donald III]

Is it the Police's responsibility to act as Procecutors to a Criminal act? Or the Victim's? (Or their Next of Kin in the case that the Victim is unable to act?)

Besides, there are some people who fear the Mods or the Veterans of Cyc's Faction. Would you allow justice to whither because of Fear of Retribution? (Of course, the proper reply is the Accused's right to face his/her accuser.)

And why would you allow the Accused a Specialist and deny one to the Accuser? That's what the Councils are.

I'm not saying the system isn't broken. I'm not saying it is either. Perhaps the Offices of Attorney General (renamed from JA) and Public Defender should be separate from the Justices in matters of CCs. They can also have substitute opinions on JRs that are not a part of a CC, forgoing the need for a Pro-Tem there.

As an example, while I felt that the PD was within his rights to request a JR on his client's Civil Rights as a Citizen, I also felt that the inherent duties of a PD and a JA created a possible "Conflict of Interest" with their opinions for that particular JR. I have not commented on that until now.

 

[Strider]

Personally I don't like it. As it stands now, the justices are equal in all aspects except CC's. And it would also be wrong for the JA to handle both forming and investigating Trials and investigations. It simply gives them too much power over the complaint system.

haha, you caught me between two ideas. Unluckily, I have a bad habit of forming plans and ideas, posting them, and them finding better ways to handle it, or additions to it.

I was also going to add it the ability for the other two Justices to "veto" the third juctices decisions.

 

[Strider]

Is it the Police's responsibility to act as Procecutors to a Criminal act? Or the Victim's? (Or their Next of Kin in the case that the Victim is unable to act?)

Besides, there are some people who fear the Mods or the Veterans of Cyc's Faction. Would you allow justice to whither because of Fear of Retribution? (Of course, the proper reply is the Accused's right to face his/her accuser.)

And why would you allow the Accused a Specialist and deny one to the Accuser? That's what the Councils are.

I'm not saying the system isn't broken. I'm not saying it is either. Perhaps the Offices of Attorney General (renamed from JA) and Public Defender should be separate from the Justices in matters of CCs. They can also have substitute opinions on JRs that are not a part of a CC, forgoing the need for a Pro-Tem there.

As an example, while I felt that the PD was within his rights to request a JR on his client's Civil Rights as a Citizen, I also felt that the inherent duties of a PD and a JA created a possible "Conflict of Interest" with their opinions for that particular JR. I have not commented on that until now.

There are many possible ways to deal with the cracked justice system, my purpose is just to find one that fixes the problems, but does not however, break from the old system entirely. To re-create everything mid-game would almost be suicide.

We have no police, anyone can attempt to prosecute someone, and I believe, that in doing so. They should have to see it to the end. As I said above, this should make sure on the most severe breakage of a law will be brought to the Justice's attention, and in doing so saving them time.

 

[blackheart]

I don't like this proposal. It concentrates the powers of the judicial system too much and leaves the Public Defender with nothing to do.

What you're proposing here, I think, is to create somewhat of a "lower/different" court system, much like the one used in real life. The problem with this is we don't generate as many "problem"s in real life and don't have that many people, therefore with your proposal all of the responsibilities are condensed into 2 people.

If such a system were placed, the most severe breakage of laws could be "shielded" from the Justice's eyes.

 

[Strider]

I don't like this proposal. It concentrates the powers of the judicial system too much and leaves the Public Defender with nothing to do.

What you're proposing here, I think, is to create somewhat of a "lower/different" court system, much like the one used in real life. The problem with this is we don't generate as many "problem"s in real life and don't have that many people, therefore with your proposal all of the responsibilities are condensed into 2 people.

If such a system were placed, the most severe breakage of laws could be "shielded" from the Justice's eyes.

If such system were in place, the only breakage of lawss that the Justices see is the one's the citizens care about.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what, if anything, this proposal is intending to accomplish. If you can point out something specific wrong with the current system, I'd be willing to listen, but so far the only thing I see changing is that the complaintant would have to personally prosecute the case. One of the things we were trying to accomplish with the JA role was to shield the person raising the complaint from political backlash, if that person wants to remain anonymous.

 

[Strider]

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what, if anything, this proposal is intending to accomplish. If you can point out something specific wrong with the current system, I'd be willing to listen, but so far the only thing I see changing is that the complaintant would have to personally prosecute the case. One of the things we were trying to accomplish with the JA role was to shield the person raising the complaint from political backlash, if that person wants to remain anonymous.

It shields the person perfectly fine, that's why I also proposed stated that they either have to do it themself, or find someone else to do it. If they really want to remain anonymous, they can find someone to lead the prosecution for them.

What it accomplish's? Right now it's suppose to attempt to speed up the judicial process by making it more singular, and not by making trials and reviews less fair. It puts the Chief Justice incharge of all constitutional changes, or reviews. The Judge Advocate handles anything to do with the breaking of the constitution, and the Public Defender, as the name states, defends the freedoms and rights of the house.

 

[Ashburnham]

Strider, judging from the various (and copious) rants you've gone on since Chieftess' CC accusation, I find it hard to imagine you're doing this solely in the spirit of making a better system. As DaveShack says, there's really nothing wrong with the current system as it stands. This just feels like further backlash from CT's trial, and not a sincere attempt to better the game.

 

[Strider]

Strider, judging from the various (and copious) rants you've gone on since Chieftess' CC accusation, I find it hard to imagine you're doing this solely in the spirit of making a better system. As DaveShack says, there's really nothing wrong with the current system as it stands. This just feels like further backlash from CT's trial, and not a sincere attempt to better the game.

I've been wanting to do this for a LONG time, I was just waiting for Chief Justice Cyc to get out of office. Look at my attempt to change the duties of the leaders, which I do plan on reviving.

Curufinwe and I started this a good month or more ago. Oh sure, you are partly right. I'm concentrating on this right now, because of CT's trial, but this has always been in the list, I just moved it up to the top.

 

[ravensfire]

And thus, those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The single major factor causing delays in CC's filed in DG4 was the difficulty in finding citizens to prosecute CC's filed by those that didn't want to serve as the prosecutor. Strider's proposal returns us to that failed system.

We learned that system did not work, and returned back to the JA and PD roles. All CC's need to be handled in a timely manner, especially ones that are unpopular with many citizens. Using the JA and PD to serve as the primary representatives for the People and the accused respectively ensure that.

There is the obvious concern about quality and impartiality (note the distrubance during DG3 when the JA couldn't handle the duties) that are there. Too bad. There is no perfect system. The current system has been shown better than the alternative. There is no question about that.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

And thus, those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The single major factor causing delays in CC's filed in DG4 was the difficulty in finding citizens to prosecute CC's filed by those that didn't want to serve as the prosecutor. Strider's proposal returns us to that failed system.

We learned that system did not work, and returned back to the JA and PD roles. All CC's need to be handled in a timely manner, especially ones that are unpopular with many citizens. Using the JA and PD to serve as the primary representatives for the People and the accused respectively ensure that.

There is the obvious concern about quality and impartiality (note the distrubance during DG3 when the JA couldn't handle the duties) that are there. Too bad. There is no perfect system. The current system has been shown better than the alternative. There is no question about that.

-- Ravensfire

For once, I actually agree with you, which is why this is a discussion, I am extremely glad Ravensfire, that you are one of the few so far who has showed commen sense and a sense of calmness (calmness.... , is that a word?). You alone so far, has pointed out that there is problems with the system, although I disagree with you about our current one being the best.

Actually, the main reason for me posting this is to try and make the Judiciary more efficient. You obviously stated one way, but there is many others.

Anymore ideas?

 

[ravensfire]

Actually yes, I do.

First and foremost - bring back the remedy system from DG4. This whole mess with CT might have been handled through that in a few days tops and life gone on. It's simple - if the Judiciary thinks that a CC has merit, they have a discussion with those involved to see if there is a solution that is acceptable to both sides. Problem resolved. We used it twice I think in DG4, successfully both times.

I'm not totally comfortable with codifying the judicial rules, I think that in all future elections the candidates for CJ need to post the rules they intend to use during the nominations. I like the idea that different CJ's can give us different rules on how to handle things, so long as those rules are fair.

The general hostility and negative connotations that CC's have is disappointing. I purposely renamed them from PI to CC to try for a mental change in all citizens. We are not perfect. We make mistakes. We need to find a way to correct those mistakes without the drama we have had.

We also need to be more respectful of others viewpoints. Dismissing or using backhanded insults to describe the preferences of others ought to be considered an offense against that person. Think about it - would you really want to stay in a game where an idea of yours was made fun of in the turn chat, or in a discussion thread? That has contributed to people leaving. That needs to change.

There is a large element of resentment and anger in this game - look at some of the remarks that have been made in the investigation thread, the trial poll, the sentancing poll, the Judicial thread AND this thread. Where is the respect that should be shown to ALL citizens FROM ALL citizens? It's not there.

It's entirely possible for two people to disagree and still respect each other. I don't like some of Strider's ideas, and will state so. He does the same with me. Likewise, I like other ideas that he's proposed, and he's returned the favor. Insults and ill-will have damaged this game. At this pace, they will chase some of the many new players we have from it.

And that's sad.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

I don't want to codifiy the judicial rules, just a small part over the duties of the three justices. Our constitution only gives a small guideline, we need to show some examples, and clearify it abit. The current duties inside of the judicial precedures should do that fine. At the least we should as it into our constitution simply as they are, guidelines.

Also, I feel that it would be much more efficient, and less of a hassle to let the Judiciary have "Apprentice Justices" (or deputies). This should clear up the problem of a Justice being absent, and also have a replacement for a Justice if legal charges are brought against them. What do you think about this?

I agree with the private handling of CC's, it eliminates this "dis-crediting" crap, which was one of my orginal reasons of discussing this. Citizen Complaints should not be used as a possible political move.

Also, a "possible" alternative to handling some of the more pointless and less-important judicial reviews. We could possibly create a lower-court, the same poistions, but they just handle less important stuff. Actually, it's quite possible to make these people the current Justices "Deputies."

They will handle all of the smaller less important things, while the Higher Court deals with CC's against leaders, etc. Although so far, the Judicary has not been overwhelmed with reviews and CC's, so this is not in any way needed.

 

[Zarn]

They Judiciary is the one branch of government that always needed reforms. Why? I don't think the citizens as a whole ever put the right effort into it for any demogame.

What if a member of the judiciary does something wrong? If that person is Chief Justice, he/she can call no merit, can't he/she?

Also, what is the sense of having a CC right in the middle of two terms? It should be handled in the next term, so the case can be handled properly. We don't need 6 members of the court for one case.