Reforming Public Investigations

Octavian X

is not a pipe.
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
5,428
Location
deceiving people with images
There was some excellent discussion on the Investigation process last term. I felt that we were going somewhere, but the reforms were dropped. This was that thread.

The following was an excellent plan posted by Shaitan:

"Complaints should be sent to the JA. The JA determines what rule(s) were violated and whether a case can be tried. If they decide a PI is in order they file a PI charge with the Chief Justice (the Chief Justice would now handle all of the mechanics of PI that are currently tasked to the JA). If the JA believes a PI is not in order or that the case is untriable they submit the original complaint and their reasoning to the Chief Justice and Public Defender. If both of the other Judicial officers agree then there is no PI. This entire procedure would take place within 36 hours of the original submission of the complaint. If a resubmission of the complaint is done because the first PI was denied, then the 36 hour period starts over again. If this procedure is not handled within the 36 hour period, it must be noted in the Judicial Log, with specific reasoning as to why the process was delayed.

"The CJ posts the PI thread. In the first post is all of the information we currently require for a PI. The next post is used to present the evidence and arguments against the accused. This would be written up by the JA and submitted to the CJ when they filed the PI. (This must be done via PM obviously). The next two posts are reserved for the defendant and PD. Note that the JA information is posted first so the defense can specifically adress the accusatory items (just like RL).

"After that, things continue like normal."

I feel that this system should be impleamented. Thoughts? Comments? Changes?
 
I still like it. It's definitely more workable, takes the burden off of the regular citizens (they don't have to be a lawyer to register a complaint any more) and should make things go much smoother.
 
I like it too, as it would keep a standard paper trail of procedure. It would also lessen the burden to citizens as Shaitan has stated.

One thing I would include in the measure is a time factor, ie -
"The JA determines what rule(s) were violated and whether a case can be tried. If they decide a PI is in order they file a PI charge with the Chief Justice (the Chief Justice would now handle all of the mechanics of PI that are currently tasked to the JA). This entire procedure would take place within 36 hours of the original submission of the complaint. If a resubmission of the complaint is done because the first PI was denied, then the 36 hour period starts over again. If this procedure is not handled within the 36 hour period, it must be noted in the Judicial Log."

Something to that effect.
 
An excellent proposal. In fact, the proposal is more in line with how I thought public investigations would work once we created the Judiciary. Cyc's idea of some sort of time frame is needed. Beyond that, I would point out that PIs are still basically along the lines of *criminal* investigations. The premise behind them being that a citizen has done something wrong and must be punished. The actual need for punishing citizens in either demogame has been rare. Most PI's have been over political issues. What is needed is a mechanism akin to a civil suit where a citizen can go to the judiciary and say, "This particular action was taken. It is against our laws and the action must be corrected." The Judiciary would then decide if the action was or was not contrary to the laws. If it was then the CJ could post an order in the turn chat thread to reverse the illegal action and/or an injunction against similar illegal actions in the future. Note that my phrasing of this idea is couched in terms of actions taken rather than who carried out the actions. Previous demogame PIs all came to focus on the accused citizen rather than the alleged infraction. By formulating some sort of procedure that does not carry any punishment what so ever the adversarial aspect will (hopefully) pit ideas and policies against each other rather than citizens against other citizens (who are all on the same side any way).
 
Cyc's idea is workable, I think. We'll add that in. I'd only add to the last sentence:

If this procedure is not handled within the 36 hour period, it must be noted in the Judicial Log, with specific reasoning as to why the process was delayed.

donsig has a good idea. If I understand him correctly, these would be something like a judicial review, to prevent or correct illegal actions without causing a hullabullo surrounding the citizen in question. A procedure for this type of process may be rather difficult to work, but it would be worth the effort.
 
Originally posted by Shaitan
I still like it. It's definitely more workable, takes the burden off of the regular citizens (they don't have to be a lawyer to register a complaint any more) and should make things go much smoother.

Of course you still like it... You made it afterall.
 
Are there any more comments? If there aren't, by tomorrow I'll get the get this into the correct format for a vote on the subject. We'll stick to the stuff in the first post for now. donsig's idea deserves more thought, though.
 
I've gotten started on the legal wording of this change, and I believe that I have the necesary CoL changes done.

Code:
CoL

E.  The Judicial Branch
	3.  The Chief Justice
		D.  Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.		
		E.  Is tasked with the mechanics of investigation and trial.
		
	4.  The Public Defender
		C.  Will perform as defender.

	5.  The Judge Advocate
		A.  Will perform as prosecutor.

I've just begun on the CoS stuff, and will post that when it gets closer to completion.
 
Code:
E.  The Judicial Branch
	3.  The Chief Justice
		A.  Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official.
		B.  Is responsible for posting the current full census and current active census at the beginning of each term.
		C.  Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.		
		[b]D.  Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.		
		E.  Is tasked with the mechanics of investigation and trial.
		F.  Is tasked with ensuring all public investigations are performed correctly with deference to the presumed innocence of the accused.[/b]
		
	4.  The Public Defender
		A.  Will ensure that the accused understands the charges against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount a valid defense.
		[b]B.  Will perform as defender.[/b]

	5.  The Judge Advocate
		[b]A.  Files full charges with the Chief Justice to initiate an investigation.
		B.  Will perform as prosecutor.[/b]
 
This plan has my outright full support. One problem that may arise in the future is that the JA might be a horrible debater, and might not present the case well.
 
That is an excellent plan for PI's, IMO. I think you should post an official poll on it ASAP, as an amendment to the CoL. It will have my full support.
 
That isn't the whole thing. This is the remainder of the Cos changes needed.

Changes are noted in BOLD.

Code:
H.  Investigations
	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.
		A.  The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
		[b]B.  The allegation can be made privately to the Judge Advocate.[/b]
		C.  The allegation can be made anonymously through a Moderator.
		D.  If reported to a Mod, the Mod will pass the allegation to the Judge Advocate.
	2.  Allegations of misconduct must include:
		A.  Name of the defendant.
		[b]B.  Rule(s) believed to be violated (not necessary to state specific article, law, or standard violated)
		C.  When/where the rule was violated.
	3.  The Judge Advocate determines which rule(s) the defendant is accused of breaking.
	4.  The Judge Advocate then decides if there the charge should be tried.
		A.  If the Judge Advocate decides not to try the charge, he notifies the Chief Justice and Public Defender.  If they agree, the charges are dropped.  If they disagree, the Judge Advocate procedes with the trial process.
		B.  If the Judge Advocate decides to try the charge, or is forced to by the Chief Justice and Public Defender as noted above, he files the charges with the Chief Justice.
		C.  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 Log, with specific reasoning as to why the process was delayed.[/b]
	5.  The [b]Chief Justice[/b] opens an investigation thread detailing the alleged violation and the defendant’s history of convictions (if applicable).
	[b]6.  The next post is used to present the evidence and arguments against the accused.  This information is to be written up by the Judge Advocate and submitted to the Chief Justices when the Investigation is filed.
	7.  The next two posts are reserved for the defendant and Public Defender.[/b]
	8.  Citizens post their opinions on the charge, whether they think the suspect is guilty of an infraction, if the case should go to trial (poll), what punishment(s) would be in order if the defendant is found guilty, etc.
	9.  When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed the [b]Chief Justice[/b] will post a trial.
		A.  If the defendant pled "guilty" to the charges, the trial poll is skipped and the [b]Chief Justice[/b] will proceed to posting a sentencing poll.
		[b]B.  If the discussion over the Investigation is overwhelming in favor of the defendant, then the Chief Justice, at his discresion, will call for a vote of No Merit.[/b]
		C.  The trial poll will have options of Guilty/Innocent/Abstain and will remain up for 48 hours.
		D.  In the event the trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary shall decided amongst themselves if the defendant is innocent or guilty. If the triumvirate of the Judiciary cannot come to an agreement, the Chief Justice alone will cast the tie breaking vote.

The remainder of Section H deals with setencing.

Now, we need a Judicial review of the CoL changes noted in post ten, and a council member to sponsor the CoS stuff.
 
I call for a Judicial Review of the proposed change to the Code of Laws as posted here.
----------------
In accordance with CoL E.6, I submit my Judicial Review.

I hereby find that none of the proposed changes conflict with any article, law, or standard.

Octavian X
Chief Justice
 
I concur with the findings of the Chief Justice. These proposed changes to the CoL and CoS conflict with no existing article, law or standard.
 
Judge Advocates Review

I too concur with the Chief Justice. I think that these changes are good and do not conflict with our rulesets.
 
Top Bottom