Juries, what are they good for?

[Heft]

(some credit should go to Fergi as well)

The basis for this being that juries, while an excellent idea in theory, have proven themselves to be impractical and a major hindrance to the effectiveness of the Judicial System.

Additions in blue, things to be removed in red and strikethru.

ARTICLE V. The Judicial System.

Section 1. The Court of The North Pacific.

A - The judicial authority of the Regional Government is vested in a court, to be known as "The Court of The North Pacific." The Court is composed of a number of judicial officers, that is, a Chief Justice and at least two Associate Justices, with such an additional number as may be ascertained by law.
B - Trials and Hearings in civil, criminal and impeachment cases shall be before a single judicial officer.
C - Trials and Hearings in criminal and impeachment cases shall be before the entire Court, with the Chief Justice presiding.
D - Appeals of final judgments of trials and hearings of civil cases shall be to the Court en banc before the Chief Justice and all of the Associate Justices.
E - Appeals of final judgments of trials and hearings of criminal cases shall be to the Cabinet en banc before the Prime Minister all of the Ministers.
F - The Court has power to adopt rules and regulations for the procedure of trials, hearings, and its internal operations, including rules of evidence and the random selection of trial and grand juries, not inconsistent with this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code.

Section 2. Chief Justice and Associate Justices.

A - The Chief Justice shall be the head of the Judiciary of The North Pacific Regional Government. The Chief Justice is responsible for oversight of all judiciary activities in the Region, civil, criminal, or otherwise, including hearings on Regional security issues and ejections from the Region.
B - The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall each serve a term of six months. The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall be Members of the Regional Assembly who shall hold no other office during their tenure as judges.
C - The term of office of the Chief Justice shall begin on the first day of the months of August and February. Nominations and referendums for the full term shall take place during the months of July and January. The term of office of the Associate Justices shall begin on the first day of the months of May and November. Nominations and referendums for the full term shall take place during the months of April and October. The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall be nominated by the Prime Minister with the advice and consent of the Cabinet, and during the interim period between the creation of a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice or an Associate Justice and the confirmation and installation of a successor to that office, the nominee shall serve as an acting judicial officer on the Court of The North Pacific and have the authority to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the office.
D - The appointment must thereafter be approved at a referendum, which shall extend for seven days, of the Regional Assembly, with the participation of a quorum, by at least a 50 per cent vote in favor of a motion for confirmation. The nomination and referendum election shall be conducted as expeditiously as practicable. If the motion for confirmation fails to receive such approval, then the appointee is not confirmed to serve as a judicial officer, and the Prime Minister shall promptly propose another nominee, with the advice and consent of the Cabinet, who shall act as a judicial officer, subject to approval of a motion for confirmation in a referendum by the Regional Assembly.

Section 3. Civil Proceedings.

A - Any nation that believes some other nation in The North Pacific has caused injury to any right, liberty, privilege, protection, or other duty that belongs to that nation as a matter of right under the Constitution of The North Pacific, or The North Pacific Legal Code, and which does not rise to the level of a criminal offense, that nation may file, or may request the Attorney General to file, a civil complaint.
B - The Court may adopt procedures for trial of a civil complaint, which may be tried with or without a jury.

Section 4. Criminal and Impeachment Trial Rules and Procedures.

A - The Court shall adopt rules and regulations as to the procedures for trial of criminal indictments, and the trial of government officials on articles of impeachment.
B - All criminal trials shall be judged by all sitting Justices of The Court of The North Pacificinclude a randomly selected trial jury of five Regional Assembly Members drawn from the list of Regional Assembly Members.
C - A jury shall have the power to recommend a proportionate punishment to any conviction to the judicial officer, who shall impose such recommendation as the sentence of the Court provided that the sentence is proportionate to the offense in scope and duration. The Court shall impose a punishment proportional to the offense in scope and duration. Any sentence may include the suspension of any or all of a Regional Assembly member's rights to participate in the government as a Regional Assembly member, to hold office, to participate in the North Pacific Army, to participate in the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, or otherwise, as deemed appropriate to the circumstances.

Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.


Section 6. Continuity of Trials.

In the event an elected term of office for the Attorney General, the Prime Minister or the presiding judicial officer in a trial expires during trial proceedings, the outgoing incumbents of the designated offices shall complete the trial. In the event of a vacancy in the office during the trial proceedings, the acting or interim successor shall assume the responsibility for the trial without interruption or delay.

Section 7. Impeachment.

A - Any Regional Assembly Member may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct. The Nation must provide enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a trial evidence to the Speaker of the Regional Assembly or, if the Speaker is the target of the charges, the elected Delegate, and either the Cabinet, in the case of charges being brought against an officer of the Court, or, otherwise, the Court. Whichever body this duty falls upon shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - A panel of five Regional Assembly members who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror. The Grand Jury shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - All proceedings shall be recorded and sealed by the Chief Justice, or his/her designees, where applicable (including this duty shall be taken up by the Prime Minister if the Chief Justice is being impeached), until that officeholder is either exonerated or removed from office. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be published.
C - If the Speaker or Delegate and the Cabinet or Court (in accordance with Clause A), by majority vote, decides that the given information provides a reasonable basis to warrant a trial for removal from office, the Chief Justice Speaker (or the Prime Minister Delegate, if the Chief Justice Speaker is being impeached) shall call a trial. This trial shall be conducted under the same rules as a criminal trial, except that the Prime Minister Speaker (or Delegate, if appropriate) shall preside and all Cabinet Ministers and Justices who are not the target of the charges shall serve as the Jury if the Chief Justice is being impeached, and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury. Should the defendant be found guilty, they will be immediately removed from office. After removal, the removed officeholder may be subject to expulsion from the Region following a separate criminal trial.

Section 8. Right to Judicial Review.

A - Any nation may request the Court to review any statute, law, or other government action to determine whether that action, statute, or law is in conformity with or is in violation of a provision of this Constitution.
B- The Court may grant such a remedy as it determines to be appropriate in the circumstances.
C - In any such proceeding, the Court shall give notice to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General of the request for judicial review, and may permit the Regional Government or other parties to intervene in a judicial proceeding for the purposes of the requested judicial review.

edit: to correspond with the changes made here

 

[Hersfold]

*Hersfold is waiting to see the debate on this one. Isn't sure if this is a good idea or not...

 

[Heft]

Well, when I threw the idea of getting rid of juries out there in some other thread awhile ago, it seemed to go over well (better than I had expected). This may not be what finally gets passed, and I'm open to changing the amendment, since manipulating the Constitution isn't necessarily my forte, but this is a way to at least get the ball rolling and get a serious discussion about this going.

 

[Fergi the Great]

The jury issue should be addressed in some fashion.

 

[Blackshear]

I agree that juries have proven to be unworkable in our region and support their removal, in theory.

However, a couple of hypothetical dilemmas come to mind:

1) What if one of the three Justices is a defendant in a judicial proceeding?

2) What if the PM or a cabinet member is the one turning to the PM and cabinet for an appeal?

 

[Fergi the Great]

Excellent questions sir.

 

[Heft]

I agree that juries have proven to be unworkable in our region and support their removal, in theory.

However, a couple of hypothetical dilemmas come to mind:

1) What if one of the three Justices is a defendant in a judicial proceeding?

2) What if the PM or a cabinet member is the one turning to the PM and cabinet for an appeal?

1) Well, that would be an impeachment proceeding, and if it's the Chief Justice then the Prime Minister presides and the Cabinet serves as Jury. For some reason it only specifies Chief Justice, I suppose it would make sense to have that include Associate Justices as well?

2) They must get impeached before they can go to a criminal trial, is my understanding, and I don't believe an impeachment ruling can be appealed, as it stands. If they were to then be put on a criminal trial and convicted, they would no longer be a Minister or PM.

Does that help?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Your proposal takes away any meaningful right of appeal, and that is a serious flaw.

While some sort of adjustment to the mechanics of a jury system may be iorder this is a frontal attack on a system that was desugbed to address the potential for abuse of judicial power. An independent judiciawy is essential.

The only alternative to a jury system that protects the rights of defendants to have a fair review by appeal is to establish a trial court system indeoendent of the appeallate court.

Since it is my understanding that the court is working on some sort of package, I would prefer to see this discussion wait for the results of that effort.

I am also concerned abiut this proposal further undercutting the demoncratic libertuees enshired in the declaration of rights as is already the case with the limitations some seek to impose on the liverties members of the region have in the regional Assembly. This is the exact opposite as it seeks to take away the duty of a member to participate in the jury system. The participation of jurors serves as a check and balance on the actions of the elected Cabinet and of the court by the members of the regional assembly acting as jurors.'

A duscusssion may be appropriate, but this particular approach is a bad idea.

 

[Monte Ozarka]

I do agree that the jury system as it stands is overly cumbersome and slow, but I do have some major concerns with your proposed revisions as they currently stand.

First and foremost, "Appeals of final judgments of trials and hearings of criminal cases shall be to the Cabinet en banc before the Prime Minister all of the Ministers" largely strips the Judiciary of their powers and hands the final say to the Executive. Given that there appear to be no procedures in place for appeals (correct me if I'm wrong), I'm gonna assume that the convicted defendant may file an appeal with little or no reason given. Umm...yeah. You can see how this might be a problem.

Next, Section 7, Paragraph C still refers to a "Grand Jury" deciding whether or not an impeachment case goes to trial. Eh? In the same paragraph, it is said that when the Chief Justice (or any Justice, as implied by Heft's reply to BS) is under impeachment charges, "the Prime Minister shall preside and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury". Wait, wait, wait. Does that mean that when anyone in the Judiciary is under impeachment charges, the entire Judiciary is stripped of its power, which is (once again) handed to the Executive? I also assume that when an impeachment case is against a non-Judiciary official, the "Jury" is simply the Justices themselves?

Basically, here's my main concern with your proposal:

Legal authority becomes emplaced entirely within the Judiciary or Executive.

Wow. Literally "judge, jury, and executioner" encompassed in one body, dependent upon the governmental position of the accused.

I'd much prefer if judicial power may be dissipated a bit. Maybe have a Justice preside and use the Cabinet as jury in criminal cases? Or maybe Deputy Ministers, if that's less of a conflict of interest.

 

[The Southern Acre]

I agree with the above statement. I also think that juries should be done away with, but I dont think this is the way. I shall write up another ammanemdnet and propose that in which I will do away with juries but in a different way. I will put that up soon.

 

[Heft]

Your proposal takes away any meaningful right of appeal, and that is a serious flaw.

How so? The only thing I did in appeals was send them to the Cabinet in criminal cases, as it hardly seemed sensical to have someone appeal to the body that had just convicted them.

The only alternative to a jury system that protects the rights of defendants to have a fair review by appeal is to establish a trial court system indeoendent of the appeallate court.

Since it is my understanding that the court is working on some sort of package, I would prefer to see this discussion wait for the results of that effort.

This is a discussion we should have had months ago, we've waited long enough. If the court has a proposal (even an incomplete one) then let's see it, but I'm not going to sit around and wait just for that.

If you don't like how appeals are handled in this proposal, how would you like them to be handled? A serious question, as this is meant to be a starting point to fix (in my mind) one of, if not the, biggest issues with our government, not the end point.

I am also concerned abiut this proposal further undercutting the demoncratic libertuees enshired in the declaration of rights as is already the case with the limitations some seek to impose on the liverties members of the region have in the regional Assembly. This is the exact opposite as it seeks to take away the duty of a member to participate in the jury system. The participation of jurors serves as a check and balance on the actions of the elected Cabinet and of the court by the members of the regional assembly acting as jurors.'

We also have the right to actually have a trial in a somewhat reasonable timeframe, something that (as we have seen numerous times) just doesn't seem possible (and certainly not very likely) with juries. I'd much rather have a quick, fair trial without juries than wait around in limbo for weeks just so a jury (that won't be anymore impartial than the justices, in reality) can be formed.

First and foremost, "Appeals of final judgments of trials and hearings of criminal cases shall be to the Cabinet en banc before the Prime Minister all of the Ministers" largely strips the Judiciary of their powers and hands the final say to the Executive. Given that there appear to be no procedures in place for appeals (correct me if I'm wrong), I'm gonna assume that the convicted defendant may file an appeal with little or no reason given. Umm...yeah. You can see how this might be a problem.

I'm not aware of any procedures in place before. Once again, that change was simply so that people would not be appealing the court that just convicted them. Sending the appeal to the Cabinet seemed like the most logical and effective solution.

Next, Section 7, Paragraph C still refers to a "Grand Jury" deciding whether or not an impeachment case goes to trial. Eh? In the same paragraph, it is said that when the Chief Justice (or any Justice, as implied by Heft's reply to BS) is under impeachment charges, "the Prime Minister shall preside and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury". Wait, wait, wait. Does that mean that when anyone in the Judiciary is under impeachment charges, the entire Judiciary is stripped of its power, which is (once again) handed to the Executive? I also assume that when an impeachment case is against a non-Judiciary official, the "Jury" is simply the Justices themselves?

The only change I made to that section was the placement of "and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the jury" as it seemed a little unclear the way it was, at least to me (which may have been a side-effect of going through the Constitution and getting a little googly-eyed, now that I look at it again).

Currently, I take it, the remaining Ministers serve as the Jury in the instance that a Cabinet Minister is being impeached? That seems a little odd to me (Executive impeaching Executive?), so I took it as that was only the case when the Chief Justice was being impeached. And if that is the case, then the Judicial was already stripped of its power, and even moreso than with this change, now it only is when it's a Judicial officer being impeached (Judicial impeaching Judicial seemed a bit odd as well).

Legal authority becomes emplaced entirely within the Judiciary or Executive.

Isn't that their job? Regardless, if the appeals issue is such a sticking point, send it to the Security Council or create some appeals court (more positions in an already overstretched government, hurrah). Or come up with a different solution, but if it involves randomly selecting RA Members, you better have a way to ensure that it actually happens within 96 hours (maximum).

The most democratic thing is Juries, sure, but it doesn't work. We've seen that enough. Spreading legal authority over elected positions who are expected to be active anyway seems like the best alternative. We are a compact mini-society here, we can't always keep our Branches entirely separate, at least not with any degree of effectiveness.

I agree with the above statement. I also think that juries should be done away with, but I dont think this is the way. I shall write up another ammanemdnet and propose that in which I will do away with juries but in a different way. I will put that up soon.

Good! My main reason for doing this was that it was apparent most everyone recognized the problem, but no one was doing anything about it. And there's no better way of compelling TNPers to action than doing something they might oppose.

 

[freedom and pride]

The jury is the people's check on the system.


I would vote for the abolishment of of the Grand Jury and keep trials by jury....which I believe is a God-Given Right, IRL.

 

[Monte Ozarka]

First and foremost, "Appeals of final judgments of trials and hearings of criminal cases shall be to the Cabinet en banc before the Prime Minister all of the Ministers" largely strips the Judiciary of their powers and hands the final say to the Executive. Given that there appear to be no procedures in place for appeals (correct me if I'm wrong), I'm gonna assume that the convicted defendant may file an appeal with little or no reason given. Umm...yeah. You can see how this might be a problem.

I'm not aware of any procedures in place before. Once again, that change was simply so that people would not be appealing the court that just convicted them. Sending the appeal to the Cabinet seemed like the most logical and effective solution.

Personally, I disagree. What that does is effectively makes the Court subject to "Executive review". What I always imagined the balance of power should be is that the Executive (Cabinet) can be pro-active but always subject to Judicial review. The Judiciary, on the other hand, is strictly reactive--incapable of any action unless formally brought to it by a third party. However, its decision is largely final.

Next, Section 7, Paragraph C still refers to a "Grand Jury" deciding whether or not an impeachment case goes to trial. Eh? In the same paragraph, it is said that when the Chief Justice (or any Justice, as implied by Heft's reply to BS) is under impeachment charges, "the Prime Minister shall preside and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury". Wait, wait, wait. Does that mean that when anyone in the Judiciary is under impeachment charges, the entire Judiciary is stripped of its power, which is (once again) handed to the Executive? I also assume that when an impeachment case is against a non-Judiciary official, the "Jury" is simply the Justices themselves?

The only change I made to that section was the placement of "and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the jury" as it seemed a little unclear the way it was, at least to me (which may have been a side-effect of going through the Constitution and getting a little googly-eyed, now that I look at it again).

Reading the Constitution tends to have that effect on people.

Currently, I take it, the remaining Ministers serve as the Jury in the instance that a Cabinet Minister is being impeached? That seems a little odd to me (Executive impeaching Executive?), so I took it as that was only the case when the Chief Justice was being impeached. And if that is the case, then the Judicial was already stripped of its power, and even moreso than with this change, now it only is when it's a Judicial officer being impeached (Judicial impeaching Judicial seemed a bit odd as well).

What? How is the entire Judiciary stripped of its power at that point? The Chief Justice and two Associate Justices are independently elected, so it makes little sense for the two AJ's to lose their powers when the CJ is on trial for impeachment charges. Personally, I'd like to see the jury to an impeachment trial involve the Cabinet, Judiciary, and RA. The Cabinet and Judiciary can sit together (minus defendant, if applicable) and vote on the impeachment of a member. If that passes, the RA calls a referendum on the matter. If it passes, the member is impeached. Maybe that's too long? But anyways, the important thing is that it cuts down on time-consuming procedures such as jury-selection.

Legal authority becomes emplaced entirely within the Judiciary or Executive.

Isn't that their job? Regardless, if the appeals issue is such a sticking point, send it to the Security Council or create some appeals court (more positions in an already overstretched government, hurrah). Or come up with a different solution, but if it involves randomly selecting RA Members, you better have a way to ensure that it actually happens within 96 hours (maximum).

No, it's not their job to be judge, jury, and executioner all at once. Don't you think that unfair? Under your current proposal, impeachment proceedings against the CJ would be brought and prosecuted by the MoJ, judiciated by the Cabinet, decided by the Cabinet, and punishment meted out by the Cabinet. Does this not strike you as an unfair concentration of power?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

One possibility is to select a standing grand jury for each six month term of the Court; with rules for availability similar to the Security Council.

I would still prefer to hear what ideas the current Court wants to offer concerning jury selection; the issue seem to be tied into the failure of the MIIA to verify continued presence and eligibility of RA members -- it may be that the Court and the RA Speaker may need to share the MIIA's authority to verify continued RA eligibility.

 

[Heft]

Personally, I disagree. What that does is effectively makes the Court subject to "Executive review". What I always imagined the balance of power should be is that the Executive (Cabinet) can be pro-active but always subject to Judicial review. The Judiciary, on the other hand, is strictly reactive--incapable of any action unless formally brought to it by a third party. However, its decision is largely final.

If not the Cabinet, than whom should appeals go before, when the Court has handed down the original ruling and punishment? It may not be the most ideal situation, but it stands the best chance of actually working, from what I've seen.

What? How is the entire Judiciary stripped of its power at that point? The Chief Justice and two Associate Justices are independently elected, so it makes little sense for the two AJ's to lose their powers when the CJ is on trial for impeachment charges.

As it is currently, I'm still not sure whether the "remaining Cabinet Ministers" served as the Jury in an impeachment case only if the Chief Justice is being impeached, or in any impeachment case.

In whichever case, my minor edit makes it pretty clear that it is only in the case of the Chief Justice (or Associate Justice, if more people feel that should be edited in?). So, either nothing there got changed, or I just empowered the Court (since they now get to do impeachment proceedings for all other cases).

Also, I wouldn't really consider the Associate Justices (even if elected independently) to be an unbiased jury, or anything close to it.

Personally, I'd like to see the jury to an impeachment trial involve the Cabinet, Judiciary, and RA. The Cabinet and Judiciary can sit together (minus defendant, if applicable) and vote on the impeachment of a member. If that passes, the RA calls a referendum on the matter. If it passes, the member is impeached. Maybe that's too long? But anyways, the important thing is that it cuts down on time-consuming procedures such as jury-selection.

I would consider that too long, yes. Impeachment proceedings, above all others, should be quick and not dragged out. During one, we have a government official whose authority is rather questionable, at best. Having a Government office in limbo isn't a good thing. Also, by the time the referendum ended there's a good chance that the term would be over anyway.

No, it's not their job to be judge, jury, and executioner all at once. Don't you think that unfair? Under your current proposal, impeachment proceedings against the CJ would be brought and prosecuted by the MoJ, judiciated by the Cabinet, decided by the Cabinet, and punishment meted out by the Cabinet. Does this not strike you as an unfair concentration of power?

Somehow putting the Cabinet and Judiciary together would work, though? We could also throw in the RA Speaker, to represent us peasantfolk. How's this?

Section 7. Impeachment.

A - Any Regional Assembly Member may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct. The Nation must provide enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a trial evidence to the Speaker of the Regional Assembly or, if the Speaker is the target of the charges, the elected Delegate, and either the Cabinet, in the case of charges being brought against an officer of the Court, or, otherwise, the Court, in the case of charges being brought against a Minister, Deputy Minister, or the Delegate or Vice Delegate. Whichever body this duty falls upon shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - A panel of five Regional Assembly members who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror. The Grand Jury shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - All proceedings shall be recorded and sealed by the Chief Justice, or his/her designees, where applicable (including this duty shall be taken up by the Prime Minister if the Chief Justice is being impeached), until that officeholder is either exonerated or removed from office. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be published.
C - If the Speaker or Delegate and the Cabinet or Court (in accordance with Clause A), by majority vote, decides that the given information provides a reasonable basis to warrant a trial for removal from office, the Chief Justice Speaker (or the Prime Minister Delegate, if the Chief Justice Speaker is being impeached) shall call a trial. This trial shall be conducted under the same rules as a criminal trial, except that the Prime Minister Speaker (or Delegate, if appropriate) shall preside and all remaining Cabinet Ministers and Justices who are not the target of the charges shall serve as the Jury if the Chief Justice is being impeached, and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury. Should the defendant be found guilty, they will be immediately removed from office. After removal, the removed officeholder may be subject to expulsion from the Region following a separate criminal trial.

 

[Heft]

One possibility is to select a standing grand jury for each six month term of the Court; with rules for availability similar to the Security Council.

I, quite honestly, do not believe that would succeed. Can we really predict whether someone will be active 6 months from now? And then we'd have to discuss how to go about impeaching one of them? Also, creating more elected positions is not something we should be doing unless absolutely necessary, and I don't believe that is necessary.

 

[Byardkuria]

How about making jury participation a condition of RA membership - civic duty and such? The primary issue, in my experience, has not been getting 5 jurors, but getting 5 jurors to agree to participate.

Also, the Court's rule rework was put on a back burner when the current trial came up. To be fair, though, we really hadn't developed anything or had much in the way of ideas that haven't been presented here. I, for one, am not aginst changes to the system, as long as the spirit and intent of an independent judiciary is preserved, and as long as those changes represent the mandate of the people.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

One possibility is to select a standing grand jury for each six month term of the Court; with rules for availability similar to the Security Council.

I, quite honestly, do not believe that would succeed. Can we really predict whether someone will be active 6 months from now? And then we'd have to discuss how to go about impeaching one of them? Also, creating more elected positions is not something we should be doing unless absolutely necessary, and I don't believe that is necessary.

The grand jury is not elected now, so suggesting that is a straw man, as far as I am concerned. That also eliminates the impeach,rmy suggestion. dince the COurt could remove a missing grand juror, and replace them.

The main complaint seems to be in the time it takes to select juries, so why not focus on that narrow oriblem instead of dimantled one of the safeguards to protect the liberties and freedom enshirrned in TNP and making it easier for would be despots to gain power in the absence of safeguards to prevent such an occurence?

 

[Monte Ozarka]

Personally, I disagree. What that does is effectively makes the Court subject to "Executive review". What I always imagined the balance of power should be is that the Executive (Cabinet) can be pro-active but always subject to Judicial review. The Judiciary, on the other hand, is strictly reactive--incapable of any action unless formally brought to it by a third party. However, its decision is largely final.

If not the Cabinet, than whom should appeals go before, when the Court has handed down the original ruling and punishment? It may not be the most ideal situation, but it stands the best chance of actually working, from what I've seen.

Well, I don't support allowing the Judiciary to come to the verdict by themselves. I want to simplify the administrative process while still maintaining the separation of powers that juries allow us to have. I like your new changes, by the way. Here's my suggestion regarding appeals:

Appeals will be forwarded to the RA for an immediate 7-day (?) referendum with a non-existent, hard-capped, or concurrent "formal discussion" period after evidence in the appeals case has been presented. We'd be streamlining the red tape by utilizing existing and familiar structures (Cabinet votes and RA referenda) while decentralizing the judicial process.

 

[Heft]

The grand jury is not elected now, so suggesting that is a straw man, as far as I am concerned. That also eliminates the impeach,rmy suggestion. dince the COurt could remove a missing grand juror, and replace them.

That could work, however, I don't believe it is necessary, or that the creation of any more positions, elected or appointed, is a good idea.

The main complaint seems to be in the time it takes to select juries, so why not focus on that narrow oriblem instead of dimantled one of the safeguards to protect the liberties and freedom enshirrned in TNP and making it easier for would be despots to gain power in the absence of safeguards to prevent such an occurence?

I don't believe juries actually protect liberties or ensure a fair trial. The problem actually seems to be that very few people really want to be on a jury. Also, given the compact nature of our little society here, no one can really claim complete impartiality. Letting the Justices handle most things ensures us that people who do want to deal with legal things, who were elected partially because they can be impartial, and who have the patience to come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

Appeals will be forwarded to the RA for an immediate 7-day (?) referendum with a non-existent, hard-capped, or concurrent "formal discussion" period after evidence in the appeals case has been presented. We'd be streamlining the red tape by utilizing existing and familiar structures (Cabinet votes and RA referenda) while decentralizing the judicial process.

That makes sense. To be honest, a 7-day referendum would probably be shorter than any appeals hearing. I'd be open to that (now to just figure out how to put that in the edits). Would it be the same for civil and criminal cases (I'm assuming Impeachments can't be appealed)?

 

[Monte Ozarka]

Would it be the same for civil and criminal cases (I'm assuming Impeachments can't be appealed)?

Personally, I think that having the RA deal with appeals of civil cases would be a waste of time. Could work, though. Also, regarding impeachments...I see no reason why it cannot be appealed. Sure, while the appeal's going through, the punishment would be applied already, but the accused should have every right to clear his name if he feels that the case was unfair. I'd like the same appeal mechanism to function in the impeachment hearings.

What bothers me more now that this has actually got me to read the article pertaining the Judiciary is that there appears to be no limits to the appeals process. There is nothing that addresses the reasons for which a verdict may (or may not) be appealed, nor is there a limit to the number of times a case may be sent through the appeals process.

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

First, we have to address the subject of this whole debate:

Juries, what are they good for?

What are juries good for? They beat the hell out of having summary drum-head tribunals or decisions made by one person or a handful of fixed persons. It is always better to have a jury of ones peers than to have direct summary judgement by a judge. Summary judgements are always invariably appealed but jury trials, baring new evidence or proceedural errors, are usually final.

The problem is that we seem to have a problem with getting juries. Calling up people from a pool of jurors has been somewhat of a failure so far. One solution is to have a given number of nations volunteer to act as jurors at large. That is we have X number of RA members volunteer to be jurors and X number to volunteer as grand jurors.

 

[Heft]

What are juries good for? They beat the hell out of having summary drum-head tribunals or decisions made by one person or a handful of fixed persons. It is always better to have a jury of ones peers than to have direct summary judgement by a judge. Summary judgements are always invariably appealed but jury trials, baring new evidence or proceedural errors, are usually final.

That may be true in RL, but it isn't quite the case here. In NS, the Justices are our peers, essentially. The only difference with juries is we are having decisions made by a handful of random people that (in most cases, it seems) aren't particularly interested in having that responsibility.

I'll work out how to get the appeals changes worded and edited in either later tonight or sometime tomorrow. Too tired now.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

There are other ways to make changes in the system if the overwhelming number of the RA members truly want to end a jury system....a point that has not been established yet.

First, the quickest way to preserve the appellate role of the Court in civil and criminal cases would be to appoint at least one more associate justice. The three Associate Justices could rotate the responsibility for presiding at the trial level, and the other two Associate Justices and the Chief Justice would comprise the appellate panel for that proceeding. Thix zvoids having the trial and appellate courts sharing a member. In addition, the Court already has the power to appoint a hearing officer for a particular case. That power could be made mandatory for all trials, and the current three Justices would only handle appeals and judicial reviiew peoceedings.

Impeachment could be replaced by a recall provision where a petition of RA members could force a referendum to recall an elected officeholder and remove them from office. The normal vacabcy procedures would then apply.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding....it is a political proceeding. The reason for the use of a grand jury was to assure that there was a legitimate basis for seeking to impeach and remove an officeholder before a trial with the Cabinet as jurors.

These two options would be more preferable to me in that it would preserve the separation of powers, and protect the independence of the judiciary.

 

[Heft]

First, the appeals change as suggested by Monte Ozarka. Something like this, I think. I'd have to look over the rest and make sure everything works out, but this is the general idea you were shooting for, no?

Section 4. Criminal and Impeachment Trial and Appeal Rules and Procedures.

A - The Court shall adopt rules and regulations as to the procedures for trial of criminal indictments, and the trial of government officials on articles of impeachment.
B - All criminal trials shall be judged by all sitting Justices of The Court of The North Pacificinclude a randomly selected trial jury of five Regional Assembly Members drawn from the list of Regional Assembly Members.
C - A jury shall have the power to recommend a proportionate punishment to any conviction to the judicial officer, who shall impose such recommendation as the sentence of the Court provided that the sentence is proportionate to the offense in scope and duration. The Court shall impose a punishment proportional to the offense in scope and duration. Any sentence may include the suspension of any or all of a Regional Assembly member's rights to participate in the government as a Regional Assembly member, to hold office, to participate in the North Pacific Army, to participate in the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, or otherwise, as deemed appropriate to the circumstances.
D – Any defendant Nation in a Criminal or Impeachment proceeding retains the right to appeal the decision.
E – The Nation in question, or the Nation’s defense council, shall present a Notice of Appeal to the Speaker of the Regional Assembly. The Speaker then has a maximum of 48 hours to initiate a Seven-Day Referendum within the Regional Assembly. A minimum of 60%+1 of the votes cast must be in favor of the Defendant for the decision to be overturned.
F – If the Appeal is denied and the punishment passed on the Nation is longer than two months, the Nation retains the option of presenting a second Notice of Appeal after a minimum of two months from the start of the first Referendum. The process and requirements for the second appeal shall be the same as the first. The outcome of this appeal shall be final, and no more Notice of Appeals shall be accepted.

Impeachment could be replaced by a recall provision where a petition of RA members could force a referendum to recall an elected officeholder and remove them from office. The normal vacabcy procedures would then apply.

Not a bad idea.

Something like this?

Section 7. Impeachment.

A - Any Regional Assembly Member may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct. The Nation must provide enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a trial evidence to the Speaker of the Regional Assembly or, if the Speaker is the target of the charges, the elected Delegate, and either the Cabinet, in the case of charges being brought against an officer of the Court, or, otherwise, the Court. Whichever body this duty falls upon shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - A panel of five Regional Assembly members who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror. The Grand Jury shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - All proceedings shall be recorded and sealed by the Chief Justice, or his/her designees, where applicable (including this duty shall be taken up by the Prime Minister if the Chief Justice is being impeached), until that officeholder is either exonerated or removed from office. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be published.
C - If the Speaker or Delegate and the Cabinet or Court (in accordance with Clause A), by majority vote, decides that the given information provides a reasonable basis to warrant a trial for removal from office, the Chief Justice Speaker (or the Prime Minister Delegate, if the Chief Justice Speaker is being impeached) shall call a trial referendum within the Regional Assembly. This trial shall be conducted under the same rules as a criminal trial, except that the Prime Minister Speaker (or Delegate, if appropriate) shall preside and all Cabinet Ministers and Justices who are not the target of the charges shall serve as the Jury if the Chief Justice is being impeached, and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury. Should the defendant be found guilty, they will be immediately removed from office. The Referendum shall last for Seven days. If at least 66%+1 of the votes cast are in favor of impeachment, the defendant will be immediately removed from office. After removal, the removed officeholder may be subject to expulsion from the Region following a separate criminal trial.

Once again, I'd have to go over the rest of the Article and make sure everything lines up correctly (and probably remove the option of appeal for impeachment, since it would be rather pointless to appeal to the body that just impeached you), but is that the general idea?

I'd also like to note that if any spectators have something to add, I'd like it if they did so now, as I would rather not get to the Formal Discussion period and suddenly have people saying they think it should be worded differently.

 

[Mr.Gaunt]

After my own experience trying to get grand jury members and then jury members for the FEC trial, I agree that some of the jury system should be streamlined.
E.g. we might give up the grand jury and maybe even decrease the number of jury members to three.

But I have no doubt that a jury system is the way to go. There is a high possibility to get a good independent result.

edit: typos

 

[thekbp]

Iknfriknfrak (IK) is also waiting on this one...I have to read thru it again before I can make an informed decision. Also, I believe I need to sleep on it, and confir wit hother members, as I we are fairly new at this.

As Heresfold mentioned before...we would like to see the debate on this issue, as well.

IK

 

[dont pick it up]

Mr.Gaunt has brought up a very good point in my eyes. We don't have to scrap the Jury sysetm, we can reform it. That way we could get the best of both worlds, with one group of people does not make all the decisions, and mabe we can fix what looks to me as a flawed system.

 

[Heft]

Juries are unnecessary.

We assume they are better, but are they? I contend that, no, they are not! Sir!

But seriously. What makes Juries better than Justices? In this region, a Justice is just as match our peer as a Juror. The main difference, as far as I can see, is, with a jury, you get a random group of people who may or may not make an attempt at impartiality, who may or may not have a decent understanding of the law, and who may or may not give a damn about your case.

Whereas, with Justices, you get a group that you know will make an attempt at being impartial (and will probably do so better than most Jurors, since that's what they're elected for), who do have an excellent understanding of the law, and whose job it is to care about the proceedings.

So, aside from just being easier and more convenient to organize, I believe that the system we are working on in this thread will also provide better and, gasp, more fair trials.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Randomly selected juries serve as a check on the judiciary and the prosecution in criminal prosecutions by serving as the finder of the facts governing the case, and in so doing preserve the independence of the judicial branch. This also avoids making the courts subservient to the other branches of the government.

Need I remind any of you of the arbitrary trials conducted without a jury or an independent judiciary that took place in the NPD era? Need I remind anyone of the one minute trials conducted by one of the players in the Pixiedance regime against those who have honorably served in the government since the end of the Pixiedance era?

Part of the problem here is the short memorles that some have. It is said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. I am not willing to sacrafice the liberties the region struggled so hard to preserve on the altar of "efficiency" -- our liberties and freedom are far top important to throw away. The calls for major changes are not warranted, when in fact all that is required is a minor course correction. I are not convinced that major surgery is required and that many lesser options should first be considered and tried before heading down this unfortunate path.

 

[Heft]

I remember what happened. However, I would say that the largest thing stopping us from advancing towards creating an even better free government is this fearmongering and paranoia you exhibit so well. The NPD was a deliberately authoritarian regime, and IP is, well, not a stable judicial officer.

Do you really believe that getting rid of juries, under the proposed changes, is going to allow the Judiciary to start "The Tyranny of two-minute trials"? Charges still must be brought by a citizen, appeals are a guaranteed right, trials have a process they must follow, impeachment of naughty justices is always an option.

Liberties are not being eroded.

 

[Monte Ozarka]

Juries are excellent. However, we can't avoid certain truths:

1) A good jury needs to have many randomly-selected jurors.

2) Randomly-selected jurors are hard to come by.

3) The more jurors you need, the harder it is to draw up a jury.

4) The administrative narrowing down of the pool of potential jurors that can be called at a moment's notice would create more bureaucratic red tape and, ironically, slow down the process. At the same time, it makes the pool less "random".

So, you can only choose two of the following qualities for a jury:

• large enough pool to be random
• large enough n to account for sampling error
• can move at a decent pace

So, what's it going to be?

What Heft's proposal does is focus on the last two because recent court cases (i.e. TNP vs. FEC) have moved so slowly that they have become irrelevant by the time they have (not) finished.

If any of you think you can come up with a solution that encompasses all three qualities mentioned above while allowing for imperfect, busy players with RL obligations, I'm all ears.

 

[Haor Chall]

I remember what happened. However, I would say that the largest thing stopping us from advancing towards creating an even better free government is this fearmongering and paranoia you exhibit so well. The NPD was a deliberately authoritarian regime, and IP is, well, not a stable judicial officer.

Do you really believe that getting rid of juries, under the proposed changes, is going to allow the Judiciary to start "The Tyranny of two-minute trials"? Charges still must be brought by a citizen, appeals are a guaranteed right, trials have a process they must follow, impeachment of naughty justices is always an option.

Liberties are not being eroded.

 

[Heft]

First, the appeals change as suggested by Monte Ozarka. Something like this, I think. I'd have to look over the rest and make sure everything works out, but this is the general idea you were shooting for, no?

Section 4. Criminal and Impeachment Trial and Appeal Rules and Procedures.

A - The Court shall adopt rules and regulations as to the procedures for trial of criminal indictments, and the trial of government officials on articles of impeachment.
B - All criminal trials shall be judged by all sitting Justices of The Court of The North Pacificinclude a randomly selected trial jury of five Regional Assembly Members drawn from the list of Regional Assembly Members.
C - A jury shall have the power to recommend a proportionate punishment to any conviction to the judicial officer, who shall impose such recommendation as the sentence of the Court provided that the sentence is proportionate to the offense in scope and duration. The Court shall impose a punishment proportional to the offense in scope and duration. Any sentence may include the suspension of any or all of a Regional Assembly member's rights to participate in the government as a Regional Assembly member, to hold office, to participate in the North Pacific Army, to participate in the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, or otherwise, as deemed appropriate to the circumstances.
D – Any defendant Nation in a Criminal or Impeachment proceeding retains the right to appeal the decision.
E – The Nation in question, or the Nation’s defense council, shall present a Notice of Appeal to the Speaker of the Regional Assembly. The Speaker then has a maximum of 48 hours to initiate a Seven-Day Referendum within the Regional Assembly. A minimum of 60%+1 of the votes cast must be in favor of the Defendant for the decision to be overturned.
F – If the Appeal is denied and the punishment passed on the Nation is longer than two months, the Nation retains the option of presenting a second Notice of Appeal after a minimum of two months from the start of the first Referendum. The process and requirements for the second appeal shall be the same as the first. The outcome of this appeal shall be final, and no more Notice of Appeals shall be accepted.

Impeachment could be replaced by a recall provision where a petition of RA members could force a referendum to recall an elected officeholder and remove them from office. The normal vacabcy procedures would then apply.

Not a bad idea.

Something like this?

Section 7. Impeachment.

A - Any Regional Assembly Member may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct. The Nation must provide enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a trial evidence to the Speaker of the Regional Assembly or, if the Speaker is the target of the charges, the elected Delegate, and either the Cabinet, in the case of charges being brought against an officer of the Court, or, otherwise, the Court. Whichever body this duty falls upon shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - A panel of five Regional Assembly members who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror. The Grand Jury shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
B - All proceedings shall be recorded and sealed by the Chief Justice, or his/her designees, where applicable (including this duty shall be taken up by the Prime Minister if the Chief Justice is being impeached), until that officeholder is either exonerated or removed from office. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be published.
C - If the Speaker or Delegate and the Cabinet or Court (in accordance with Clause A), by majority vote, decides that the given information provides a reasonable basis to warrant a trial for removal from office, the Chief Justice Speaker (or the Prime Minister Delegate, if the Chief Justice Speaker is being impeached) shall call a trial referendum within the Regional Assembly. This trial shall be conducted under the same rules as a criminal trial, except that the Prime Minister Speaker (or Delegate, if appropriate) shall preside and all Cabinet Ministers and Justices who are not the target of the charges shall serve as the Jury if the Chief Justice is being impeached, and all remaining Cabinet Ministers shall serve as the Jury. Should the defendant be found guilty, they will be immediately removed from office. The Referendum shall last for Seven days. If at least 66%+1 of the votes cast are in favor of impeachment, the defendant will be immediately removed from office. After removal, the removed officeholder may be subject to expulsion from the Region following a separate criminal trial.

Once again, I'd have to go over the rest of the Article and make sure everything lines up correctly (and probably remove the option of appeal for impeachment, since it would be rather pointless to appeal to the body that just impeached you), but is that the general idea?

I'd also like to note that if any spectators have something to add, I'd like it if they did so now, as I would rather not get to the Formal Discussion period and suddenly have people saying they think it should be worded differently.

Hate to quote myself, but, what are the thoughts on these?

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I am strongly in favor of holding trials by jury. Admittedly the selection process has not allowed for the prompt seating of a jury. But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The solution lies in targeting nations who are most likely to respond promptly and take care of the business at hand. Nations could volunteer for jury duty. Since this place is run by the people who show up, the judge could pull the jury out of the top ten posters of the day. Or maybe have an "A" list of nations who voted in the last election or on the most recent RA proposal and hit up those folks first. They could call up the next five people who post in any thread after charges are filed.

I'm sure we can think of other ways to get the job done.

 

[Daimiaena]

Juries are good for the symbolic sense of justice they bring....

Suggestion:
At the start of a new term of Court justices, a random jury order is generated and then jury members are assigned to two or three week terms.....whether there is a trial or not....that way they are ready for duty if a trial comes up....

Dai

 

[Heft]

I am strongly in favor of holding trials by jury. Admittedly the selection process has not allowed for the prompt seating of a jury. But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Why?

The solution lies in targeting nations who are most likely to respond promptly and take care of the business at hand. Nations could volunteer for jury duty. Since this place is run by the people who show up, the judge could pull the jury out of the top ten posters of the day. Or maybe have an "A" list of nations who voted in the last election or on the most recent RA proposal and hit up those folks first. They could call up the next five people who post in any thread after charges are filed.

I'm sure we can think of other ways to get the job done.

I don't think that would work very effectively; I do think it would unnecessarily complicate things and has the potential to completely destroy the randomness of Juries. ("Hey, I'm going to post this and then the five of you post right after").

Juries are good for the symbolic sense of justice they bring....

Giving nations true justice by making the system work as best it can given our conditions and restraints is much more important than giving nations a symbolic sense of justice, no?

Suggestion:
At the start of a new term of Court justices, a random jury order is generated and then jury members are assigned to two or three week terms.....whether there is a trial or not....that way they are ready for duty if a trial comes up....

Dai

That would also damage the randomness of trials. Also, in practicality, it would still fail. We cannot have any assurance that those random RA members told to be on and active for a two or three week term actually will be.

I've yet to see a proposal that would make a trial-by-jury system fair, just, and effective. It seems to me that we are presented with two choices with a jury system: One that would ensure our democratic freedoms and liberties are never abused by the Judicial system but will never actually manage to pull of a trial, thereby depriving us various rights anyway, and another that would work reasonably effectively, though not as well as a non-jury system, but would run a very real danger of actually harming (or, at the very least, not protecting) our liberties.

We can get rid of Juries without running roughshod over our liberties, and that is what we are doing here. The idea that juries equal democracy and that's it is baseless, and counter-productive to creating a great democratic society.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I am in favor of retaining trials by jury because it serves as a check on the power of the judiciary.

Have we ever had a court proceeding in TNP in which the defendent and his attorney cry foul and rant about not being able to get a fair trial? Get rid of the jury and every defendent will start petitioning for recusal and/or a change of venue. And how could you blame them?

Let's turn the issue around: would having a jury system be so objectionable if the jury could be seated immediately, and the entire proceeding wrapped up in, say, two weeks time? Would there be anything wrong with that?

Has anyone looked at other regions to see if any have attempted to have trials by jury? Have they run into this issue? What else has been tried? Has any system proved practical?

 

[Heft]

If that were possible, that would be just fine. However, I've yet to be presented with any reason to believe it is.

If someone doesn't believe they had a fair trial, that's what the appeals process is for.

 

[Unterwasserseestaat]

I can't see anywhere in the Constitution itself where it states how juries need to be chosen. I've never been called for jury duty myself IRL but I believe they summon more people than the actual size of the jury.

Could another solution to this be to send summons to, say, 15 random RA members, and then take whoever replies in 3 days. Then the defense and prosecution could take turns pinging potential jurors until it gets down to 5 actual jurors. I think the defense should go first.

If it ends up that even something like this doesn't work I would be all in favor of Heft's proposal.