Juries, what are they good for?

Except the proposal isn't finalized yet.

Would people rather see (under my proposal, without juries) impeachments handled by trial following the procedures suggested, or impeachments handled by referendum of the Regional Assembly?
 
I agree with Schnauzer that an impeachment is a political action, but that's why I think it ought to be dealt with by a referendum of the RA. Then if removed from office the player would be subject to a criminal trial under normal guidelines (whatever they may be).
 
Unterwasserseestaat:
I agree with Schnauzer that an impeachment is a political action, but that's why I think it ought to be dealt with by a referendum of the RA. Then if removed from office the player would be subject to a criminal trial under normal guidelines (whatever they may be).
Click to expand...
You've just made a really strong proposal, plus easier to pass since it's only an amendment to the Legal Code.

Heft, more ideas are always better. It's not like you haven't had supporters for your argument too. Please share!
 
I agree that impeachement should be done by a referendum of the RA. Makes more sense than having it the same as trial, since it is not a regular trial.
 
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 E - 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 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 Pacific include 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 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.

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 referendum 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 B - 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 referendum 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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
I have a serious problem with the appeal process described in this proposal.

It does not provide any basis or mechanism by which an appeal can be based on questions of the intrepretation or application of legal principles can be reviewed and resolved by an appropriate judicial body. The right of appeal becomes more of a popularity match between the defendant and the those who sought prosecution in a vote of the regional assembly.

That is not only a unfair process, it is not a process at all.

I also object to the legislative branch being the determinate of appeals because it removes the independence of the judicial branch and makes it subservient to the legislative branch.

There may well be need for changes to the jury system, but this is not the way to go.
 
It does not provide any basis or mechanism by which an appeal can be based on questions of the intrepretation or application of legal principles can be reviewed and resolved by an appropriate judicial body. The right of appeal becomes more of a popularity match between the defendant and the those who sought prosecution in a vote of the regional assembly.
Click to expand...
This is true, the accuses should provide some sort of evidence to either the PM, or the Cabinet to show that the interpretation or application of the legal code was incorrect in thier trial and that it should be appealed. Following approval from that body, it should go to appeal before the RC. I beleive the RC should hear the appeals, simply because that is the simplest and most straightforward way of doing it, and it does not really take much of the Judicial Branch's power.
 
Unterwasserseestaat:
I agree with Schnauzer that an impeachment is a political action, but that's why I think it ought to be dealt with by a referendum of the RA. Then if removed from office the player would be subject to a criminal trial under normal guidelines (whatever they may be).
Click to expand...
And, it should also include a provision of 'high-crimes and midemeanors' (or some such qualifier) so that the RA cannot simply impeach a cabinet member arbitrarily.

On the whole, I agree. Since the RA is the electorate, who better to try a case of impeachment?
 
Somewhat better?

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 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 shall then begin a Seven Day discussion period within the Regional Assembly. During this period, Regional Assembly members will have the opportunity to ask questions of all parties involved in the trial. The Defendant will be expected to present solid reasoning to support the assertion they have been wrongly convicted. Likewise, the Court will be expected to present solid reasoning in support of the conviction.
F - At the close of the Seven Days, the Speaker shall 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.
G – 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.
Click to expand...
 
Not really.

First, it should be the burden of the Attorney General/Minister of Justice, and the designated prosecutors to defend a conviction on appeal, not the Court's.

Second, that provision underscore my objection to this proposal in that it would make the judicial branch subservient to the legislative branch, rather than being one of three equal branches of government.

As to the process of the basis of the appeal, it would still be difficult if not impossible to delineate the rationale for the result of an appeal if more than one issue were raised.

I cannot even begin to imagine thrashing out a statement in the regional assembly stating the reasoning behind a vote on an appeal on one issue, much less if more than one issue were raised. It can be difficult enough among a handful of justices, but the whole Regional Assembly?

No, this amendment destroys the independence of the court as a guardian and protector of the liberties and rights protected in the Constitution. It's crazy enough that at the same time a proposal to weaken the protection of a fair system of criminal justice has been put forward in the guise of a "housekeeping" proposal to amend the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution....these two proposals together will start a course that will open the door to an end result that will corrode our liberties and our open and democratic system of government.
 
I am still somewhat unconvinced that, given the framework under which we labour, juries are useful and requisite.

First of all, convening a jury in NS is difficult to do which denies the accused a right to a speedy trial.

Second, in absentia of a prosecutor or de facto law enforcement body aside from whatever espionage might be procured, those members of cabinet who authorize that inquest and are most likely to be affected should have the burden and responsibility to hear the cause and meet out judgement, seeing as they are they who initiated the movement and not the populace at large.

Third, since being a juror requires only that one be a member of the regional assembly and since RA membership is given despite any other political affiliations someone may have in NS, would that not place our citizens putatively at the mercy of foreign envoys destined on our destruction?
 
Fergi the Great:
Third, since being a juror requires only that one be a member of the regional assembly and since RA membership is given despite any other political affiliations someone may have in NS, would that not place our citizens putatively at the mercy of foreign envoys destined on our destruction?
Click to expand...
That is a security hole we've noticed and have attempted to repair to some extent. We can't just deny people access into the RA simply because they have nations elsewhere - that would violate several of our fundamental principles. Not to mention the fact that we would lose half of the RA as a result. :lol:
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Not really.

First, it should be the burden of the Attorney General/Minister of Justice, and the designated prosecutors to defend a conviction on appeal, not the Court's.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not a difficult change to make, or one I'm really hung up on, so I don't have any issue with that.

Second, that provision underscore my objection to this proposal in that it would make the judicial branch subservient to the legislative branch, rather than being one of three equal branches of government.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I've always considered the RA to be above the rest of the government, so that doesn't really bother me. The Judiciary's job is to protect the RA, and to protect....minorities from the potential mob-mentality that a body like the RA could develop. However, if the Judiciary has just convicted someone, than they obviously feel that the person being convicted is in the wrong and not simply being lynched or whatnot.

As to the process of the basis of the appeal, it would still be difficult if not impossible to delineate the rationale for the result of an appeal if more than one issue were raised.

I cannot even begin to imagine thrashing out a statement in the regional assembly stating the reasoning behind a vote on an appeal on one issue, much less if more than one issue were raised. It can be difficult enough among a handful of justices, but the whole Regional Assembly?
Click to expand...

You mean it would be difficult for the RA to craft an announcement stating "Appeal has been denied for X, Y, and Z reasons" (of course, much longer and more verbose)? Well, yes, and it would also be unnecessary. Hence, I'm not too bothered by that.
 
I think that it would be more useful to have a somewhat more theoretical discussion on what are the pros and cons of having a strong legislature (which doubles as the voting public in TNP). The judiciary in TNP seems to be on a weaker footing, simply because the demands of running a trial often surpass what a member can afford given RL circumstances.

As to the process of the basis of the appeal, it would still be difficult if not impossible to delineate the rationale for the result of an appeal if more than one issue were raised.
Click to expand...
Would the RA as a whole need to give a statement of intent, or would individual statements suffice? You're requiring a majority of the RA to vote in the same way, for the same reason. That doesn't make much sense given the nature of either humans nor the democratic bodies they inhabit.

My response to Schnauzer's criticism of the 'housekeeping' measure can be found here.
 
I am torn on this one. I agree with Fergi that juries are usless and waste time, but I agree with Grosseschnauzer that we cannot have the judicial branch as subservial to the legislative. I think that the power of the judicial is severly limited by this ammendment. I think we need to find another way to eliminate juries that does not trample the power of the judicial. If I have time tonight or tommorow, I will write up another ammendment, if I can think of a good way to do it.
 
I may be all for the right to a speedy trial but since we don't have such a right in our Constitution, we can't exactly close existing trials or bar potential trials because of it. Also doesn't the Statute of Limitations kind of play into that?
 
@Unter: While I love theoretical governmental discussions, I don't see us as having the luxury of time for that. This is a problem we have now, and a problem we need to fix soon, somehow or another.

@TSA: I still don't really see how this tramples the power of the judicial, except that criminal appeals go to the RA.

@Sniffles: This would only effect trials intiated after this was passed, if it does get passed.
 
Heft:
@Unter: While I love theoretical governmental discussions, I don't see us as having the luxury of time for that. This is a problem we have now, and a problem we need to fix soon, somehow or another.

@TSA: I still don't really see how this tramples the power of the judicial, except that criminal appeals go to the RA.

@Sniffles: This would only effect trials intiated after this was passed, if it does get passed.
Click to expand...
yeah, I know. I'm just addressing the why we're changing juries in the first place, because they slow down the trial system unjustly. Tell me when you're ready for FD.
 
Well, hold on and let me make sure the right version goes to FD.

In the meantime, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" for everyone.

Well, that was exciting, I hope you all enjoyed the trip.

Was that too obvious? Nevermind, here we go.

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.
F E - 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 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 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 shall then begin a Seven Day discussion period within the Regional Assembly. During this period, Regional Assembly members will have the opportunity to ask questions of all parties involved in the trial. The Defendant will be expected to present solid reasoning to support the assertion they have been wrongly convicted. Likewise, the Prosecution, including the Attorney General, Minister of Justice, and any other designated prosecutors, will be expected to present solid reasoning in support of the conviction.
F - At the close of the Seven Days, the Speaker shall 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.
G – 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.

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 referendum 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 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 B - 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 referendum for removal from office, the Chief Justice Speaker (or the Prime Minister Delegate, if the Chief Justice Speaker is being impeached) shall call a referendum within the Regional Assembly. This trial shall be conducted under the same rules as a criminal trial, except that the Prime Minister shall preside 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.

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.
Click to expand...

heh, forgot. You can send this version off to FD now.
 
Heft:
Grosseschnauzer:
Not really.

First, it should be the burden of the Attorney General/Minister of Justice, and the designated prosecutors to defend a conviction on appeal, not the Court's.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not a difficult change to make, or one I'm really hung up on, so I don't have any issue with that.

Second, that provision underscore my objection to this proposal in that it would make the judicial branch subservient to the legislative branch, rather than being one of three equal branches of government.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I've always considered the RA to be above the rest of the government, so that doesn't really bother me. The Judiciary's job is to protect the RA, and to protect....minorities from the potential mob-mentality that a body like the RA could develop. However, if the Judiciary has just convicted someone, than they obviously feel that the person being convicted is in the wrong and not simply being lynched or whatnot.

As to the process of the basis of the appeal, it would still be difficult if not impossible to delineate the rationale for the result of an appeal if more than one issue were raised.

I cannot even begin to imagine thrashing out a statement in the regional assembly stating the reasoning behind a vote on an appeal on one issue, much less if more than one issue were raised. It can be difficult enough among a handful of justices, but the whole Regional Assembly?
Click to expand...

You mean it would be difficult for the RA to craft an announcement stating "Appeal has been denied for X, Y, and Z reasons" (of course, much longer and more verbose)? Well, yes, and it would also be unnecessary. Hence, I'm not too bothered by that.
Click to expand...
The conceptual differences over the role of the three branches of government is so basic and fundamental to this discussion and proposal that I wouldn't know where to start.

I believe there is another way (or several other ways for that matter) for any changes in the judicial system to be addressed that do not threaten the indepdendence of the judicial branch.

The roles of the three branches of government are so intertwined in a bad way under this proposal as it currently stands. Such a drastic change is not in the best interests of regional poltical stability and opens the door to autocratic government. A government dominated by the legislature isn't much better than the government dominated by the parties who controlled the Delegate's chair during the Pixiedance era.

A complete as possible separation needs to be maintained.

And keep in mind that the protection provided by the jury system was its randomness -- so that the possibility of a "packed" jury (or a "kangaroo court" was greatly reduced.

As to knowing the basis for the result of an appeal.....such issues provide guidance to the trial courts in the future. Knowing only that a verdict was overturned without knowing why makes consistency in the judicial system far more difficult if not impossible. The absence of stating and explaning the reasons for a reversal also makes it far more difficult to see if changes in the substative law or procedure might be needed. I would also suggest that it would weaken the constitutional guarantees included in the Declaration of Rights. In any event, it is not in the best long-term interests of the region to take that route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top