Amendment to Judicial Process

Felasia

Felasia

TNPer
This amendment is a work by A mean old man after both of us discuss about how hard it is to fill all three judicial positions during the last general election. Keep in mind that this is still a work in progress.

The main idea is to have only one Justice and that the trial will be decided by jury from the RA instead of the justice.

Note, this is one very long post.

Change are in red. Post are deletion.

Constitution:
Article IV: Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch is invested with the powers and obligation to investigate the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws. It is also tasked to provide an impartial platform by which suspects of crimes against the region or against others are tried.

Section 1: Membership and Responsibilities

1. The Court Justice is responsible for organizing the proper distribution of cases to maintain timeliness and impartiality.
2. The presiding justice shall serve as arbiter of rule disputes, maintain courtroom decorum, and consider all requests of the Court with the intent of pursuing truth impartially.
3. No sitting justice shall fire a request for judicial review.

Section 2: Court Powers

1. The Judiciary is vested with the responsibility to oversee all trial proceedings.
2. All matters of judicial review to examine the constitutionality of Government policies, actions, and laws are to be brought before the Court Justice.
3. The official opinions crafted as a result of judicial review are to be binding upon all agents, officers, agencies, and Government bodies of TNP. If a policy, action, or law is deemed unconstitutional, any evidence collected via these unconstitutional means is inadmissible in the Assembly or in any TNP court of law.
4. At the request of either (a) any four members of the Regional Assembly who do not currently hold the elected offices of Vice Delegate or as a Justice of the Court, or (b) of the Speaker, or an Assembly member then acting as the presiding officer of the Assembly in the absence of the Speaker, the presiding judicial officer may issue an emergency order enjoining an actual or intended Executive action pending prompt further proceedings before the Court. The Court Justice may thereafter temporarily enjoin an actual or intended Executive action pending final disposition of the matter either by the Court, or otherwise by an expedited vote of the Regional Assembly within parameters proposed in the request by the Speaker or members of the Regional Assembly as set by a Court order under such terms as deemed appropriate under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Constitution:
Article VI: Ejection and Banning

Section 1: Use of Ejection and/or Banning

1. Ejection and/or banning from the region The North Pacific may be prescribed as a punishment for violations of regional laws. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.
2. The Delegate is permitted to eject and/or ban violators of NationStates rules without prior or further consultation from the Government.
3. The Delegate is required to eject and/or ban Nations and/or Players that have been sentenced in the Courts to be ejected or banned from the region for breaking regional laws.
4. The Delegate is to inform the region and the Government of all ejections or bannings carried out in a timely manner.
5. The Delegate, in carrying out these duties, must maintain an adequate level of regional influence.

Section 2: Legal Recourse

1. In the case where a Nation feels that their banning or ejection was unwarranted, they may appeal their case to the Court Justice who shall bring the Delegate's ruling before a jury comprised of the three most recently active RA members since the Justice's review of the ban contestation to order by majority vote of said jury the acceptance or denial of the nation's plea.
Click to expand...

Legal Code:
TNP LAW 26
Election Dates and Procedures
. . .
SECTION THREE, Special Elections

1. A special election shall be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position in accordance with this Law. A special election cycle shall last for no more than fourteen days, which must be completed prior to the beginning of the next election cycle for the vacated office or position.
2. The Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, the Court Justice, shall serve as Election Commissioner for the special election.
3. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy in the special election shall last for five days, beginning within two days after the vacancy occurs or is noticed.
4. Voting shall begin one day after the period for nominations or declarations has closed. Voting shall last for five days.
5. In all instances, a plurality shall determine who is elected to fill a vacancy. In the event of a tie, the Delegate, or if the Delegate is not available, the Speaker, or if the Delegate and Speaker are not available, the Court Justice, shall cast a tie-breaking vote.
Click to expand...

TNP LAW 29
Freedom of Information Act

Preamble: whereas the security and freedom of the North Pacific go hand in hand:

Section 1:
a) The North Pacific government exists specifically to serve the people of the region and to act in the best interest of all resident nations of The North Pacific.

b) The Delegate and the Executive officers appointed by him or her shall be delegated the task of informing the Assembly of any governmental action not already disclosed by the respective officers of the Executive.

c) All registered citizens and/or governments residing in The North Pacific have the right to request information from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive, and

d) The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive shall endeavour to retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government, whom are obligated to release this information provided it will not and/or does not present a threat to regional security, and

e) Citizens or governments which do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information in a regional court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information impairs Regional security.

f) Information not disclosed because of issues pertaining to Regional security will be classified by decree of the Court Justice.

g) Information whose disclosure is deemed a security threat to the Region will be released with the approval of the Justice of the Court no sooner than 2 months after the original request once the threat no longer exists.
Click to expand...

Law 30 of Legal Code:
TNP LAW 31
Attorney General

To better serve the region as Chief Prosecutor to prosecute any abuse of power to the fullest extent, the Regional Assembly declares the office of Attorney General be an elected office, to be elected at the same time as the Justices of the Court of The North Pacific in the manner provided by Section Two of Law 26.

Section 1:
1) To serve as Attorney General, one must be a member of the Regional Assembly for thirty consecutive days prior to candidacy.
2) One must not have been convicted of any prior charge.

Section 2:
1) The Attorney General is to serve as Chief Prosecutor to all cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
2) The Attorney General is to work within the rules adopted by the Court.
3) The Attorney General shall serve for six months.

Section 3:
1) Should the position for the Attorney General become vacant for any reason, the Court Justice shall name a replacement for the interim until a special election is held under Section Three of Law 26, or until the next regular judicial election.
2) It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting. If for any reason, should the original Attorney General be unable to complete a pending case, then the interim or elected successor Attorney General shall take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
3) Consistent with paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution, the Attorney General may request a presiding judicial officer to issue an emergency order enjoining an actual or intended Executive action pending prompt further proceedings before the Court. The Court Justice may thereafter temporarily enjoin an actual or intended Executive action pending final disposition of the matter either by the Court, or otherwise by an expedited vote of the Regional Assembly within parameters proposed in the request by the Attorney General as set by a Court order under such terms as deemed appropriate under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

TNP LAW 32
Legislation Correction Act

Upon the passage of this law, whenever legislation is enacted by the Regional Assembly, and due to possible oversight, that legislation fails to include a co-ordinated change in the legal documents governing The North Pacific, the following procedure may be used to incorporate any insubstantial change consistent with the enacted legislation:

A. Any member of the Regional Assembly may notify the Speaker and the Court Justice of the need for making a change in the governing documents of The North Pacific to reflect the enacted legislation, which was not included in such legislation prior to enactment.
B. Within three days after notification of an oversight error, the Speaker and the Court Justice shall compile a list of such items related to a specific enactment that are identified as co-ordinated changes that were not included in the text of the enactment.
C. That list shall be presented to the Regional Assembly, and unless a Regional Assembly member makes an objection within 72 hours thereafter as to a specific item, the Speaker and Court Justice shall authorize the corrections for which no objection is given to be made to the official text of the legal documents governing The North Pacific.
D. Any item on the correction list to which an objection is made shall thereafter be treated as legislation to make such change under normal legislative procedures.
E. As used in this Law:
1. “Legal documents governing The North Pacific” refers to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Legal Code, or any rules adopted by any entity as provided under the Constitution or Legal Code, including but not limited to the Delegate, the Regional Assembly, the Court of the North Pacific, and the Security Council.
2. A “co-ordinated change” that may be included on the correction list include grammatical errors, typographical errors, cross-references, or omitted changes that should have been included in the enacted legislation.
Click to expand...
 
1. Why a jury of RA members instead of letting a Justice decide themselves?

2. Why remove that last section for the AG area?
 
I like it too, though the three most recent RA members should have the ability to pass on the opportunity to be a juror if ther are conflicts of interest or the nation isn't going to be active in the near future, etc.
 
While we're discussing amendments in this area, I would also like to recommend we include in the terms of reference for the AG the responsibility of assessing complaints from citizens and the available evidence and translating them into official charges before trials begin.

While I don't want to prejudice a trial currently in session, I think there is no harm in making the general observation that there has been some confusion lately about the proper and appropriate process for converting accusations and complaints into comprehensible legal charges.

Whether this should go into Law 31 (The Attorney General), and/or perhaps into the Bill of Rights where due process is concerned, I'm not sure.
 
Topid:
I like it too, though the three most recent RA members should have the ability to pass on the opportunity to be a juror if ther are conflicts of interest or the nation isn't going to be active in the near future, etc.
Click to expand...
True.
 
Govindia:
1. Why a jury of RA members instead of letting a Justice decide themselves?

2. Why remove that last section for the AG area?
Click to expand...
1. Because it is expedient. The JAL trial and many before it have proven that having three Justices is unto itself a clumsy way to organize a court system and one that promotes general inactivity. Also, the traditional duty of a Justice should be that of a moderator, not of a judge and jury.

2. I made this so long ago that I don't entirely remember my reason for that particular edit, but looking at it now it seems it was merely an unnecessary and almost incoherent complication that I decided should be removed. Either that or Fel asked me to do it.
 
Greater Peterstan:
While we're discussing amendments in this area, I would also like to recommend we include in the terms of reference for the AG the responsibility of assessing complaints from citizens and the available evidence and translating them into official charges before trials begin.

While I don't want to prejudice a trial currently in session, I think there is no harm in making the general observation that there has been some confusion lately about the proper and appropriate process for converting accusations and complaints into comprehensible legal charges.

Whether this should go into Law 31 (The Attorney General), and/or perhaps into the Bill of Rights where due process is concerned, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
If the AG is acting as the prosecution in a particular trial, they should have to do this anyway. If they can't turn evidence/complaints which they have been provided into charges, they're not carrying out their duties properly. Another problem is that the RA does not have power over the Court's own special little rule book, which gave me a headache when I was trying to organize this. TNP's legal code is possibly the most scattered and confusing text-based monstrosity I've ever had to work with, and that's saying something.

EDIT: I've responded to two other quotes further up the page as well.

EDIT 2: Also, it seems Elu has done a good job of outlining the charges against JAL in the current trial.
 
A mean old man:
Greater Peterstan:
While we're discussing amendments in this area, I would also like to recommend we include in the terms of reference for the AG the responsibility of assessing complaints from citizens and the available evidence and translating them into official charges before trials begin.

While I don't want to prejudice a trial currently in session, I think there is no harm in making the general observation that there has been some confusion lately about the proper and appropriate process for converting accusations and complaints into comprehensible legal charges.

Whether this should go into Law 31 (The Attorney General), and/or perhaps into the Bill of Rights where due process is concerned, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
If the AG is acting as the prosecution in a particular trial, they should have to do this anyway. If they can't turn evidence/complaints which they have been provided into charges, they're not carrying out their duties properly. Another problem is that the RA does not have power over the Court's own special little rule book, which gave me a headache when I was trying to organize this. TNP's legal code is possibly the most scattered and confusing text-based monstrosity I've ever had to work with, and that's saying something.

EDIT: I've responded to two other quotes further up the page as well.

EDIT 2: Also, it seems Elu has done a good job of outlining the charges against JAL in the current trial.
Click to expand...
Twice, in fact <_<
 
We used to have a jury system, and the problem was that it took months, literally, to get a qualified jury assembled. While in theory, I would believe in a jury system simply on democratic principles, I see nothing in this proposal that would make it work any better than it did in the pass.

Second, I'm not sure why the Court chose to assign all three justices to preside at a criminal trial. It's not supposed to work that way. The intent was always that the trials themselves would be single justice trials, on a set rotation from trial to trial. Appeals would be a three judge panel of the entire court.

We don't need this amendment. It would backfire greatly. No matter how you seek to appoint a jury, it will take months and months just to get a trial started. That's not a theoretical opinion; that is based on what happened with jury trials when we had them before.

As to what happened in the last election, that can be the result of a lot of factors, including the lack of any proceedings whatsoever in some judicial terms. People just weren't aware of the elections.

I can also speak as the last Minister of Justice before we had a Court. Single-person judiciaries are dangerous. I pushed mightily to get a Court system established at the Constitutional Convention because the single person judiciary was even more dangerous and capable of abuse.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
We used to have a jury system, and the problem was that it took months, literally, to get a qualified jury assembled. While in theory, I would believe in a jury system simply on democratic principles, I see nothing in this proposal that would make it work any better than it did in the pass.

Second, I'm not sure why the Court chose to assign all three justices to preside at a criminal trial. It's not supposed to work that way. The intent was always that the trials themselves would be single justice trials, on a set rotation from trial to trial. Appeals would be a three judge panel of the entire court.

We don't need this amendment. It would backfire greatly. No matter how you seek to appoint a jury, it will take months and months just to get a trial started. That's not a theoretical opinion; that is based on what happened with jury trials when we had them before.

As to what happened in the last election, that can be the result of a lot of factors, including the lack of any proceedings whatsoever in some judicial terms. People just weren't aware of the elections.

I can also speak as the last Minister of Justice before we had a Court. Single-person judiciaries are dangerous. I pushed mightily to get a Court system established at the Constitutional Convention because the single person judiciary was even more dangerous and capable of abuse.
Click to expand...
I don't know how your old jury system worked, Gross, and considering I've never seen its design, I highly doubt I'd be able to reproduce exactly what your prior, flawed system was. If someone took "months" to assemble a qualified jury under the terms specified in my edits (most recently active RA members - not too hard to figure out and write down), they'd be a horrible candidate for their position.

My system is designed to hopefully provide an active Court. The current system is too large and is vulnerable to the detrimental effects of inactivity. If something has flaws, change it until you get it right. The latest system is not the "right" one.

If it takes "months and months" for someone to make a list of people in the RA who were active most recently, that person should be sacked. If it takes "months and months" for the most recently active RA members to visit the Court, they've likely gone totally inactive and WILL be sacked. In fact, maybe I'll make something requiring the chosen RA members to declare their presence in the jury within five days.

I also can't see how having one Justice can be "dangerous" as long as you don't give this single Justice the power to be dangerous. I removed judicial review, which was really unnecessary; as much as this might be a necessary component of a government IRL, I have news for you: NS isn't IRL. We don't need every branch of the government to have the ability to undermine every other branch in a regional government. Yes, I said "undermine," not "check." It causes more problems than it solves.

I disagree with you, Gross. Maintaining the unsatisfactory out of fear of the future is hardly appropriate if this region is to make any progress.
 
I think that jury selection was broken for two different reasons before:

1. The Jury was selected from an RA randomly, including the least active in the pool.
2. The Jury was selected before the trial and expected to sit tight until its end, which could be a long time for unrelated reasons. Understandably, some would vanish by the end.
 
As for Judicial Review, I do want to have *some* entity with the power to check the Delegacy, and having the Speaker alone with that responsibility is irresponsible. We could go nuts, and issue the authority to adjudicate the Constitution they must enforce to the Security Council, but I think that that could create a conflict of interest.
 
The process of judicial review in the legal code was limited to preventing the other branches from attaining evidence for use in the Court in illegal fashions. Other than that, it did nothing.
 
Hmm, never mind. It seems judicial review is still in there and almost untouched.

Odd. I could have sworn I struck it. Or planned to.

Well, edits have to be made to the existing edits either way.
 
Actually I think with 4 RA members, the Court can be asked to review something based on the Legal Code as well? It's not entirely clear.
 
The Court currently has a rule to appoint a temporary hearing officer to sit as a single judge or as part of a three-judge panel.

I'm not sure why this court decided to try a case as a three-judge panel, since the intent was to have all criminal trials tried by a single judge, and then appeals could be heard by other justices and a temporary hearing officer to get the three.

It may be simpler to have three associate justices with a chief justice. This bill however.

The problem with the jury trial was that jurors were slow or unwilling to respond to a juror summons; and then we had problems with people wanting to have post-by-post testimony taken during the trial which would slow things to a cwarl. The cules of evidence demands that both sides get their cases fully prepared within a maximum of two weeks, and that both sides post their evidence and testimony (recorded before trial) promptly at trial, and then the justice reviews all of the evidence allowed at trial and decides the guilt or innocence.

It isn't complicated it's very direct, and it should not take forever. What we cannot control is players deciding to take their time no matter what the process is.

However, most of the changes being proposed are a disaster waiting to happen. Bring the RA in as a body into the judicial process will be the worse possible outcome. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top