Judicial System

Gulliver

Gulliver

TNPer
This poll is to decide how the judicial system should be structured. There are three options:
  • 1. Single court without appeals: What we currently have;
  • 2. Single court with appeals: New cases are tried by a single justice, but may be appealed to a hearing of the full court;
  • 3. Separate trial and appeal courts: New cases are tried by a trial court, and may be appealed to a larger, separate court of appeals.
You may pick up to 2 options.
 
It's been difficult enough to hold a "trial" under the current setup, I can't imagine how much more pointless it would be if we start having multiple courts. This is NS, not RL, and there are certain differences in running things, which are necessary to accomodate that fact. This is one of them.
 
I agree with HC. We have to make the system as simple as possible. Are there other regions out there who have gotten it right? How are they making it work?
 
I believe "Single court with appeals" may be the best step towards ending a bogged down legal system. appeals courts would only make things worse.
 
What I favor (and would avoid the obvious conflict issue with only three justices total) is a four member Court. The justices would take turns (rotating for each case) as the trial judge of a case, and the other three justices would be the appeal/review step.

The reason, at this point, why certain trials failed were a total failure for sitting justices to follow their own rules. (The JAL case, constitutionally, should have been a one judge trial, which was ignored; and the presiding judge could easily have enforced the calendar in the rules or started barring witnesses or evidence not prepared in time. I guarantee you that had I been presiding at the time, that is what would have happened. Now that the calendaring aspect is in the Legal Code, it will be harder for sitting justices to ignore those requirements.

But as I've already explained to Gulliver, a four justice setup within the Court avoids the inherent conflict of the trial judge sitting on the review, and still allows a three justice panel.

And now that the rule on temporary justices has been used, we're in a better position to avoid incessant delays because we're a justice short.
 
How about a Single Court with Appeals, with a twist?

Here's the procedure:

1.) Before a trial occurs, there should be an evidentiary hearing to determine evidence or lack thereor; and the merits of the case in toto. If a trial is warrented, then:

2.) You have an initial trial presided over by a single judge.

2.) Should there be an appeal by either the defendant or the AG, it goes to a full panel of judges (including the original judge) to argue the merits of an appeal (and we would have to loosely define the grounds for an appeal such as mistrial, perjury or lack of evidence, principle of law, logic, reason, etc.,,,). Restricting appeals to legitimate reasons reduces cluttering up the court with automatic appeals.

3.) A final appeal could be 'begged' by defendant (and only the defendant) to a vote of the RA based upon simple majority of the participating voters (abstentions would only count towards the total votes in determining a majority of 50%+1 and not counted as for or against the defendant) as an RA "Pardon" or "Clemency" ruling.

4.) Or, in extreme cases, we could institute a Delegate's Pardon in some form provided no conflict of interest is involved.

5.) Establish a time limit for each procedural step in favor of the defendant in keeping with the 'innocent until proven otherwise' principle.

Something along these lines would present a familiar logical order in general and also preserve a modicum of 'trial by one's peers', so to speak.
 
Roman, you are overthinking it and making it too complicated.

I've posted a suggestion in response to Gulliver in the main discussion on the revision proposal, and what I suggest is layered onto the system now in the Legal Code and the Court's current rules.

The Court would have four justices. They would handle trial assignment on a rotation; the other three justices would heard any appeals for that particular case.
The record on appeal would be the posted trial record. Once the party that appeals posts the issues they are seeking review, both sides would post their statement/arguments on those issues within a very short time period, and the three justices holding the review would then discuss the case and issue a decision. The whole appeal process shouldn't take more than 10 days to 2 weeks. And the time frame can be added to the Legal Code to give it teeth.

The one thing I do not want is having to have the trial justice serving on the appeal as well. I think that's the best argument for a 4 justice court. And we can make clear that judicial reviews of the legality of actions or legislation use three justices, and have one justice sit out on a rotating basis.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Roman, you are overthinking it and making it too complicated.

I've posted a suggestion in response to Gulliver in the main discussion on the revision proposal, and what I suggest is layered onto the system now in the Legal Code and the Court's current rules.

The Court would have four justices. They would handle trial assignment on a rotation; the other three justices would heard any appeals for that particular case.
The record on appeal would be the posted trial record. Once the party that appeals posts the issues they are seeking review, both sides would post their statement/arguments on those issues within a very short time period, and the three justices holding the review would then discuss the case and issue a decision. The whole appeal process shouldn't take more than 10 days to 2 weeks. And the time frame can be added to the Legal Code to give it teeth.

The one thing I do not want is having to have the trial justice serving on the appeal as well. I think that's the best argument for a 4 justice court. And we can make clear that judicial reviews of the legality of actions or legislation use three justices, and have one justice sit out on a rotating basis.
Click to expand...
That would require all 4 justices to you know be active. Which is hard to come by.
 
What if we stuck with 3 justices, and had the appeals court consist of the other 2? They have to be unanimous to overturn the original decision.
 
Why can't we just keep it 3 Justices w/ one Moderating Justice for a trial and the decision on the case be made by all 3 justices the first time.
 
I know, I know. Let's have one judge, make it Ivan and be done with it.

Seriously, I don't see how we can even think about appeals when we haven't ever gotten through a trial properly. I think Hileville's suggestion sounds the most practical so far, but I am interested in hearing some other ideas as well.
 
Hileville:
Why can't we just keep it 3 Justices w/ one Moderating Justice for a trial and the decision on the case be made by all 3 justices the first time.
Click to expand...
Because it would be inherently impossible for a "moderating" justice not to have to rule on matters prior to or during the trial, and that justice would still end up reviewing and deciding on his or her own decision on review.
This is why I have moved to believing there has to be four justices in order to make it work fairly.
A single rotating order of assignment (postive as in presiding for trying a case, negative (as in not participating0 on a three judge judicial review proceeding or appeal from the single judge.
The Court has had a rotating assignment system for years, so the tools are already there. We just have to have recognition that it is inherently unfair to have the same justice try a case solo, and then participate on an appeal.
As IIRC, we did have some appeals under the last constitution, so to say we've never had an appeal is not accurate.
 
Single court with appeals. why? Because I may think your decsion is lousy and I also may think another jury will serve better at listening and new evidence may come up.
 
Carly:
Single court with appeals. why? Because I may think your decsion is lousy and I also may think another jury will serve better at listening and new evidence may come up.
Click to expand...
There is no jury.

Great Bights Mum:
I think Hileville's suggestion sounds the most practical so far, but I am interested in hearing some other ideas as well.
Click to expand...
That would be encompassed by a single court with no appeals since there's no ban on adopting such procedures.
 
The Flemingovian Constitution dealt with this issue and the problems raised in this thread very simply and elegantly:

TRIALS:
Nah. Don’t work. Never have, never will. All judicial decisions will be referred to Flemingovia.
Click to expand...
 
Romanoffia:
3.) A final appeal could be 'begged' by defendant (and only the defendant) to a vote of the RA based upon simple majority of the participating voters (abstentions would only count towards the total votes in determining a majority of 50%+1 and not counted as for or against the defendant) as an RA "Pardon" or "Clemency" ruling.

4.) Or, in extreme cases, we could institute a Delegate's Pardon in some form provided no conflict of interest is involved.
Click to expand...
Let the Regional Assembly or the Delegate decide things! :o :o :o :o

Good God, no. Where would things come to if we let the RA decide things?
 
I would like to suggest that the actual number of justices be placed in the Legal Code and not in the Constitution. That would make it easier to experiment with different models, if it comes to that.
 
I'm actually surprised by the results of this. In any case that's how the draft is currently written so I don't believe I have to change anything just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top