Definition of Appeals System

[Gulliver]

A previous poll showed that people supported pseudo-appeals system, so this is a semi-settled matter, but we have the time and strictly speaking the question of how the appeals system should be defined is separate from whether there should be one or not, so it doesn't hurt to be very thorough about this. Anyway, the options are pretty straightforward:

• 1. Constitutionally defined: the question of whether there should be appeals and if so how initial hearings and appeals are structured is defined by the constitution;
• 2. Defined by law: the question of whether there should be appeals and if so how initial hearings and appeals are structured is defined by law;
• 3. Other: An option not listed here, please specify

You may vote for up to 2 options.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

What I'd like to see is a provision that all trials are heard by a single justice, all judicial reviews of government action are heard by three justice, and any other proceedings shall be as defined by law or court rule. That would leave the maximum flexibility for experimentation and at least allow no immediate legislation to be required for the court to function,

 

[punk d]

I dislike trials of one for a few reasons, the most important of which is in a criminal trial, for example, I think one should have to convince more than one jurist of guilt. And given how different some interpret law and how important trials are I'd prefer a system opposite of your suggestion.

I think the desire for flexibility is outweighed by the need for fairness. A trial of one is less fair, in my opinion, than a trial of 3,5, or more. Finding the right balance is important and I'd suggest 3 is a good number.

With respect to appeals, if the original trial had 3, then I'd prefer an appellate process that includes one justice.

 

[Gulliver]

Well not nearly as many people as I would have wanted to voted, but people appear to have voted more or less to keep things simple, which I'm perfectly alright with.