Disorder in the Court

Great Bights Mum

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
In the wake of a general dissatisfaction with TNP's judicial system, I would like to explore new ways to bring order to the court. Currently, the rules adopted by the court are found here. I read through them, and ... well, I got as far as #15 before I started nodding off. The overall picture I have is that holding a trial and getting a conviction while following each and every detail in the rules is just too hard to do. Most of us are not lawyers, and would find the task daunting. Those who are attorneys will admit that it is an enormous time commitment to prosecute a case under this system. We need something that is so easy, anyone can do it.

I've placed this discussion in the Lobby, because I am interested in input from members of other regions as well. Does someone else have something that works?

Some questions to consider:
Is it practical to apply real-world solutions to the NS environment?
How much simplifying can be done while still protecting the rights of the accused?
Would a more straightforward criminal code help? (For example: You will be banned if you do X)
Can justice be rendered in the absence of formal proceedings?
Could hearings be held in real time?

Some ground rules:
Brainstorming is not the same thing as evaluating and implementing. That comes later.
We are searching for ideas, so everyone's ideas are welcome. There should be no disparaging of ideas.
Thinking outside the box is encouraged.
Asking someone to clarify and explore his suggestions are fine, but no one should be shot down or dismissed out of hand.
This is not the place to bring specific legal complaints, criticize job performances or name names. There are other threads for that.
Hypothetical examples are preferred.
 
I am entirely in agreement that the rules of evidence need simplification.

I think that the new legally set simple trial procedure is helpful, though it has not yet been tested D:
 
Just as a brainstorming idea.... I think that we should consider reform to the office of Attorney General itself.

Other regions use the office of a Minister of Justice for this purpose.... I think that currently accountability exists only in the form of recall. I think we could work on adding a further layer of accountability to this

1: Make the AG accountable to the Delegate (not ideal for separation of powers)
2: Give the Delegate or the Court the authority to appoint a special prosecutor, if the Attorney General has in the court's view a conflict of interest in the matter.

Recall is an important provision. I think though we should be able to add a further layer of accountability.

Hearings being held in real time, I think would be a great idea. The issue is coordinating it. I think the possibility of introducing juries, could mean that we get a clearer guilty or not guilty verdict. Which is something to consider.

I also agree that the rules of evidence need to be simplified. All in all it would be great if the court actually had the authority to finish its cases, and the Attorney General was accountable enough to force them to prosecute or appoint a competent alternative prosecutor to carry out the proceedings.

Once again, this thread should remind us all, how much we need GBM around. Thanks for having the initiative to start this discussion.
 
I agree very much with AG reform. I think it was Flem who said on irc that recall should be a last resort, but with the AG it is the only resort with regards to accountability.
 
One question I would ask is whether there are other comparable regions that have a judicial system that functions well.

If there are, maybe there are lessons we could learn.

If there are not, maybe this RL model of justice does not work in a game like NS, and we need to look for a whole different model.
 
Osiris's judicial system functions relatively well, although it's far less formal and there's far less reasons and opportunities for what some would consider frivolous complaints.
 
I took a little tour of some of the other feeders, and didn't see anything that was a radical improvement over TNP.
As far as the current codes we have, it was never my intent to belittle them. I know the authors put work into drafting them with the best interest of society in mind. I fully support their passage.

I just think it's time to look at a radical departure from the entire form of the proceedings. Do we really need formality when we have a society populated by several dozen? It's like having a Supreme Court administrating justice for the residents of just a few streets of houses.

I've thought about an organic integration of the "court of public opinion" as part of the process. Essentially, all the back and forth that goes on about an issue IS the testimony. In essence, we would all be friends of the court. A magistrate could look at it, ask any questions of the parties involved, and reach a verdict.

I've also thought about having trials in real time. The problem of trial preparation and discovery would still have to be addressed. We need to think of ways to make it less onerous.
 
I think one big thing we need is reform is a time limit.

The weakness was even brought up by the current attorney general when he specified that there was no actual rule on when he had to address the case.

I do think there needs to be a reasonable time during which the AG has to at least address the claim and give preliminary thoughts. My personal thoughts on the matter are that there should be something like 1-2 weeks for an initial reply to be given by the Attorney General.
 
Real time trials I oppose; especially as I live in a different time zone to most other people.


Radical departure .... yes. perhaps this simple format.

Simply this...
A complaint is made.
There is no Attorney General who decides whether a case is worthy.
The complainant has ONE POST to make their case. Questions can be asked by the justices of clarification, but no new evidence can be introduced.
The defendant then can make ONE POST to counter the argument and make their defence.
Nobody else can post. None of this Amicus curiae crap.
The judges then deliver their verdict.
The losing party has ONE POST to appeal. This can only apply if they believe the verdict to be factually inaccurate - not if they believe it is just "wrong".
The delegate can rule on the factual accuracy of the verdict (not on the rightness of it) and order a retrial if necessary.

It is not as good as Flemingovianism, of course. But it might work.
 
flemingovia:
Has it had many successful trials? if so for what?
Click to expand...
It's had one successful trial. That of Tim-opolis for treason. The trial was being delayed by absence by both side, so the judges, myself, Zaolat and Hileville, ended the trial with a verdict of Not Proven, allowing a retrial possibility when people had more time and also showing our annoyance with the delays and how tim was y'know, factually guilty.

I think there were also trials of attempted coupers I can't remember the name of.

It's not, y'know, been a resounding success, but it's a simple system without what seems to be the inbuilt crap this one has.
 
flemingovia:
Real time trials I oppose; especially as I live in a different time zone to most other people.


Radical departure .... yes. perhaps this simple format.

Simply this...
A complaint is made.
There is no Attorney General who decides whether a case is worthy.
The complainant has ONE POST to make their case. Questions can be asked by the justices of clarification, but no new evidence can be introduced.
The defendant then can make ONE POST to counter the argument and make their defence.
Nobody else can post. None of this Amicus curiae crap.
The judges then deliver their verdict.
The losing party has ONE POST to appeal. This can only apply if they believe the verdict to be factually inaccurate - not if they believe it is just "wrong".
The delegate can rule on the factual accuracy of the verdict (not on the rightness of it) and order a retrial if necessary.

It is not as good as Flemingovianism, of course. But it might work.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I'm not sure what to think of this proposal yet.
 
Osi's system is simple--it just needs to implement time limits.

I kind of like Flem's idea, though. That seems simple and less BS.
 
madjack:
flemingovia:
Has it had many successful trials? if so for what?
Click to expand...
It's had one successful trial. That of Tim-opolis for treason. The trial was being delayed by absence by both side, so the judges, myself, Zaolat and Hileville, ended the trial with a verdict of Not Proven, allowing a retrial possibility when people had more time and also showing our annoyance with the delays and how tim was y'know, factually guilty.

I think there were also trials of attempted coupers I can't remember the name of.

It's not, y'know, been a resounding success, but it's a simple system without what seems to be the inbuilt crap this one has.
Click to expand...
I can indeed concur with Georgie that the Osiran Legal System is good.

The only two real problems I saw with it is that there is no Double Jeopardy granted to people. The only reason I have Double Jeopardy protection in Osiris is because I pushed that as part of my plea bargain.

The other problem exists here too and that is time limits.

It's a fairly good system though. Maybe a bit vague on some parts, but still good.
 
Osiris's judicial system is in need of work. If it was good I wouldn't have been illegally banned without trial but that's a separate story.

MOVING ON.

The problem with TNP's judicial system as I see it are:
1. People who run for justices and are never active.

2. People who feel the need to post in threads when they are not Parties to the case, then cry free speech violations.

3. Deadlines not being followed and cases being dragged on for months.

TNP vs. JAL is a prime example of all of this. I was the only active justice around at the time, and even my abilities were hampered because of a lack of resources.
 
Govindia:
Osiris's judicial system is in need of work. If it was good I wouldn't have been illegally banned without trial but that's a separate story.
Click to expand...
Except you weren't banned by the Judiciary.

You were banned by the admin team.

Stop whining about it in places where it's irrelevant.
 
Earth:
Govindia:
Osiris's judicial system is in need of work. If it was good I wouldn't have been illegally banned without trial but that's a separate story.
Click to expand...
Except you weren't banned by the Judiciary.

You were banned by the admin team.

Stop whining about it in places where it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
An extra-judicial ban is still illegal, and since Osiris's legal system was mentioned, yes it was relevant.

Now back to the topic at hand.
 
Govindia:
Earth:
Govindia:
Osiris's judicial system is in need of work. If it was good I wouldn't have been illegally banned without trial but that's a separate story.
Click to expand...
Except you weren't banned by the Judiciary.

You were banned by the admin team.

Stop whining about it in places where it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
An extra-judicial ban is still illegal, and since Osiris's legal system was mentioned, yes it was relevant.
Click to expand...
Except, no.

Your ban wasn't within the court's Jurisdiction.

Please stop mischaracterizing Osiris' justice system.

Now this thread was not made as another "Govindia whines about being banned in other regions" thread. >.>
 
ADMIN NOTE: OK, let's not make this into yet another "All about Govindia" thread.

GBM opened this with serious intent. let's respect that before I get all adminny on yo ass.


SO, BACK ON TOPIC ......
 
God n Country n Byron has an excellent system.
It is based on ancient Israel's system, where there is 1 judge who is appointed by The Almighty.
This person rules on all matters of justice, and his/her say is final.
(In our case, the Judge is also the Executive Ruler and Legislative Leader since he was appointed by The Almighty to all 3 positions).
I, the Judge, Supreme Leader Lord Byron, am extremely effective. You will note that my Nation has no crime, with a current Buuble-Rapp Safety Rating of 1,429.2.
I emplore you to consider me for Supreme Judge of the Glorious North Pacific.

Regards,
Supreme Leader Lord Byron
 
Detbyron:
God n Country n Byron has an excellent system.
It is based on ancient Israel's system, where there is 1 judge who is appointed by The Almighty.
This person rules on all matters of justice, and his/her say is final.
(In our case, the Judge is also the Executive Ruler and Legislative Leader since he was appointed by The Almighty to all 3 positions).
I, the Judge, Supreme Leader Lord Byron, am extremely effective. You will note that my Nation has no crime, with a current Buuble-Rapp Safety Rating of 1,429.2.
I emplore you to consider me for Supreme Judge of the Glorious North Pacific.

Regards,
Supreme Leader Lord Byron
Click to expand...
.... Umm... :eyebrow:

Less IC, more OOC.
 
MOVING ON.

The problem with TNP's judicial system as I see it are:
1. People who run for justices and are never active.

2. People who feel the need to post in threads when they are not Parties to the case, then cry free speech violations.

3. Deadlines not being followed and cases being dragged on for months.

TNP vs. JAL is a prime example of all of this.

Trials should have fixed rules and fixed time limits, and if either side is dragging, either side should be penalised accordingly.
 
Thank you Flem for putting this discussion back on topic. Anyway, back to the discussion.

I absolutely agree with GBM's point that the procedures have to be greatly simplified, especially with the rules of evidence.

As Eluvatar noted, the new legal tried to solve the problem of trials dragging on forever by establishing clear time limits for each phase of the trial, but it hasn't been tested yet. Currently the main problem is with the AG.

As to flem's proposal, it's interesting and I feel it's on the the right track. I do, however worry that a limit of exactly one post is harsh and could have unintended consequences, e.g. the Attorney General being slow in bringing cases to court because they have to get their sole post exactly right. Just a time limit on how long the back and forth can go on for, and perhaps giving the Court the power to cut things short if people just end up repeating themselves rather than introducing new facts or both sides agree they've made their argument, would be enough to prevent things from dragging on perpetually.

EDIT: Spelling
 
Howsabout this then: each side gets a set number of posts to make their case: say 10 posts maximum per side.

It would work rather like line challenges in Tennis. Once they have used their 10 posts that is it - they are silenced.

If you cannot make a case in 10 posts you have no case to make.

Oh, and I would introduce a time limit if we are allowing multiple posts: the case lasts one week, no more.
 
A limited number of posts in which to make one's case and a limited time in which to use those posts seems workable.

On another note, I didn't see it when reading through but how is witness testimony currently handled and has it been a problem? If so, would it be possible for such testimony to be gathered before the trial and then presented by the parties in the scheme flem has suggested?
 
THe parties in the case could use their post allocation as they saw fit. If they wanted to include quotes from others, that would be fine.

But only these two would be able to post.
 
Govindia:
Earth:
Govindia:
Osiris's judicial system is in need of work. If it was good I wouldn't have been illegally banned without trial but that's a separate story.
Click to expand...
Except you weren't banned by the Judiciary.

You were banned by the admin team.

Stop whining about it in places where it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
An extra-judicial ban is still illegal
Click to expand...
Wrong.

As a danger to NSers and users of the Osiris forum, see:your phoning of the father of one Osiris resident after your ban, you were banned by the admin team. Forum security trumps the Book of the Dead, which also grants the Council of Ma'at banning abilities.

Do not presume to make statements on laws and judicial systems you know nothing about.

Edit: apologies, didn't see flem's note.
 
Is it practical to apply real-world solutions to the NS environment?

Absolutely, but you have to establish which system you wish to apply (i.e.: English Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law, Napoleonic Code, etc.,,,).

I say this with a caveat: if a system like English Common Law/A-S Positive law (one in the same thing) is chosen, you have to accept the various traditional points of law and apply general logic that is not contained specifically in written law. For example:

Common law contains certain elements of logic, reason and rules of evidence that are subject to logic and reason that are, well, common sense. Such as things like the "Reasonable Man Clause" which implies that a law, as written can be over-ruled if the defendant acted in a way that any reasonable person would have acted given the context of the 'offense'.

If we use a common law method of building a 'tradition' of jurisprudence as we go along, using precedence as a basis, then we can apply RL legal practices in a way that uniquely fits TNP, and gradually so, and in a way that is logical and understandable.



How much simplifying can be done while still protecting the rights of the accused?


See my comments on Common Law practice above.

You could reduce the entire code of law to the principle "thou shalt not harm another" and any time someone is "harmed" it would be up to the AG (based upon existing precedent) or the Court in the form of a three judge panel to make an initial determination of the 'merits' of the case or charge. If the judges think a charge or case has merit, it proceeds. If it is by logic and reason frivolous or otherwise just plain stupid, then it gets booted.

If their is sufficient opinion that the AG or Court is wrong, then the RA can establish a law setting a certain specific item as a specific offense for the sake of future precedent or legal code.

For instance, if a government official is acting like a jackass but there is no specific law regarding an official acting as a jackass, it would be logical to dismiss any case where such official is charged with being a jackass, not because there is no specific law concerning being a jackass as an offense, but logic and reason would demand that there would be dereliction of duty or other action that compromises the position to have been committed despite no specific law having been violated.

In this way, we develop a legal system and system of precedent unique to TNP and its context. And it would develop rapidly. Take my word for it.




Would a more straightforward criminal code help? (For example: You will be banned if you do X)

This is a 'Codex' solution. Works well but can become quite inflexible because it is a 'machine' system that does not allow for mitigating circumstances. It has been tried before but has usually crumbled because of the inflexibility resulting in instances where mitigating circumstances and specific principles of defense against charges are not permitted.

Codex systems tend to eliminate anything resembling actual due process of law.


Can justice be rendered in the absence of formal proceedings?

No. You have to have presentation of the charges, evidence to back the lodging of charges; a defense to the charges, cross examination, re-crossing, and closing statements. The trick is to find an expedient and efficient way of doing it.

Any method of rendering judgment can be used no matter how arbitrary, but there would have to be some kind of appeal process such as an appeal to the RA for a final determination.


Could hearings be held in real time?

Sure, in theory. In practice it would be like herding cats, though.
 
Eluvatar:
What about the Delegate? The Ministers? The Speaker?
Click to expand...
If the Delegate cannot do their job in a competent fashion it is my view they should be recalled. The Ministers are accountable to both the delegate and the regional assembly. The council of five elections do not legally change that in any way, shape or form.

The Speaker has the added benefit of the pro-temp speaker being able to step in. I do agree that it would be good if a further level of accountability could be added to both. Primarily though this discussion is concerned with the Justice system.

I also quite like Flemingovia's idea.
 
flemingovia:
Real time trials I oppose; especially as I live in a different time zone to most other people.


Radical departure .... yes. perhaps this simple format.

Simply this...
A complaint is made.
There is no Attorney General who decides whether a case is worthy.
The complainant has ONE POST to make their case. Questions can be asked by the justices of clarification, but no new evidence can be introduced.
The defendant then can make ONE POST to counter the argument and make their defence.
Nobody else can post. None of this Amicus curiae crap.
The judges then deliver their verdict.
The losing party has ONE POST to appeal. This can only apply if they believe the verdict to be factually inaccurate - not if they believe it is just "wrong".
The delegate can rule on the factual accuracy of the verdict (not on the rightness of it) and order a retrial if necessary.

It is not as good as Flemingovianism, of course. But it might work.
Click to expand...
Would this system allow witnesses to testify? How would discovery be handled? Would both sides be able to review the evidence pre-trial?
 
I agree with Gulliver's idea that "A limited number of posts in which to make one's case and a limited time in which to use those posts seems workable." I also believe Judicial verdicts should be rendered within 48 hrs of closing arguments instead of 72.
 
Great Bights Mum:
flemingovia:
Real time trials I oppose; especially as I live in a different time zone to most other people.


Radical departure .... yes. perhaps this simple format.

Simply this...
A complaint is made.
There is no Attorney General who decides whether a case is worthy.
The complainant has ONE POST to make their case. Questions can be asked by the justices of clarification, but no new evidence can be introduced.
The defendant then can make ONE POST to counter the argument and make their defence.
Nobody else can post. None of this Amicus curiae crap.
The judges then deliver their verdict.
The losing party has ONE POST to appeal. This can only apply if they believe the verdict to be factually inaccurate - not if they believe it is just "wrong".
The delegate can rule on the factual accuracy of the verdict (not on the rightness of it) and order a retrial if necessary.

It is not as good as Flemingovianism, of course. But it might work.
Click to expand...
Would this system allow witnesses to testify? How would discovery be handled? Would both sides be able to review the evidence pre-trial?
Click to expand...
Witness statements would be quoted in the post of accuser or defendant.
There would be no counsels posting. If folks want to advise the accuser of defendant, let them do it on their own time.
There is no discovery. This is a simpler sytem, not crown court.
There is no preview of evidence.

The system now looks like this:

A complaint is made.

There is no Attorney General who decides whether a case is worthy.

The complainant may use up to ten posts to make their case. Questions can be asked by the justices of clarification. These posts must be made within one week of the opening of the case. At any point the complinant may say "i rest my case", after which no further posts will be allowed.

The defendant may use up to ten posts to counter the prosecution and make their case. Questions can be asked by the justices of clarification. These posts must be made within one week of the opening of the case. At any point the defendant may say "i rest my case", after which no further posts will be allowed.

Nobody else can post. None of this Amicus curiae crap.

The judges then deliver their verdict within 48 hours.

The losing party has ONE POST to appeal. This can only apply if they believe the verdict to be factually inaccurate - not if they believe it is just "wrong".

The delegate can rule on the factual accuracy of the verdict (not on the rightness of it) and order a retrial if necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top