Disorder in the Court

flemingovia:
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.
Click to expand...
I am enjoying exploring this system. :D

I have found, to my continual dismay, that people lie. Lots of people do it and they do it all the time. My own children do it, even when there is absolutely nothing at stake. In a court of law, there are the stakes of winning or losing. What are ways the court can ensure that a witness's testimony is not fabricated?

Another question that arises, how would matters involving more than 2 parties be handled? Or in the case of a rogue delegate, where it becomes a crime against the region, with many injured parties?
 
I am enjoying exploring this system.

I have found, to my continual dismay, that people lie. Lots of people do it and they do it all the time. My own children do it, even when there is absolutely nothing at stake. In a court of law, there are the stakes of winning or losing. What are ways the court can ensure that a witness's testimony is not fabricated?

Another question that arises, how would matters involving more than 2 parties be handled? Or in the case of a rogue delegate, where it becomes a crime against the region, with many injured parties?
Click to expand...

Well, as Grosse has ruled, it is impossible to know that anyone is anyone, especially when that anyone is Govindia (or is it?). You cannot be sure that I am not a small piece of Limburger which has evolved at the back of the fridge to have amazing typing abilities.

But we have to start somewhere. and when people lie in court we smack them. But i do not see how the current system stops people lying any more than thsi system.

As far as more complex cases go, if there are two defendants we give each ten posts, and increase the prosecution post count to compensate. But I think such cases would be rare. Most would come as A vs B. or TNP vs B
 
Something I think we need to bear in mind is that courts in NS are often used frivolously or not genuinely to defame individuals ("oh someone just lodged a TREASON compliant against him"), to generate political drama around a minister someone doesn't like or otherwise just to throw whatever you have against a wall to see if it sticks so you can get someone you don't like removed from the region or from office.

The complexities of our current system make it difficult to prosecute real coupers, but also makes it harder to generate steam around these faux legal-political dramas that are often more or less about generating negative mob mentalities against individuals.

A "court of opinion" where people just comment on stuff could become more or less a trial by mob or a public lynching (which in some regions, criminal trials basically become).

I do think if you have *evidence*, you should be able to submit it fairly freely with a simple private review by the justices to ensure that its evidence appropriate for the trial (evidence that Unibot likes unusual sex positions, isn't relevant to whether he abused his responsibilities as Minister etc.). But not commentary.
 
I like Flem's proposal with a tweak or two. One rebuttal seems insufficient, 2-3 might do the trick.
 
unibot:
Something I think we need to bear in mind is that courts in NS are often used frivolously or not genuinely to defame individuals ("oh someone just lodged a TREASON compliant against him"), to generate political drama around a minister someone doesn't like or otherwise just to throw whatever you have against a wall to see if it sticks so you can get someone you don't like removed from the region or from office.

The complexities of our current system make it difficult to prosecute real coupers, but also makes it harder to generate steam around these faux legal-political dramas that are often more or less about generating negative mob mentalities against individuals.

A "court of opinion" where people just comment on stuff could become more or less a trial by mob or a public lynching (which in some regions, criminal trials basically become).

I do think if you have *evidence*, you should be able to submit it fairly freely with a simple private review by the justices to ensure that its evidence appropriate for the trial (evidence that Unibot likes unusual sex positions, isn't relevant to whether he abused his responsibilities as Minister etc.). But not commentary.
Click to expand...
Frivolous lawsuits brought for political gain more often rebound on the accuser, because in court under any system the lack of evidence quickly becomes apparent, and the political motivation is soon exposed.

That is why the smear brigade generally do not do so in court. RAther they just post up their accusations in public, chuck mud against a wall and wait for some of it to stick. Don't they, Eluvatar?

My system eliminates the "court of opinion" by only allpwing the relevant parties to post. None of this "amicus Curiae" crap. If the justices vowed not to look at peanut gallery threads, taht would be all the better.
 
flemingovia:
That is why the smear brigade generally do not do so in court. RAther they just post up their accusations in public, chuck mud against a wall and wait for some of it to stick. Don't they, Eluvatar?
Click to expand...
:rofl:

Indeed, I never miss an opportunity to remind people of how awful that guy was. After all, repetition is more than nine parts of propaganda.
 
The way I see it we're considering 2 changes to our system:

1. Getting rid of having a regional prosecutor.
2. Limiting the number of posts permitted by each side, in addition to the time limits.

I see nothing at all wrong with (2), but (1) still feels inextricably unwise. I'm not sure which reason is why I feel that way, perhaps because I worry that some could take that as an opportunity to try people for stupid reasons, or perhaps because I worry somebody could race to prosecute first in order to undermine the case against someone, or similar shenanigans.
 
well, all I can say is that having an attorney general ain't exactly working out well at the moment, if you look at some of the things that have been happening.

YEs, we may get a bucketload of stupid cases - in which case we need to look at the system and make changes. But the new method means that trials will at least be over quickly (in just over a week)
 
flemingovia:
There would be no counsels posting. If folks want to advise the accuser of defendant, let them do it on their own time.
Click to expand...
I can see why it would helpful to ban multiple people posting over each other, but I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to appoint someone else to speak on their behalf in court on their behalf.

Great Bights Mum:
Another question that arises, how would matters involving more than 2 parties be handled? Or in the case of a rogue delegate, where it becomes a crime against the region, with many injured parties?
Click to expand...
Since trying to coup the region is a crime that would be tried as TNP v. Couper, with someone prosecuting on behalf of the region. As for civil cases against such a couper by ejected and banned nations or some such, they could either each bring separate cases or appoint a single person to represent them collectively in some sort of class action suit if we want to allow such things. Either way the key point is that a single attorney can represent multiple people in a case.

This does also bring up why, even if we abolish the Attorney General, having some kind of regional prosecutor, even one who's appointed just for the case or can be readily replaced if there's a delay, is useful. The fact is some crimes are committed against the region as a whole, not any single individual.

Actually, if an Attorney General wasn't required by law, I'd expect the Delegate would just appoint such an executive officer as a legal representative when necessary to prosecute crimes. Which when I think about it would be perfectly functional. But again you still have someone prosecuting on behalf of the region through its government.
 
You know, both Flem and Elu have a number of good ideas. Seizing upon a couple of them, why not simplify the whole process by simplifying the complaints process?

Here's how it would work:

1. We create a 'web-form' complaint form. You know, fill in the blanks stuff. You have fields for Plaintiff, Defendant, the nature of the charge and a large field for presentation of evidence supporting the case (unlimited amount of information).

2. The defendant is then served with the document and is given one week to present a defence.

3. There are no immediate rebuttals. Both documents are sent to a judge for determination of guilty/not guilty and the judge is required to issue a brief 'opinion' supporting the decision.

4. Any appeal (by either plaintiff or defendant) will be filed with the court within 48 hours. The defendant then presents additional information or evidence of fouled due process, etc., and the document is sent to the other party for rebuttal. It is then passed on to a panel of judges to determine if the decision is over-turned or sustained. This process should be limited to 10 days preparation.

All decisions of the appeal court are final, with only the possibility that the RA pass legislation to 'pardon' an offender.

Once a complaint package or appeal package is placed upon a judge(s) desk(s) they have 48 hours to render a decision or the case goes extinct.

No court room bickering, no peanut gallery BS. Just a set procedure and a time line that must be strictly adhered to, no ifs, ands or buts.

Plaintiffs can withdraw charges any time and Defendants can cop a plea if they choose to.
 
I propose we do away with the entire justice system, and adopt a modified form of Ostracism.

At the start of every month we vote on whether or not we want to ostracise someone. If the vote comes up as yes, then at the end of the month we vote on who we want to ostracise. If anyone gets a majority then they are banned for ten months, with no stigma or further penalty attached. If they return within the ten months they are banned permanently. The assembly may also recall someone early.

Much simpler. It worked for Athens, and if it was good enough for them it's damn well good enough for us.
 
So I have a pretty good idea. How about the Attorney General simply can not refuse a case. If the case is frivolous then the Defense can file a motion to dismiss immediately and the Justices (holy crap, remember those guys?) can determine if the case is really without merit, probably within the first 48 hours even.

This prevents the AG from shooting down cases in which they have a direct interest in. For example, lets say there was an attempted coup against the legally elected delegate and the AG was in on it but no one else besides the plotters knew about it. People can scream for Treason charges all they like and the AG can just stonewall the case until they are recalled, which is a bitch to do.

My idea eliminates this possibility as there is almost no chance that the entire Justice team is also in on the plot and if they are, we have bigger issues than a trial. Point being, this way ensures than one person can't stand in the way of TNP Law for their own personal interests.
 
I have set up Fiqh religious courts in TNP for those who are frustrated with the secular, stagnant legal system. Those who wish it can try out some of these new ideas in a Grosseschnauzer-free environment.
 
Blue Wolf II:
So I have a pretty good idea. How about the Attorney General simply can not refuse a case. If the case is frivolous then the Defense can file a motion to dismiss immediately and the Justices (holy crap, remember those guys?) can determine if the case is really without merit, probably within the first 48 hours even.

This prevents the AG from shooting down cases in which they have a direct interest in. For example, lets say there was an attempted coup against the legally elected delegate and the AG was in on it but no one else besides the plotters knew about it. People can scream for Treason charges all they like and the AG can just stonewall the case until they are recalled, which is a bitch to do.

My idea eliminates this possibility as there is almost no chance that the entire Justice team is also in on the plot and if they are, we have bigger issues than a trial. Point being, this way ensures than one person can't stand in the way of TNP Law for their own personal interests.
Click to expand...
You've got a good idea there and I have to agree.

The AG should function not as a 'gate-keeper' as to which cases actually get presented to the judges. The AG should largely function as a prosecutor and mouth-piece for the government/people, if you know what I mean.

Ironically, an AG serves an executive function (that is, advocate for the State) in terms of being a prosecutor. Determinations of justice are the sole dominion of the bench, not the AG.

That said, certain charges such as Treason I think should be conducted in the RA given the high and aggravated nature of such an offense or at least be beyond the scope of just three judges. Or, at least have an automatic appeal to the RA; or require the unanimous concurrence of all sitting judges.
 
Blue Wolf II:
So I have a pretty good idea. How about the Attorney General simply can not refuse a case.
Click to expand...
That is silly. That would make the Attorney General the servant of the people rather than the master.
 
flemingovia:
Blue Wolf II:
So I have a pretty good idea. How about the Attorney General simply can not refuse a case.
Click to expand...
That is silly. That would make the Attorney General the servant of the people rather than the master.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, that is a valid statement as to the function of the Attorney General.

One of my gripes with the TNP legal system is that the AG is a member of the judicial branch, and that implies that the AG is working for the court, not the executive or the 'people', per se.

The AG is by function an executive, not an adjudicator in judicial matters. That is why AGs are part of the executive branch - they serve as the legal representative of the state in general, and as the legal representative for the executive branch, which, essentially means that a prosecutor or AG is not a judicial authority but rather a law enforcement authority.

We could also rename the Attorney General to Solicitor General which would be more in keeping with the function of the position. But then again, the connotation of Solicitor might be confusing considering that solicitation is generally prohibited except in areas known for their use of red illumination. :P
 
Some fantastic suggestions here and yes I would love to see what is drafted from the conclusions reached.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I say we draft a proposed law based upon what we have agreed upon. Sound good?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it may be a matter of amending the Constitution. Which translates to, Oh, crap, :blink:

But if it's purely a matter of legislation, writing up a bill would be easy.
 
There are some wonderful ideas put forth by the great minds of TNP. Some would require a constitutional amendment, others a revision of the rules. But if a new system has merit, then the type of bill is incidental to the goal of having an efficient judiciary.

In evaluating the suggestions, I find that Flem's proposal offers a pared-down, workable model.

The only tricky part I see is the absence of an AG to prosecute crimes against the region. Let's use the example of a rogue delegate. Say nation McX is the VD, He notices the Delegate is out to lunch, takes over, ejects most of the RA, and sets up a new forum. McX's crimes are evident, but there would need to be a lead prosecutor. Otherwise the court would be bogged down with 50 complaints against McX.

Is there some way we could select a prosecutor on the fly, or on an as-needed basis? Because most of the time litigants are perfectly capable of handling their own complaints. We really only need someone to try the big, rogue-y cases. Keeping an elected official around just in case McX makes his move is just going to create a situation where the AG gets bored and wanders off. Suggestions?
 
The legitimate legal delegate could just appoint an executive officer to represent the government in the case potentially.

I think it's useful to draw a distinction between crimes committed against individuals, in which case it makes natural sense for the individual hurt to personally prosecute, and at large crimes against the region such as a coup or espionage. More importantly, this doesn't have to be all or nothing. We can retain some sort of government prosecutor, elected or appointed, to prosecute one sort of crime while allowing private citizens to prosecute the other.

On a similar note, there still has to be some restriction on who can prosecute which crimes. Otherwise you open things up to all sorts of creative abuses, i.e. I commit espionage and then have an ally prosecute me and deliberately do a poor job of it, giving me immunity to actual prosecution under the double jeopardy clause of the Bill of Rights. Or I do the same thing with a crime committed against some individual, preventing them from properly doing it.
 
rather than rush into legislation, why not work it through unofficially and see if it works? I am using some of the principles in the Fiqh religious court in teh Temple area. I have based it a bit on ideas put forward here.

Why not run a few cases through that, and let's see if it works? Far better than to change the law without beta testing.
 
flemingovia:
rather than rush into legislation, why not work it through unofficially and see if it works? I am using some of the principles in the Fiqh religious court in teh Temple area. I have based it a bit on ideas put forward here.

Why not run a few cases through that, and let's see if it works? Far better than to change the law without beta testing.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying and I appreciate your satirical sense of humor...

And that is why I am throwing my hat into the ring to run for AG. I will make sure that all cases get heard and let the justices decide the results. That way, the justices are free and responsible for not only adjudicating the cases but also deciding upon the merits of the case in the first place (and that way they have the ultimate responsibility for delivering justice just as they should).

And if the justices do not act in an appropriate amount of time, I will refer all cases to the Fiqh court as a form of 'mediation' in all conflicts that are purely interpersonal and not criminal.

That simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top