FAILED: Judicial Tweak Bill version 3

[Eluvatar]

A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The below amendment to the North Pacific Legal Code will be applied.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker.
10. In implementing the previous clause, any person who has a conflict of interest will be treated as absent.
11. Any hearing officer appointed under this Section must not have a conflict of interest and may not hold any other office while serving as a judicial hearing officer.

2. As required by the North Pacific Legal Code, all subsequent clauses of Chapter 3 will be renumbered appropriately.

(Version 4)

Spoiler: v3

A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The below amendment to the North Pacific Legal Code will be applied.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate (or, if the Delegate recognizes a conflict of interest, the first person in the line of succession who does not) will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker (or, if the Speaker recognizes a conflict of interest, the Deputy Speaker or, if they recognize a conflict of interest, the available Regional Assembly member with the greatest seniority who does not).
10. Any hearing officer appointed under this Section must not have a conflict of interest and may not hold any other office while serving as a judicial hearing officer.

2. As required by the North Pacific Legal Code, all subsequent clauses of Chapter 3 will be renumbered appropriately.

Spoiler: v2

A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The below amendment to the North Pacific Legal Code will be applied.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate (or, if the Delegate recognizes a conflict of interest, the first person in the line of succession who does not) will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker (or, if the Speaker recognizes a conflict of interest, the approval of a majority of the Regional Assembly in a three day vote).
10. Any hearing officer appointed under this Section must not have a conflict of interest and may not hold any other office while serving as a judicial hearing officer.

2. As required by the North Pacific Legal Code, all subsequent clauses of Chapter 3 will be renumbered appropriately.

Spoiler: v1

A Proposal to Amend a Law
1. The below amendment to the North Pacific Legal Code will be applied.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
8. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker.
10. Any hearing officer appointed under this Section must not have a conflict of interest and may not hold any other office while serving as a judicial hearing officer.

2. As required by the North Pacific Legal Code, all subsequent clauses of Chapter 3 will be renumbered appropriately.

 

[Tyler Kazakov]

Against.

 

[Funkadelia]

Why? It stops the fiasco from the Eluvatar - BWII case from happening again.

 

[Eluvatar]

Although in that case I would have been, in consultation with Speaker Gulliver, appointing the judges of my own case....

Anybody have a better idea?

 

[Funkadelia]

if the delegate has a conflict of interest it could go down the order of succession.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

How about:

If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint Flemingovia.

 

[Eluvatar]

Edited.

 

[Funkadelia]

Works

 

[Eluvatar]

Gaspo points out that there is a certain dubiousness to having the RA possibly approve a panel to try a particular person.

Should I change (9) to say:

9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate (or, if the Delegate recognizes a conflict of interest, the first person in the line of succession who does not) will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker (or, if the Speaker recognizes a conflict of interest, the second person in the line of succession who does not).

?

 

[Funkadelia]

No. it's not a panel, it's the entire ra

 

[Eluvatar]

I mean the panel to try the case, which clause 9 is about filling in the situation when the entire court is unavailable for the case.

 

[Chasmanthe]

Gaspo points out that there is a certain dubiousness to having the RA possibly approve a panel to try a particular person.

Should I change (9) to say:

9. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate (or, if the Delegate recognizes a conflict of interest, the first person in the line of succession who does not) will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker (or, if the Speaker recognizes a conflict of interest, the second person in the line of succession who does not).

?

That's neater.

 

[Kingborough]

Why not make it that if the speaker has a conflict, the deputy or speaker pro tempore can step in.

 

[Eluvatar]

I forgot about the Speaker Pro Tempore >.<

That works.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think we need to K.I.S.S (keep it simple silly). Honestly, if the speaker has a conflict, the speaker pro tempore, if he or she has a conflict the flag must be replaced with a picture of Rick Astley. I don't consider it necessary. Version 1 seems to be at the very least, practical.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I also think it can be the Speaker, Acting Speaker or Speaker Pro Tempore as well, since the appointments would normally be just for an individual case, or until special elections can be held, depending on the circumstances. Having a R.A. vote on temporary appointments, when there may also be a special election doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Gaspo]

As I discussed at length with Eluvatar, the issue with having any elected official, or special vote, to determine judicial appointments for emergency situations, is that the only likely situations in which this many conflicts will arise, is one in which the majority of the region will be biased against the accused. Our Bill of Rights guarantees people the right to a fair trial decided by impartial triers of fact. Anything that comes down to a vote, or to unilateral appointments, falls short of guaranteeing the rights we owe all those who call this fine region their home.

 

[punk d]

I like this proposal given our current laws.

 

[Funkadelia]

I feel that version 2 is a bit more practical. It provides safeguards in case that this event may happen, which it very well may, but also just keeps it a bit more simple. Remember, *do* have the reputation for the most complex and incomprehensible law system in NS.

 

[Scandigrad]

Perhaps we should create an "order of succession list" for our justices as well.

 

[Funkadelia]

Seeing as how deliberation on this has gone on for a week, I move for a vote on version 2 of this bill.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I believe version 3 is the current version, and I'll move that it be the version moved to a vote.

 

[Eluvatar]

I second the motion.

 

[Hileville]

I would prefer we looked at greater Judicial reform in this amendment. Including but not limited to trial procedure. I would prefer for trials we have a period of 48 hours for a plea to be entered, 3 days for evidence to be given and then 3 days for the prosecution and then 3 days for the defense to deliver their arguments. I just feel our trial process is way too long and not really efficient no matter who the Justice, Prosecutor, or Defendant is.

 

[Eluvatar]

That would be less of a tweak and more of a reform. It's also completely severable from considering severe conflict of interest situations.

 

[Kiwi]

Voting has commenced here.

 

[Eluvatar]

 

[punk d]

I would prefer we looked at greater Judicial reform in this amendment. Including but not limited to trial procedure. I would prefer for trials we have a period of 48 hours for a plea to be entered, 3 days for evidence to be given and then 3 days for the prosecution and then 3 days for the defense to deliver their arguments. I just feel our trial process is way too long and not really efficient no matter who the Justice, Prosecutor, or Defendant is.

The only thing that concerns me about this, is the ability ask questions of witnesses and get them answered. I see that impacting time.

 

[Gaspo]

I agree with PD on this. I'm all for judicial efficiency, but the courts have no meaningful mechanism by which to compel presence from witnesses. Without such a mechanism, brief trials would impede the ability of the advocates to adequately represent their positions.