Discussion: The Justice System

There seems to be a lot of frustration with the judicial system, in a number of areas, so instead of firing off legislation without actually discussing the underlying issues, I figure the RA ought to actually talk about what it thinks is wrong, and perhaps those of us who are actually involved in the Courts can help explain why the system isn't broken, but the people who have been involved in it have not always been the best. I'm not suggesting a witchhunt - I'm simply interested in finding out if we're upset with the system itself, or upset with the results that the people have been getting. So, share your gripes with the court and I (and hopefully others) will be glad to talk about them, try to explain them, and help people understand the justice system a little bit better.

To get things started, I'd like to talk about one issue I hear coming up a lot, which is frustration with the lack of convictions coming out of the Court. I think there are a few underlying issues here, first among which is the idea that the Courts aren't working properly if they're not finding people guilty. That's frankly a terrible metric, and incorrectly assigns responsibility for the lack of convictions. Courts exist to examine facts presented to them in light of the law which governs the community, and render judgement based on those facts. They work with what is presented to them, and they have a strict format to ensure accuracy and completeness in their decisions. This is all outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We want people to have fair trials. We want them to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty by reasonably certain evidence. We want them to have someone to represent them. This all takes time, and has procedure that goes with it. It's not Judge Judy, it's not Law & Order, it's not any of that. It takes time, and it's complicated.

We as a region have chosen a system which is designed so that it's hard to get convictions, so that the only time someone is convicted is when two conditions are met: first, that the person actually is guilty, and second that the government/prosecutor has done their job properly in accordance with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in order to ensure that guilt has been proven in a fair and unbiased manner. All of that takes time, and is detail-oriented, and has to be done properly. A good Prosecutor with a good case will do the job right, and will get a conviction because they go through the process to be sure their information is valid, is accurate, and conclusively leads to the correct verdict. Defense counsels exist to make sure the Prosecutors do their jobs. It's not about "getting the guy off" (lol phrasing), it's about making sure the government follows the Constitution and Bill of Rights when it tries to convict someone of a crime and deprive them of rights as a punishment.

I can't really comment on every case in which I was Counsel, but let's look at TNP v. Unibot, where I was a judge. That case ended because the Prosecutor refused to do his job. If we want cases to get prosecuted properly, we have to elect competent, dispassionate Attorney Generals. TNP v. JAL was dismissed because the law that was being applied was unconstitutional. Neither of those things are the fault of the Courts. If we want to change our constitution so that sedition is a crime, that's fine, but we as a legislature have to decide to do that, not the Courts.

If what we, as a region, want to see is simply more convictions, then that requires changing our principles. It requires adjusting the structure of the Law itself, not the Courts which apply it. If we want to ban speech that undermines the government, that means we all have to give up a degree of free speech. That's a decision we can make, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the Courts being broken. If we don't like the results, we must look to the underlying law, and not to the Judicial branch, for that fix. We're the legislators - if we don't like the results of the law, let's change the goddamn law. If we think trials take too long, fine, but we'll have to lower the requirements for conviction.

As far as the time consumed by the Courts to resolve matters, this ties back into the procedure and requirements stuff. This all takes time, and is not a job. It's very very easy to come to the RA and make a few forum posts. Coordinating three people across three timezones to get together to do a deposition for a criminal case in an internet politics game, takes time. It's not easy, it doesn't happen overnight. Every single one of us has lives - the two reasons things in the Courts take a long time is because it's complicated stuff that takes time as a general rule, and because like it or not we all have lives. Nationstates is not the top priority in life for anyone in this region, I don't believe. Legal work is, to be blunt, the most complicated thing we do in this region. It takes a while. Want it to go faster? Elect judges who are consistently active, who have the free time to devote to the most complicated task in our region.

We choose all of these things for ourselves - if we want to change them, that's fine, but I think we could all do with a bit of understanding as to why things can be frustrating, and what the alternatives to the present system actually look like. Any other complaints about the Courts, the AG's office, the judicial system in general - lay em on me. I'll answer everything I can, and hopefully we'll find some solutions that everyone likes, if indeed it turns out there are actual problems that can be addressed.

I think we could tweak a few things to make the courts better:

1. Reduce the degree of proof necessary for a conviction. I'm not legally fluent, so I'm not sure exactly what this would entail, but it seems like we've had severally guilty people found innocent because their guilt could not be proven to the degree necessary, even though it was pretty evident that they ought to have been punished.

2. Increase the number of justices, but not the number of justices assigned to any given matter before the court. In other words, continue to have decisions made by a three judge panel, but select that panel from a larger body of justices, based on time zone, availability, etc. This would add a step to any process (selecting the panel, probably a decision made by the CJ), but could streamline things down the road, when it comes time to write an opinion. It would also make it easier to do the job of a justice, since one wouldn't have to be involved in as many decisions, so we might see an increase in the number of candidates to fill these positions.

3. Have reviews decided by a single justice, and appealed to a larger panel if desired. This could drastically reduce the amount of time it takes to hand down decisions for reviews, but has the potential to lengthen the process, if decisions are routinely appealed.

All of these are just brainstorms. I'm sure they're riddled with holes, but I think they're good starting points to create more refined ideas, if that's what the assembly and the court wants to do. But really, this is the silver bullet solution:

4. Stop running to the court for every goddamn little thing, and learn to resolve problems among ourselves like fucking adults.

Especially recently, this region seems to have forgotten how to interpret laws and resolve conflicts. If you're a government official, there is absolutely no reason to ask the court how to do your own job, unless you're skating on thin ice with the assembly, and want to avoid a possible recall. Just do your job, and let people challenge your decisions if they think you're doing it wrong. (Or better, simply ask you to make a change!)

Another thing: if someone steps on your toes, no matter how much it hurts, it's not time to file a complaint. Whenever you're thinking about filing a civil complaint, ask yourself what you really want out of it. Then, ask that person to just give it to you. If they refuse, decide if it's something you really need. If yes, THEN it's time for a civil complaint.

Whenever you're thinking about filing a criminal complaint, look over the penal code, and decide if the punishment for whatever crime you're going to accuse them of is something they really deserve. If yes, then decide if it's really worth your time, the AG's time, the court's time, the defendant's time, and possibly the admin's time if they're convicted. Think about all the effort that has to go into a trial, and ask yourself if it's really appropriate to the action that took place. THEN make a decision about filing.

If we can take a load off of the courts by simply being a little more competent and a little nicer to each other, we'll see the decisions that DO need the court to decide be handled more quickly.

1) This is a massive risk. The two basic legal standards for proof are "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderence of the evidence". The former is what we have now - it has to be reasonably certain, in other words. You have to prove that what you're saying happened, happened. The latter is basically "If what you say is true, it's more likely than not that the person is guilty." That's hugely dangerous, in my opinion. If we want our legal system to be based on group consensus about whether or not a person ought to be punished, that's not something that a Justice system is designed to do. That's mob rule, and we might as well just replace the system with an RA vote. The issues with people getting off when they "should have been punished" primarily stem from 2 things: prosecutorial incompetence, and the inability of the AG's office to compel testimony or obligate people to respond. The former is fixed through elections - I'd like to think I'm more competent. The latter is fixed through an expansion of the AG's powers, or by adjusting the system to simply require less evidence. I don't think that that's in keeping with TNP's core principles, however frustrating it may be. We presume innocence, and require reasonably certain evidence - I don't think we should make such a significant shift in criminal law policy purely because we're a bit frustrated.

2 and 3) There isn't a shortage issue. An inactive justice is still going to slow things down, quite honestly, and we're already in need of more competent justices than we have candidates. Looking at the last election, for example, we'd have Abbey and Sanct and PunkD, and Durk and Govindia. Govindia is such a menace to the community that he's now forum-banned. Noone else even ran. And you want to expand the court, when we can barely find three competent and trustworthy Justices as it is? I fail to see how more bodies would achieve anything, or how adding another round of litigation by having Reviews decided by 1 justice (appeals are kinda something that any smart person who loses does) will improve things. Appeals just mean another round of briefs, arguing, and pedantry, and just take more time, and you need more judges because the original judge has to be recused. It's a mess, and I feel would be a step backwards.

4) This is the heart of the issue. "I didn't get my way, better cry to the courts instead of negotiating or legislating or politicking" is not a healthy attitude for a region to have. I have to commend COE on his behavior as Speaker, and I hope he'll continue to stand for the position in the future. His attitude, at least when I was on the court, was to discuss potential issues in public, sometimes with the Justices or with other interested people, to see if he's on the right track. Honestly, I think we'd all be a bit better off if, in terms of requests for review, we took a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" approach. There's an ethical principle in the legal field which holds that a lawyer can't be guilty of malpractice if the case happens to go against him. In other words, there's no penalty in being wrong. You don't have to sprint to the court for instructions on how to do every little thing - if you end up being wrong, it'll be fixed, and if you're right, congrats, we all go on living life.

Regarding both criminal and civil complaints, I would implore anyone considering filing a complaint to come talk to me. I'm on IRC every single day, and if that doesn't work for you, I can do Skype, MSN, AIM, ICQ, YIM, and Googletalk. Talk to me about your case - I can give you legal advice in a non-binding way. If you file a complaint, my hands are tied. Simple as that. I have to go forward. I can tell the court not to bother, but it does take a bunch of my time to investigate, draft, and file something. Flem's relatively simple matter against Iro took me ~2 hours to draft, to be sure I got everything right. Come talk to me - the door's open, noone's stopping you. I'm playing the part of ~internet-lawyer~, I believe in confidentiality (that's why I wrote attorney-client privilege into the Court Rules) so I'm not gonna go blabbing about what you talk to me about, even to my deputies. The door's open, please come talk.

And please, please, do what COE says about steps prior to litigation. Courts exist as a means of last resort, not a first move. In a lot of civil complaints IRL, the Courts won't even listen unless you've already exhausted all your other possible remedies. You've got several here - if your issue is with the government, talk to the Delegate. Legislate. Recall someone. Talk to that person directly. Run for their spot and replace them. Criminal and civil complaints should be the last stop, not the first. Honestly, I have to say I was really happy with how the region handled the UDL leak disclosure. Noone frantically filed a complaint - the Government began an investigation, which has thus far yielded one indictment. That's the way things should work. Work with your government, don't just throw things at it and then complain when it takes time to juggle them all.

Anyways, COE thanks for participating in a substantive way - I hope you and others will continue this conversation with me.

Gaspo:

2 and 3) There isn't a shortage issue. An inactive justice is still going to slow things down, quite honestly, and we're already in need of more competent justices than we have candidates. Looking at the last election, for example, we'd have Abbey and Sanct and PunkD, and Durk and Govindia. Govindia is such a menace to the community that he's now forum-banned. Noone else even ran. And you want to expand the court, when we can barely find three competent and trustworthy Justices as it is? I fail to see how more bodies would achieve anything, or how adding another round of litigation by having Reviews decided by 1 justice (appeals are kinda something that any smart person who loses does) will improve things. Appeals just mean another round of briefs, arguing, and pedantry, and just take more time, and you need more judges because the original judge has to be recused. It's a mess, and I feel would be a step backwards.

Click to expand...

I'll give you that 3 would lengthen the process of appeals that don't go the way the petitioner wanted it to. But if it does go the way he wanted it to, then the process would be drastically shortened. From what I've heard from multiple members of the court is that the longest part of the process is having to coordinate three people across time zones and collaboratively write opinions. This would shorten that immensely.

As far as adding justices to the court, I think that the system I've suggested would increase the number of trustworthy and reliable candidates. It stands to reason that there are some people who would be good justices, but can't be active to the degree that is required of a justice. If, however, the Chief Justice could take their activity level into account when assigning them to trials, they could be a perfectly fine justice. Furthermore, the CJ could take into account time zones, and put people on panels together that had similar time zones. It would create some flexibility on the bench that might let the opinion-writing process and discussion go a little smoother.

Crushing Our Enemies:

I'll give you that 3 would lengthen the process of appeals that don't go the way the petitioner wanted it to. But if it does go the way he wanted it to, then the process would be drastically shortened. From what I've heard from multiple members of the court is that the longest part of the process is having to coordinate three people across time zones and collaboratively write opinions. This would shorten that immensely.

Click to expand...

But not in a good way. Rushed opinions are bad opinions. The delay involved allows everyone the time to consider the issue, and discuss it. When I was on the court there were several cases were I later changed my initial opinion, either after discussion of the issue with my fellow justices or simply from having time to consider it. The process we used involved all justices voicing their opinions before something was even drafted, and as a result what was produced represented the consensus and in most cases was a better thought out, more comprehensive decision than any of our own individual opinions. People have different ways of looking at things, and they are usually complimentary.

Your proposed system, with one justice issuing a binding opinion is a recipe for badly written opinions with errors that they didn't spot - but that their colleges would have - and more opinions later on to fix the damage that caused. It will take more time in the end, and cause real damage; by the time someone realizes there's an error and the full court (with a hearing officer, once one is found) can fix it a candidate might have been incorrectly disqualified from an election, or someone illegally ejected from the region.

The majority of the delays regarding decisions have been bureaucratic fuck ups, not legal ones.

Bel is correct on all points, in my opinion.

Another thought that just came to me is that one of the underlying reasons why it's so hard for the AG's office to secure a conviction is because the AG's office has no power to actually drive cases. It has no authority to investigate - it can't subpoena shit or get warrants for access to things. It can't compel testimony, it can't compel disclosure of things, it can't do anything unless individuals voluntarily come to the office to provide information. This is the result of a series of shitty AGs either not being aggressive, thus showing no need for powers, or simply failing to do their jobs adequately such that powers are stripped away, and a result of a government structure whose drafting is built on the hesitance to grant power wherever avoidable. Without any ability to actually proactively acquire evidence, the AG's office is in a position where it can't do anything unless the tools are generously handed to it, and that simply doesn't happen very often. While I maintain my belief that the AG's office has dropped the ball procedurally and substantively on many occasions, perhaps some of the blame for the office's abysmal record stems from the fact that the office is charged with completing a task which it has no power to aggressively pursue.

Alright, I'll back off my 3rd suggestion. But I think 2 still has merit, and I haven't seen anyone address my defense of it in the face of Gaspo's critique:

Crushing Our Enemies:

As far as adding justices to the court, I think that the system I've suggested would increase the number of trustworthy and reliable candidates. It stands to reason that there are some people who would be good justices, but can't be active to the degree that is required of a justice. If, however, the Chief Justice could take their activity level into account when assigning them to trials, they could be a perfectly fine justice. Furthermore, the CJ could take into account time zones, and put people on panels together that had similar time zones. It would create some flexibility on the bench that might let the opinion-writing process and discussion go a little smoother.

Click to expand...

We can't find good candidates for 3 spots, regardless of activity. I don't see how more spots magically equals more candidates, nor do I see how utilizing less-consistently-active justices is a benefit. It's not about being active twice a week or something - it's about the need to be active every day for 3 weeks straight to do a single trial. More Justices won't help that, particularly if as you say they're from a group of people whose sole reason for not running currently, is lack of activity.

I'm just saying that Justice is a really hard job, and that's why no one runs for it. If we can make it easier, by sharing the caseload among more justices, more people will be attracted to the job.

EDIT: Furthermore, if a justice proves to be TOO inactive, they can be shut out entirely by the Chief Justice, simply by not assigning them any cases. Same goes for an incompetent justice. At the very least, we'd be no worse off than we are now, with three justices handling everything.

I think we've been making considerable progress this last year and a half. It's this progress in other areas which now allows us to see what Gaspo points out: that the prosecutorial arm of this government (and I mean government not executive) does not have the power to compel testimony or even the cooperation of another arm which does.

While the Attorney General can, like any other citizen, file Freedom of Information requests, this compulsion only applies to the executive. We haven't seen much criminality in our government in some time. Where we've seen accusations, at least, has been in private or extraregional conduct. Thus, the Freedom of Information Act does not help the Attorney General in the vast majority of cases.

The problem with allowing the compulsion of testimony, however, is that as Gaspo reminds us no one here has NationStates as their RL #1 priority (or at least none of us should). There are delays and unavailability which are expected, justified, and perhaps laudable. Any law empowering the compulsion of testimony would need to carefully balance the convenience of the potential witness with the need for testimony. There are a number of possible ways to do this, but discussion of them is probably premature.

Additionally, we have yet to address the concern with the obligation of the Attorney General to prosecute anything they receive a complaint about. I still think that this obligation has no basis in the law, but without it the Attorney General has an inappropriate power to ignore criminal conduct. If we had the manpower, I would suggest to a system of dual or triple regional prosecutors, perhaps selecting an Attorney General among them in the manner the Court selects a Chief Justice. Any one of the prosecutors would be empowered to initiate prosecution, but none of them would be required to prosecute based on complaints.

Perhaps however the power of the Court to reject indictments is sufficient.

Honestly, if you look at the two indictments I've filed, with the recommendation/explanation structure I've put in place, I think the balance in terms of discretion is fine. The issue is that the AG's office, as you pointed out in part Elu, has none of the powers that are traditionally given to prosecutors. It can't compel testimony, it can't subpoena, it can't get warrants. Hell, I can't even force people to turn over IRC logs from #tnp unless they want to. That's crap, to be honest, from an investigative and prosecutorial standpoint. It's hard for me to provide concrete examples of these problems, as doing so would violate confidentiality of my office, but in looking back over the course of PunkD's case load in the AG Office archives, I can find places in every single case where investigative powers would have let the system work. We have a right to a fair trial in the Bill of Rights, but fair honestly goes both ways. It means the government can't railroad people, but it also needs to be interpreted to grant the government the power to adequately protect and enforce its laws. That is simply not the case right now, and no change to the Court itself, be it their terms, the way they gain office, or removal procedures, or even the Court rules, will have a substantial impact on the furtherance of justice. Empowering the AG appropriately, however, will.

I don't agree that it's premature to have a discussion about giving the AG's office the power to actually do its job. If we want this thread to be that discussion - fine. If not, I'll just go write a draft bill and we'll start debating.

I am avidly following the court proceedings during Gaspo's term as AG. I am looking forward to seeing some criminals be found guilty. I mean this in all sincerity when I say that if Gaspo can't do it, then no one can. He studies the law, he is dedicated to putting in many, many hours at the office, and he's smart as a whip. His tenure is really the acid test for the AG role as currently designed in TNP.

There is a lot of frustration with the system and what worries me is that the lack of convictions could lead to a spate of lawlessness. You see, if someone can get away with a rogue delegacy, ejecting thousands of nations, then what else can they get away with? Unendorsement campaigns? Take-over attempts? Actual take-overs?

Yes! All this and more. Just like the US justice system, there are dozens of ways to free the accused, but only one way to get a conviction. And we haven't even seen the insanity defense, the evil roommate hacker defense or "the devil made me do it" defense yet.

I just think it isn't fun for everyone if you practically have to be a RL attorney to properly prosecute or adjudicate a case. I raised the same arguments with Schnauzers, saying the system was great as long as he would be Chief Justice for life. Our legal code, court procedures and rules of evidence ought not require the AG and judges to have RL expertise in order to be successful. The system should be easy enough to follow that a high school student would be able to do a competent job. It should be straightforward enough so as not to demand hours and hours of time.

Does anyone here watch Judge Judy? Maybe we could have something like that, minus the sarcasm. She doesn't need every t crossed before justice can be accomplished. She doesn't require each shred of evidence be held to the most rigorous standards. She doesn't need to navigate every nuance in the law, citing chapter and verse. What she does have is a good bullshit meter, to be able to tell who's lying and who isn't. She gets to the truth in a case, and rather quickly. The other important element in the Judge Judy show is the guy outside the courtroom who moderates the post mortem for the participants and polls the crowd of onlookers. You cannot minimize the entertainment value of his role.

I don't expect a half-hour daytime court TV show will translate seamlessly into an on-line format, but I think at some point we are going to have to move outside the box. Or we could try electing Gaspo AG for life.

Common sense results, delivered with speed, efficiency and without the mind-numbing tedium of the constitutional system? Judge Judy sounds a bit like the Fiqh. Just sayin'

I just think it isn't fun for everyone if you practically have to be a RL attorney to properly prosecute or adjudicate a case. I raised the same arguments with Schnauzers, saying the system was great as long as he would be Chief Justice for life. Our legal code, court procedures and rules of evidence ought not require the AG and judges to have RL expertise in order to be successful. The system should be easy enough to follow that a high school student would be able to do a competent job. It should be straightforward enough so as not to demand hours and hours of time.

Click to expand...

I am wholly and entirely in agreement with GBM on this, and I think it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest one, that people generally have such a negative attitude about the court. One should never feel that a case is unwinnable simply because the opposing attorney attended law school and you did not. One should not regularly have to appeal to complex RL legal concepts that have never been formally transferred to the game, are largely not applicable, and one would have no reason to know, simply to counter a clearly absurd motion. Court proceedings should be straightforward and easy for anybody to follow along with, without needing to refer to a dictionary. Yes, knowledge of the region's laws should matter, and yes, ability to make a persuasive argument should matter, but one should not be able to win a case simply by quoting the most Latin.

The majority of active and committed players are high school students, and GBM is spot on when she says that any reasonable system ought to cater to the capabilities expected from that age and education level.

So if I understand you correctly, you want a system that is simpler, more common sense and speedier?

gosh, where on earth could we find such a system?

Tell you what Flem, why don't you run for a justice slot next time round? If you get elected then you can then re-write the court rules to your own satisfaction.

Belschaft:

Tell you what Flem, why don't you run for a justice slot next time round? If you get elected then you can then re-write the court rules to your own satisfaction.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would I want to? In the Fiqh i have a thoroughbred system. I have no interest in exchanging that for a clapped out old nag.

if elected i *might* be allowed to tinker with procedures, but the wholesale changes I would want to make would soon have people boo-hooing about how un-con-stay-too-shun-al I was being.

No thank you. I would rather gargle battery acid.

I find myself agreeing with GBM. I've nearly finished law school and I still wouldn't want to be the AG. You need a simpler system. Judge Judy all the way!

The problem as well with a bigger pool of judges is often people already occupy other positions. I would love to have a go at being a Justice but I'm already MoD. I can't do both. What's funny about this point is that previous Justices have had much more of an issue with conflicts of interest than I have in my current position.

The only exception recently would be the Rav trial and even then I have stayed right out of it. Rav would have had a court martial prosecuted by myself and an NPA officer as the judge before being removed from the NPA but he chose to resign his citizenship so it was a moot point.

One side needs to give their argument and the other needs to give theirs. If it descends into "he said, she said" then the justices can always obtain the truth of it from the person themselves. I guess this would take the form of more of an "inquiry" or "commission". At least that way, if a witness doesn't play nice with the justice, they can always use their big stick so to speak.

Just a few thoughts. No solutions though I suspect.

flemingovia:

Belschaft:

Tell you what Flem, why don't you run for a justice slot next time round? If you get elected then you can then re-write the court rules to your own satisfaction.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would I want to? In the Fiqh i have a thoroughbred system. I have no interest in exchanging that for a clapped out old nag.

if elected i *might* be allowed to tinker with procedures, but the wholesale changes I would want to make would soon have people boo-hooing about how un-con-stay-too-shun-al I was being.

No thank you. I would rather gargle battery acid.

Click to expand...

It's quite frustrating Flem, when your only proposals seem to involve appointing yourself as supreme head of everything. I have not seen you introduce any real attempt to improve the Justice system, instead you prefer to constantly complain about it. As well as ignoring the fact that we have the most active court that we have had in a long time. Sure it's not perfect, but at least they are trying. I feel that we need -real- proposals on the table if you want to improve it, the Fiqh is good for a bit of fun, but its not the solution.

At the same time, I agree with Great Bights Mum. I am a law student, as is Gaspo and a few other people here. I feel that the courts need to be more straightforward and less about all the latin and the real life legal principles, that as Astarial has said were not fully transferred into the game.

If we look at examples such as Durkadurkiranistan getting off free after purging the region a couple of times and overthrowing the legitimate government. Common sense would say that he is guilty of treason, but he was allowed to walk free because of legal technicalities and various issues with the justices at the time. Durk is of course, only an example.

There is also the instance of people simply wasting the courts time will reviews that are obvious.

Lastly. I have been thinking today about why it is that some other Game Created Regions simply don't have a court, or barely make use of it at all. Examples include TEP, TSP, Balder, and even Osiris to an extent. Why is this? I do not believe that it is because our laws are particularly complex or ridiculous, it's a cultural thing. We need to get to the point where people stop running to the courts for everything, and I hope that we don't have any serious coups or purges by anyone that result in the long drawn out court battles - those sorts of people are not needed nor wanted here.

At the same time, we are an extremely democratic region. This means that sometimes people will try to take advantage of us. Additionally it means that we have certain rights, that we expect our government and it's officials to protect and respect in all of their dealings. This is often reflected in court action.

mcmasterdonia:

It's quite frustrating Flem, when your only proposals seem to involve appointing yourself as supreme head of everything.

Click to expand...

Of course it is my only proposal. It is the best solution. I am so dazzlingly awesome I am by far the best person to be supreme head of everything. My only concern is that others will be so dazzled by the awesomeness of my radiance that they will never get any work done. But rest assured, I think they will soon learn to cope.

I am sorry about your frustrations.

I have not seen you introduce any real attempt to improve the Justice system,

Click to expand...

The Fiqh is an improvement. It is just that rather than endless discussion threads and polls I decided to just go ahead and DO it. the Fiqh is fast, common sense and fair. Nobody who has used the Fiqh has complained - except Romanoffia. He complained when I suggested he use the constituional court instead. He recognised (and I quote) "they will ignore it or never get around to it!"

As well as ignoring the fact that we have the most active court that we have had in a long time.

Click to expand...

Activity is not the same as productivity.

the Fiqh is good for a bit of fun, but its not the solution.

Click to expand...

There! That is the point where I disagree with you, fundamentally. You prefer to stick with what does not work, rather than try something radically different that just might work.

As Obama once said, "I find, when I try something that doesn’t work, then I don’t try it again. I don’t – you don’t go back to doing something that didn’t work.”

SillyString:

I just think it isn't fun for everyone if you practically have to be a RL attorney to properly prosecute or adjudicate a case. I raised the same arguments with Schnauzers, saying the system was great as long as he would be Chief Justice for life. Our legal code, court procedures and rules of evidence ought not require the AG and judges to have RL expertise in order to be successful. The system should be easy enough to follow that a high school student would be able to do a competent job. It should be straightforward enough so as not to demand hours and hours of time.

Click to expand...

I am wholly and entirely in agreement with GBM on this, and I think it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest one, that people generally have such a negative attitude about the court. One should never feel that a case is unwinnable simply because the opposing attorney attended law school and you did not. One should not regularly have to appeal to complex RL legal concepts that have never been formally transferred to the game, are largely not applicable, and one would have no reason to know, simply to counter a clearly absurd motion. Court proceedings should be straightforward and easy for anybody to follow along with, without needing to refer to a dictionary. Yes, knowledge of the region's laws should matter, and yes, ability to make a persuasive argument should matter, but one should not be able to win a case simply by quoting the most Latin.

The majority of active and committed players are high school students, and GBM is spot on when she says that any reasonable system ought to cater to the capabilities expected from that age and education level.

Click to expand...

This.

Nothing against the people who put together this lovely intellectual exercise in jurisprudence. Seriously, it's impressive. I wonder though, what's the point in having a system where no one has a possibility of being convicted of anything? Flem brings up valid points, albeit in an amusing manner. Nothing seems to get done through the court system, and if you're not a law student you don't have a chance of doing ANYTHING by yourself; which is troubling when (as Gaspo points out) there are only so many people interested and able to fill these positions. So the problem we run in to is that the only "lawyers" in the region turn out to also be the only ones qualified to be justices as well and we run in to trials like Eluvatars where Gaspo went from defense attorney to AG. If we were to expand the number of justices we'd run out of "lawyers" to try cases. I'm sure we can all see the endless cycle of CoI we're setting ourselves up for. We need simple, it's actually quite simple. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to NS, the simplest way of legislating/voting/jurisprudence/what have you is usually the best way. Making a complicated justice system just for the sake of brushing up on your mock trial skills puts the rest of us at a disadvantage.

tl;dr

• All due respect to the creators of the current justice system
• Justices are usually the only ones who can try cases from either side of the bench
• More justices will cripple anyone's attempt to bring a case successfully to the court because we're all not law buffs (or w/e)
• While this is impressive, we need a system that fits our needs. Not a complicated system that pats yoruself on the back when you want to show off (I said with all due respect)

Karpathos:

SillyString:

I just think it isn't fun for everyone if you practically have to be a RL attorney to properly prosecute or adjudicate a case. I raised the same arguments with Schnauzers, saying the system was great as long as he would be Chief Justice for life. Our legal code, court procedures and rules of evidence ought not require the AG and judges to have RL expertise in order to be successful. The system should be easy enough to follow that a high school student would be able to do a competent job. It should be straightforward enough so as not to demand hours and hours of time.

Click to expand...

I am wholly and entirely in agreement with GBM on this, and I think it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest one, that people generally have such a negative attitude about the court. One should never feel that a case is unwinnable simply because the opposing attorney attended law school and you did not. One should not regularly have to appeal to complex RL legal concepts that have never been formally transferred to the game, are largely not applicable, and one would have no reason to know, simply to counter a clearly absurd motion. Court proceedings should be straightforward and easy for anybody to follow along with, without needing to refer to a dictionary. Yes, knowledge of the region's laws should matter, and yes, ability to make a persuasive argument should matter, but one should not be able to win a case simply by quoting the most Latin.

The majority of active and committed players are high school students, and GBM is spot on when she says that any reasonable system ought to cater to the capabilities expected from that age and education level.

Click to expand...

This.

Nothing against the people who put together this lovely intellectual exercise in jurisprudence. Seriously, it's impressive. I wonder though, what's the point in having a system where no one has a possibility of being convicted of anything? Flem brings up valid points, albeit in an amusing manner. Nothing seems to get done through the court system, and if you're not a law student you don't have a chance of doing ANYTHING by yourself; which is troubling when (as Gaspo points out) there are only so many people interested and able to fill these positions. So the problem we run in to is that the only "lawyers" in the region turn out to also be the only ones qualified to be justices as well and we run in to trials like Eluvatars where Gaspo went from defense attorney to AG. If we were to expand the number of justices we'd run out of "lawyers" to try cases. I'm sure we can all see the endless cycle of CoI we're setting ourselves up for. We need simple, it's actually quite simple. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to NS, the simplest way of legislating/voting/jurisprudence/what have you is usually the best way. Making a complicated justice system just for the sake of brushing up on your mock trial skills puts the rest of us at a disadvantage.

tl;dr

• All due respect to the creators of the current justice system
• Justices are usually the only ones who can try cases from either side of the bench
• More justices will cripple anyone's attempt to bring a case successfully to the court because we're all not law buffs (or w/e)
• While this is impressive, we need a system that fits our needs. Not a complicated system that pats yoruself on the back when you want to show off (I said with all due respect)

Click to expand...

The BIGGEST problems are twofold:

1. The Adopted Court Rules which are just plain daft for an online game.
2. The major holes in the constitution and legal code, which you can drive a train through.

The former would be easiest to reform.

Sorry about the minor gravedig, but I was just approved for RA membership, and was not able to post before now.

The law issue is a very interesting one. I agree that the system needs changed. As beautiful as it is it is also broken.
Plenty of citizens - who clearly committed the crimes stated in their indictments - have gone free due to clerical (and minor legal) errors.

But before revisions can really be considered, I see two major questions:
1) What do we want for the result of the system to be?
2) Do we trust the reasoning of future judiciaries of TNP?

I would like to point out the utter inanity of having policies that prevent the disclosure of certain forms of evidence, either during or prior to a trial, where the person incriminated does not consent to its release. What person in their right mind would!? What a fantastic way to avoid consequences, truly.

Justice may be blind but she always goes to the highest bidder.

SillyString:

I would like to point out the utter inanity of having policies that prevent the disclosure of certain forms of evidence, either during or prior to a trial, where the person incriminated does not consent to its release. What person in their right mind would!? What a fantastic way to avoid consequences, truly.

Click to expand...

SillyString:

I would like to point out the utter inanity of having policies that prevent the disclosure of certain forms of evidence, either during or prior to a trial, where the person incriminated does not consent to its release. What person in their right mind would!? What a fantastic way to avoid consequences, truly.

Click to expand...

An issue that may be; but I hardly think it is the greatest problem facing our judicial system.

Nonetheless, a pressing issue that can be fixed easily if so allowed.

Fear not. We are on the case.

SillyString:

I just think it isn't fun for everyone if you practically have to be a RL attorney to properly prosecute or adjudicate a case. I raised the same arguments with Schnauzers, saying the system was great as long as he would be Chief Justice for life. Our legal code, court procedures and rules of evidence ought not require the AG and judges to have RL expertise in order to be successful. The system should be easy enough to follow that a high school student would be able to do a competent job. It should be straightforward enough so as not to demand hours and hours of time.

Click to expand...

I am wholly and entirely in agreement with GBM on this, and I think it's one of the main reasons, if not the biggest one, that people generally have such a negative attitude about the court. One should never feel that a case is unwinnable simply because the opposing attorney attended law school and you did not. One should not regularly have to appeal to complex RL legal concepts that have never been formally transferred to the game, are largely not applicable, and one would have no reason to know, simply to counter a clearly absurd motion. Court proceedings should be straightforward and easy for anybody to follow along with, without needing to refer to a dictionary. Yes, knowledge of the region's laws should matter, and yes, ability to make a persuasive argument should matter, but one should not be able to win a case simply by quoting the most Latin.

The majority of active and committed players are high school students, and GBM is spot on when she says that any reasonable system ought to cater to the capabilities expected from that age and education level.

Click to expand...

I am thinking of creating a poll to determine "if you considered this a game, would you agree that participating in the courts is fun: fully agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, fully disagree, meh"