Change the Court system

[Parmistine]

Proposal for the new Judiciary System

1. Any crimes committed that violate the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the laws of The North Pacific should be brought to the Justices and Chief Justice.
If the Justices and Chief Justice reject the case brought forward, no further action is taken against the accused.
If the Justices and Chief Justices agree that the accused committed the crimes he is accused of, a trial will be set up.
2. A jury will be called, made up of at least seven random members of the Regional Assembly.
The case will be brought forward and debated on by, the Justices and Chief Justice, and the accused.
Debates will last one day.
3. After the debates are finished, the jury will vote on a verdict.
All votes must be the same for a sentence to be carried out.
Votes will last one day.
4. If no sentence can be validated due to a disagreeing jury, then the verdict will be passed by majority vote of the jury.
If still no verdict is found due to equal number of votes both for and against the accused, the Chief Justice will be allowed to vote.
5. Punishments for crimes will be given according to the law, if no such law exists, punishments will be decided by the Chief Justice and the Delegate.

Here is my proposed changes for the Court system that I think will make it much fairer and more reliable, allowing us to say that no one was punished unfairly, and that we don't just hand over suspected criminals to the Justices and Chief Justice who can simply convict or pardon whenever or whoever they decide. It also allows more of our members to be actively involved in helping to defend The North Pacific and strengthen it's security.

Any comments and support would be appreciated.

 

[Chasmanthe]

Proposal for the new Judiciary System

1. Any crimes committed that violate the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the laws of The North Pacific should be brought to the Justices and Chief Justice.

Sensible. Currently, allegations are brought to the Attorney General.

If the Justices and Chief Justice reject the case brought forward, no further action is taken against the accused.
If the Justices and Chief Justices agree that the accused committed the crimes he is accused of, a trial will be set up.

I think this is confusing because the justices are deciding guilt or innocence before the trial instead of at the end of the trial. I think we need to stick with verdict being delivered at the end of the trial. Responsibility for prosecuting the cases rests with the AG.

2. A jury will be called, made up of at least seven random members of the Regional Assembly.

The idea of a jury is a good one. Historically TNP used to have a juries in court cases. I was in a jury in TSP and I think it's a good way of doing it.

The case will be brought forward and debated on by, the Justices and Chief Justice, and the accused.
Debates will last one day.
3. After the debates are finished, the jury will vote on a verdict.
All votes must be the same for a sentence to be carried out.
Votes will last one day.
4. If no sentence can be validated due to a disagreeing jury, then the verdict will be passed by majority vote of the jury.
If still no verdict is found due to equal number of votes both for and against the accused, the Chief Justice will be allowed to vote.
5. Punishments for crimes will be given according to the law, if no such law exists, punishments will be decided by the Chief Justice and the Delegate.

Chapter 2 of the legal code specifies punishments for some offences. I don't think the delegate should be given judicial authority, I think it's okay for the justices to decide it.

Here is my proposed changes for the Court system that I think will make it much fairer and more reliable, allowing us to say that no one was punished unfairly, and that we don't just hand over suspected criminals to the Justices and Chief Justice who can simply convict or pardon whenever or whoever they decide. It also allows more of our members to be actively involved in helping to defend The North Pacific and strengthen it's security.

Any comments and support would be appreciated.

Thank you for bringing us your idea. Do you think the court has punished individuals unfairly? Do you think some cases went to court that should not have been tried?

 

[Parmistine]

Thanks for your comments.

The reason for the Justices deciding whether to take further action or not at the beginning, Is because some accusations may either be false or lack any real evidence. Since it is the Justices job to convince the jury to convict the offender, they need to make sure they actually have a case to fight with, otherwise whole trials could be just wasting time since there is no evidence to make a decision.

I suppose if the person who has accused someone of a crime isn't happy with the Justices decision, they can take it to the Attorney General who can overrule the Justices decision.

I agree that the Justices can decide punishment for crimes.

I will consider making changes to this based on your views once I get some more feedback, It is just a draft at the moment and no where near ready to be submitted for voting yet.

I haven't noticed any unfair trials before, but I'm just looking out for the future, and I think that this will get more people becoming actively involved with The North Pacific.

 

[St George]

Jury trials are worse than the system we have right now.

Whilst I agree that the court system could be improved hugely (move it away from trying to partially emulate real court systems, ignore precedent, judge cases both on the facts and the evidence, not just the latter etc etc), adding trial by public opinion into it would be the wrong move.

Edit: Of course, to be even taken seriously around here you have to either proclaim yourself a deity or have a gold medal in legalism so until one of those people suggest these improvements they'll never happen.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Oh god, not a jury. We've done this before, the jury kept bailing before the trial could even finish.

 

[Parmistine]

How could adding the opinion of the RA into trials make things any worse?
All RA members are checked up on before they're allowed to join, and it won't be too much hassle to just read a post containing evidence for and against and then making a decision.

Also, if the jury does bail or can't make a decision, then it is ultimately left to the Justices, so it doesn't fall apart if the jury doesn't work.

It might take some time for people to get used to, but if it does work it will be a much fairer system to follow, with more solid legal foundations than the current one. It's the first step in the right direction, which is all anyone can do right now.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Well, under the Jury system of the past, no trial was ever even completed and no jury ever rendered a verdict. Because it was so completely broken, we switched to the Justice system, which has been fairly successful.

As for the concern that people will be "punished unfairly", there have only been two people ever found guilty in the entire history of TNP (excluding the Pixiedance era and their "five minute trials") and one of them plead guilty. The vast majority of trials in TNP end in either a dismissal or, in the rare cases when a trial was finished, a not guilty verdict.

As a person who has been brought to trial before and found innocent of all charges, I find our current Justice system to be vastly superior to our former jury system.

 

[SillyString]

it is the Justices job to convince the jury to convict the offender

Edit: Speaking as Deputy Speaker for a moment, is there a reason why this has been started in the private area and not the public one? If there is no compelling argument for secrecy, I'll move it out there.

 

[Parmistine]

Even if the jury doesn't find a verdict in a trial, it doesn't just fall apart.
If no verdict is found by the jury, there are a number of procedures it can fall back on to find a conclusion.
For example, if no decision is made with a 100% vote on a verdict then the result is decided by the majority vote. If that still doesn't give a clear decision due to a tie or jury bail, then the Chief Justice or Attorney General (haven't decided which yet) will make the final decision.
So even if everything somehow goes wrong, you still end up with a fair decision after just one trial.



Yes you can move this to public.

 

[punk d]

Joined yesterday and proposing court changes, I think TNP has a reputation.

 

[Parmistine]

I'm just trying to get involved in making TNP a greater region, I don't think that offering ideas and suggestions to improve a recognisably flawed system should be looked down upon.

 

[punk d]

I'm just trying to get involved in making TNP a greater region, I don't think that offering ideas and suggestions to improve a recognisably flawed system should be looked down upon.

How did you take my comment?

 

[Parmistine]

I thought you said because I was new I couldn't make or suggest changes because TNP has a reputation to uphold and I would just damage it.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

No, no. He meant the opposite. TNP has a reputation for having a court system that many believe could be vastly improved.

 

[punk d]

No, no. He meant the opposite. TNP has a reputation for having a court system that many believe could be vastly improved.

^This.

We welcome new ideas here. But our court system is not the most efficient.

 

[Chasmanthe]

Joined yesterday and proposing court changes, I think TNP has a reputation.

Earlier this week, Osiran Belschaft called the TNP judicial system a joke. I'm not suggesting a link between Bel's remark and this thread, but it would be an example to support your point about TNP having a 'reputation' rightly or wrongly.

Well, under the Jury system of the past, no trial was ever even completed and no jury ever rendered a verdict. Because it was so completely broken, we switched to the Justice system, which has been fairly successful.

I am pleased to hear you say it has been fairly successful!

As for the concern that people will be "punished unfairly", there have only been two people ever found guilty in the entire history of TNP (excluding the Pixiedance era and their "five minute trials") and one of them plead guilty. The vast majority of trials in TNP end in either a dismissal or, in the rare cases when a trial was finished, a not guilty verdict.

Good point, proves that unfair punishment from the court in TNP is not commonplace.

As a person who has been brought to trial before and found innocent of all charges, I find our current Justice system to be vastly superior to our former jury system.

I don't remember you being brought to trial.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

It was before your time.

 

[Parmistine]

Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding, I just think that we could at least give it a go, we all know the Courts have problems, well this could be a solution or at least the first steps to one. The problem most people seem to have with this is the jury idea as they are usually indecisive and have never worked in the past, but with this system even if the jury doesn't reach a verdict there are still multiple protocols to fall back on to GUARANTEE a verdict after just one trial.

Any more comments or ideas would be hugely appreciated, and hopefully people might just give this a chance.

(I'll post the newer version tomorrow based on what people have said)

 

[SillyString]

it is the Justices job to convince the jury to convict the offender

I'm still confused about this bit...

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

The role of the courts in TNP is fact finder, and then to determine penalties if there is a conviction.
There has historically been disagreement as to the extent of the role of the prosecutor, but it has been the Attorney General and their deputies since the office was introduced into TNP in 2005.
We have struggled to work out a fair median as to court proceedure, in part due to the RL experiences of those who participate in TNP, but it has been a evolutionary process. If there is any aspect that concerns me is the lack of guidance in the Legal Court concerning the appropriateness of a proportionate penalty.
The one thing many of us wanted to avoid was a trial system involving the entire RA which turns all trials into political proceedings. It's hard enough with the recall proceedure, I dread to think of the nightmare a R.A. based system would present.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I, for one, would prefer to elect folks to the court to render judgment, because they are far more likely to remain active throughout trial proceedings and are far more likely to be competent than 7 randomly chosen RA members. Jury duty works in RL because people are forced to do it. No one can really force people to do something they don't want to do in NS. Furthermore, why would we want to, anyway? It's supposed to be fun.

 

[Parmistine]

it is the Justices job to convince the jury to convict the offender

I'm still confused about this bit...

It basically means that the Justices (not the Chief Justice) are the prosecutors, I was thinking if people don't think they should be the ones to do this then we could introduce a new role in the system, but I wasn't sure about this.

 

[Parmistine]

I, for one, would prefer to elect folks to the court to render judgment, because they are far more likely to remain active throughout trial proceedings and are far more likely to be competent than 7 randomly chosen RA members. Jury duty works in RL because people are forced to do it. No one can really force people to do something they don't want to do in NS. Furthermore, why would we want to, anyway? It's supposed to be fun.

It's not exactly much of a chore, all that needs to be done is read the prosecutors evidence and the defendants evidence, then just post guilty or not guilty. Jury done.

 

[Parmistine]

I see people are worried about this system not working, because the Jury won't do it's job, it's too complicated and time consuming. But I've already explained that this system isn't time consuming as it only takes one trial, and if the jury doesn't do it's job then the decision ultimately falls back to the chief Justice.
And people are talking about the "chaos" and "horror" that a jury will bring. Like what? The entire system isn't going to fall apart because seven people can't agree on a verdict or refuse to vote.


I read up on a case against King Durk The Awsome, and the whole trial turned into an argument that was totally off topic, and after nearly two months it still hasn't reached the court room yet. I don't see how anyone can agree that this is at all successful, it's like the case was just forgot about.

This new system has two back up situations behind it if things don't work out. So unless every member of the jury refuses to vote, and for some reason the Chief Justice refuses to vote, a verdict will be reached after one trial.

Also instead of just saying it won't work, please give me something a little more specific to work with, this isn't a competition where it's me against everyone, this system is part of TNP which everyone here is a part of. I've just given an idea and explained how I think it'll work, but please, I am open to additions or changes made by you guys. Everyone says we need a new system, well here's a start, use the bits you want get rid of the bits you don't. Ignoring a problem won't make it better, and to just completely dismiss new efforts to fix it certainly won't. I'm with you guys on this, not against you. Speech over.

 

[Parmistine]

Here is a slightly revised system.



1.Any crimes committed that violate the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the laws of The North Pacific should be brought to the Justices and Chief Justice.
If the Justices and Chief Justice reject the case brought forward, due to reasons such as lack of evidence, no further action is taken against the accused.
If the Justices and Chief Justices agree that the accused committed the crimes he is accused of, a trial will be set up.
If the accuser is not happy with the Justices decision, they may take the case directly to the Attorney General who can overturn the Justices decision if necessary.
2.A jury will be called, made up of at least seven random members of the Regional Assembly.
The case will be brought forward and debated on by, the Justices and Chief Justice, and the accused.
Debates will last one day.
3.After the debates are finished, the jury will vote on a verdict.
All votes must be the same for a sentence to be carried out.
Votes will last one day.
4.If no sentence can be validated due to a disagreeing jury, then the verdict will be passed by majority vote of the jury.
If still no verdict is found due to equal number of votes both for and against the accused, the Chief Justice will be allowed to vote.
5.Punishments for crimes will be given according to the law, if no such law exists, punishments will be decided by the Chief Justice.

 

[Chasmanthe]

it is the Justices job to convince the jury to convict the offender

I'm still confused about this bit...

It basically means that the Justices (not the Chief Justice) are the prosecutors, I was thinking if people don't think they should be the ones to do this then we could introduce a new role in the system, but I wasn't sure about this.

At present, the prosecuting is done by the AG. Rather than the justices convincing the jury to convict, it currently works with the AG convincing the justices to convict, and the Defense Counsel convincing the justices to acquit. I think a disadvantage of what you propose is the accused don't get to choose their own defense counsel.

I, for one, would prefer to elect folks to the court to render judgment, because they are far more likely to remain active throughout trial proceedings and are far more likely to be competent than 7 randomly chosen RA members. Jury duty works in RL because people are forced to do it. No one can really force people to do something they don't want to do in NS. Furthermore, why would we want to, anyway? It's supposed to be fun.

It's not exactly much of a chore, all that needs to be done is read the prosecutors evidence and the defendants evidence, then just post guilty or not guilty. Jury done.

Whilst it's possible for anyone to be a juror, sometimes people don't have the time or the patience for it, and if we only select those who are most willing, it's not truly representative of the RA.

I see people are worried about this system not working, because the Jury won't do it's job, it's too complicated and time consuming. But I've already explained that this system isn't time consuming as it only takes one trial, and if the jury doesn't do it's job then the decision ultimately falls back to the chief Justice.
And people are talking about the "chaos" and "horror" that a jury will bring. Like what? The entire system isn't going to fall apart because seven people can't agree on a verdict or refuse to vote.


I read up on a case against King Durk The Awsome, and the whole trial turned into an argument that was totally off topic, and after nearly two months it still hasn't reached the court room yet. I don't see how anyone can agree that this is at all successful, it's like the case was just forgot about.

This new system has two back up situations behind it if things don't work out. So unless every member of the jury refuses to vote, and for some reason the Chief Justice refuses to vote, a verdict will be reached after one trial.

Also instead of just saying it won't work, please give me something a little more specific to work with, this isn't a competition where it's me against everyone, this system is part of TNP which everyone here is a part of. I've just given an idea and explained how I think it'll work, but please, I am open to additions or changes made by you guys. Everyone says we need a new system, well here's a start, use the bits you want get rid of the bits you don't. Ignoring a problem won't make it better, and to just completely dismiss new efforts to fix it certainly won't. I'm with you guys on this, not against you. Speech over.

I don't agree that we need a new system, not everyone says we do, but I think your suggestions should be considered.

 

[Parmistine]

I agree that we should have a defence council for the accused.

We could take a census on who would be willing to perform jury duty when the time came, and possibly set up another group inside the RA who are a part of this. If not enough people are willing then we can scrap the jury idea. But to be honest, as said before, there aren't that many trials going to court anyway, and the job of the jury isn't exactly time consuming.

 

[SillyString]

I'm... still confused about the justice = prosecutor thing. Why?? We already have a prosecutorial role...

Here are my broader comments:

1.Any crimes committed that violate the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the laws of The North Pacific should be brought to the Justices and Chief Justice.

Currently, accusations of crimes are brought to the Attorney General, who then files charges with the court. How would this change improve the system?

If the Justices and Chief Justice reject the case brought forward, due to reasons such as lack of evidence, no further action is taken against the accused.

This is basically what we have now. The AG is legally required to bring all cases to the court (whether they do so or not is a different matter), and the court can choose to hear or dismiss the complaint based on the contents of the filing.

If the Justices and Chief Justices agree that the accused committed the crimes he is accused of, a trial will be set up.

I'm lost here. First the judges determine that the person is guilty, and then they have a trial to determine guilt?

Do you perhaps mean to say, "If they agree that there is sufficient merit to the complaint to warrant a trial, one will begin", or something like that?

If the accuser is not happy with the Justices decision, they may take the case directly to the Attorney General who can overturn the Justices decision if necessary.

Um. What is the relationship of the AG to the justices? What is the role of the chief justice? How is... whatever this is... an improvement over the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General system that we have set up right now?

2.A jury will be called, made up of at least seven random members of the Regional Assembly.

Why seven? What if seven cannot be found? What if the randomly selected seven are unwilling or unable to serve? What if several of them have clear biases about the case? What if some of them also serve in an elected or appointed office? What if some of them disappear partway through?

The case will be brought forward and debated on by, the Justices and Chief Justice, and the accused.

Again, what is the relationship of the CJ to the other justices? What does it mean to "debate" a case?

Debates will last one day.

What if one of the parties - most worryingly the accused - is unable to be online that one day? What if the case is complicated, and requires argumentation by multiple parties, all of whom live in different time zones with different RL commitments and NS availabilities?

3.After the debates are finished, the jury will vote on a verdict.

What can it vote? Guilty, not guilty... not guilty by reason of X? Unproven? Mistrial? Crackers?

All votes must be the same for a sentence to be carried out.

So one person dissents and the person can't be sentenced?

Votes will last one day.

Same questions as before regarding online availability.

4.If no sentence can be validated due to a disagreeing jury, then the verdict will be passed by majority vote of the jury.

O...kay... So... the person can be found guilty but not sentenced, or what? If unanimity isn't required, why even say that it is?

If still no verdict is found due to equal number of votes both for and against the accused, the Chief Justice will be allowed to vote.

So the CJ.. who for some reason is prosecuting the case... after already deciding that the accused is guilty... is allowed to vote on whether or not they are, in fact, guilty?

5.Punishments for crimes will be given according to the law, if no such law exists, punishments will be decided by the Chief Justice.

How does it make sense for one of the prosecutors to have sole authority over the magnitude of a sentence?

 

[Parmistine]

Does this solve a few of your questions?


Attorney General – In charge of the courts and is not involved with either the Prosecution or the Defence but is a neutral judge that is free to make his own decision on the case and will only have an influence on the result if the jury cannot make a decision. Grants the allocated time for the trial based on the appeals from the Prosecution and the Defence.

The Prosecution – Made up of the Chief Justice and Court Justices. Chooses whether the crime brought to them has merit to warrant a trial or not. Appeals to the Attorney General for an amount of time they feel is needed for the trial. If a trial is required, the Prosecution acts to convince the jury and Attorney General that the accused is guilty.

The Defence – Given as an option to the accused to represent him in court, if the accused rejects the option he represents himself in court. Appeals to the Attorney General for an amount of time they feel is needed for the trial. The Defence tries to convince the jury and Attorney General that the accused is innocent.


1.Any crimes committed that violate the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the laws of The North Pacific should be brought to the Justices and Chief Justice.
If the Justices and Chief Justice reject the case brought forward, due to reasons such as lack of evidence, no further action is taken against the accused.
If the Justices and Chief Justices agree that there is sufficient merit to the complaint to warrant a trial, one will begin.
If the accuser is not happy with the Justices decision, they may take the case directly to the Attorney General who can overturn the Justices decision if necessary.
2.A jury will be called, made up of at least (ENTER NUMBER) random members of the Regional Assembly.
The case will be brought forward and debated on by, the Justices and Chief Justice, and the Defence.
The Prosecution will try to convince the jury and the Attorney General that the accused is guilty and the Defence will try to convince the jury and the Attorney General that the accused is innocent.
Debates will last the amount of time that the Attorney General allocates based on the appeals made by the Prosecution and the Defence.
3.After the debates are finished, the jury will vote on a verdict.
Votes will last the amount of time allocated by the Attorney General.
4.If no sentence can be validated due to a disagreeing jury, then the verdict will be passed by majority vote of the jury.
If still no verdict is found due to equal number of votes both for and against the accused, the Attorney General will be allowed to vote.
5.Punishments for crimes will be given according to the law, if no such law exists, punishments will be decided by the Attorney General.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The system you are suggesting would require a complete rewrite of at least 2 articles of the constitution and much of the legal code, in addition to the entire court rules. I, for one, and not satisfied by your reasoning that seven random members of the RA are more fit to judge a trial than three elected justices.

To demonstrate this, I assigned each RA member a number and used this to randomly pick 7. Here are the results:

• Voronia - only been here a couple weeks, but seems active and already has a government job. Would likely take the job seriously and remain active.
• Kjbush - has five posts and hasn't logged on in almost a month. He's likely to be removed from the RA on Monday. NOT a good person to have on the jury.
• North East Somerset - logs on frequently, but does not usually post, except to vote. He's not a really a participant here so much as someone who wants a say in how we do things - NOT a good person to have on the jury.
• cmhguy88 - has two posts and hasn't logged in in over 2 weeks. NOT a good person to have on the jury.
• Flemingovia - Would definitely stay active, but he decries the entire constitutional system of trials, so his approach to jury duty is somewhat unpredictable. It would probably depend on who's on trial and what they're accused of.
• mcmasterdonia - the current delegate. Would definitely stay active and take it seriously. A good jury candidate (provided there is no conflict of interest, as there sometimes is with higher-up members of the government.)
• America2025 - BRAND NEW. 2 posts. Who the hell knows what's going to happen with him? Unreliable pick for jury, as he's just as likely to disappear as stay.

So out of those 7, you've probably got 4 that would even stay in TNP through the whole trial, and of those, only 2 are guaranteed to take it seriously. One would likely vote based on outside interests, and one would probably troll the court for being inefficient. In this case, he would be absolutely right: this system is *incredibly* inefficient. A randomly selected jury of TNP members will almost never yield 7 active members who are concerned enough about the outcome of a trial that they will take the job seriously...I'm not sure there *are* seven such members, to be honest.

The viable alternative? *ELECTED* justices. When we elect them, we ask ourselves, "do I trust this person to vote on guilt/innocence at trial?" They have the trust of the community and validity granted by our votes. We don't need to take that responsibility away from them and convert them to prosecutors, and hand the role of judge over to seven random people off the street. It won't make things more fair - it will simply stall the entire justice system.

 

[SillyString]

Attorney General – In charge of the courts and is not involved with either the Prosecution or the Defence but is a neutral judge that is free to make his own decision on the case and will only have an influence on the result if the jury cannot make a decision. Grants the allocated time for the trial based on the appeals from the Prosecution and the Defence.

The Prosecution – Made up of the Chief Justice and Court Justices. Chooses whether the crime brought to them has merit to warrant a trial or not. Appeals to the Attorney General for an amount of time they feel is needed for the trial. If a trial is required, the Prosecution acts to convince the jury and Attorney General that the accused is guilty.

Why are you giving the title "justice" to someone who acts as an attorney, and "attorney" to someone who acts as a justice?

 

[Voronia]

I'm inclined to agree with the Speaker. I certainly don't feel qualified to judge the guild or innocence of an accused member, it should be left to someone who the region feels has a good grasp of the Constibillicode, and a good sense of justice.

Additionally I don't think the positions of judge and prosecution ought to be mixed. The person moderating the trial (i.e. the judge) should not also be arguing in it, that'd be a clear conflict of interest.

Also, making the Attorney-General the court of final appeal is odd. Firstly if we were to do that we'd need to change the name, an Attorney-General is supposed to represent the government in court. If we want an appeals process another court needs to be set up. Furthermore, if we are going to give the Attorney-General such broad powers to decide cases, why have a court in the first place?

 

[Parmistine]

I have heard the comments of many members of The North Pacific, and based on your comments I have decided not to pursue any further with my suggested system.

Thank you for your contributions and I hope I can contribute more ideas to The North Pacific to help it grow.



I was also just wondering who I could contact to learn more about the different positions and ranks within TNP.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

The best way to learn about any given position is to contact the person who's in that position. It's all in the Consitution, Bill of Rights, and Legal Code, though. They're all linked to from the Laws page (up at the top).