Appeal Procedure Reform Act:
Appeal Procedure Reform Act
- Thread starter plembobria
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
This has been tested in other regions and possibly even in TNP. I'm not 100% sure on the history of juries here. From what I have seen abroad, it is a slow process with jurors and often they do not coordinate properly. Additionally it can be difficult to find impartial jurors, given how the regional community operates. If someone commits fraud (as an example), you can be sure that a wide range of people would already have an opinion on their guilt or innocence before it even gets to trial.
Getting anentire jury to stay active for the length of a trial is pretty near impossible. It is a great idea, but does not really work in practice.
- Discord
- COE#7110
As I recall from a post by Eluvatar detailing the entire history of our jury trial system, there were no cases that were ever completed. It was generally agreed to be a failed policy.
This is not to say that it might not work now. It's a very different TNP now than it was then. However, without any compelling reasons for why a jury trial would be better than the system we've got, and some assurances that it wouldn't needlessly slow down and over-complicate the trial process, I'm afraid I can't support this either.
I'm open to being convinced, but it would take some doing.
This is not to say that it might not work now. It's a very different TNP now than it was then. However, without any compelling reasons for why a jury trial would be better than the system we've got, and some assurances that it wouldn't needlessly slow down and over-complicate the trial process, I'm afraid I can't support this either.
I'm open to being convinced, but it would take some doing.
Why do you want a jury system? Convince me. 
My plan is to have only 6 jurors who agreed upon by the prosecution and the defense. When a verdict is required from them they have a certain amount of time to render a verdict. If the time expires the full court must decide.
The idea is to get more forum members involved. To make things more Democratic.
The idea is to get more forum members involved. To make things more Democratic.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Way, way back when I first served as a Court Justice, several years and two Constitutions or so ago, the problem we had with jury trials was getting a jury that was cohesive enough (meaning active enough) to actually see a trial to the end. It was highly impractical, but the principle of trial by jury could be applied to TNP legal system in a rather easy fashion that would actually work if we wanted to have the option:
First, we have to set up a simple appeal system that doesn't bloat the government with new horde of functionaries and bureaucrats.
Second, we have to create a simple procedure by which this can be accomplished; and,
Third, we need to create a specific set of rules under which a case can be appealed so as not to create a system involving automatic and perfunctory appeals which just clutter everything up.
Here's my idea:
1. A case adjudicated by the Court in which a guilty verdict was the result can be appealed provided that at least one of the following conditions are evident:
Errors in the gathering of, use of, or the acceptance of critical evidence.
Evidence gathered in an unethical, illegal or unconstitutional manner.
Improper procedure on the part of the Court.
Excessive penalty is applied.
2. Appeals will be decided by a panel of three Regional Assembly Members, picked in as random of a fashion as possible and who have no conflict of interest in the case (such as they were a witness, etc.,,,). A simple majority decides the appeal.
3. Failing the second item, the Defendant or representative of the Defendant may propose a "Bill to Pardon" and/or a "Bill to Reduce Penalty" to the whole RA, and which bill is exempt from Delegate Veto.
4. Executive Pardon issued by the Delegate which can range from a Full Pardon, Commutation or other form of Clemency upon either the intervention of the Delegate or upon application by the Defendant or representatives thereof. There would be no 'statute of limitations' for an application for Clemency or Pardon. Executive Pardon can only be issued relating to an actual conviction but never 'pre-emptively' for actions that may be considered criminal in the future (Which means the Delegate can't pull a Gerald Ford and pardon Nixon so that Nixon could not be prosecuted in the future).
5. "Perjury" be added to the Criminal Code of TNP as no such offence exists at this time.
That simple.
First, we have to set up a simple appeal system that doesn't bloat the government with new horde of functionaries and bureaucrats.
Second, we have to create a simple procedure by which this can be accomplished; and,
Third, we need to create a specific set of rules under which a case can be appealed so as not to create a system involving automatic and perfunctory appeals which just clutter everything up.
Here's my idea:
1. A case adjudicated by the Court in which a guilty verdict was the result can be appealed provided that at least one of the following conditions are evident:
Errors in the gathering of, use of, or the acceptance of critical evidence.
Evidence gathered in an unethical, illegal or unconstitutional manner.
Improper procedure on the part of the Court.
Excessive penalty is applied.
2. Appeals will be decided by a panel of three Regional Assembly Members, picked in as random of a fashion as possible and who have no conflict of interest in the case (such as they were a witness, etc.,,,). A simple majority decides the appeal.
3. Failing the second item, the Defendant or representative of the Defendant may propose a "Bill to Pardon" and/or a "Bill to Reduce Penalty" to the whole RA, and which bill is exempt from Delegate Veto.
4. Executive Pardon issued by the Delegate which can range from a Full Pardon, Commutation or other form of Clemency upon either the intervention of the Delegate or upon application by the Defendant or representatives thereof. There would be no 'statute of limitations' for an application for Clemency or Pardon. Executive Pardon can only be issued relating to an actual conviction but never 'pre-emptively' for actions that may be considered criminal in the future (Which means the Delegate can't pull a Gerald Ford and pardon Nixon so that Nixon could not be prosecuted in the future).
5. "Perjury" be added to the Criminal Code of TNP as no such offence exists at this time.
That simple.
Romanoffia, I like your proposal. I think I'll try to incorporate it into this bill.
When trial by jury was tried before, the jurors went walkabout before the end of the cases. It could work if evidence and arguments were presented in a private subforum. AFTER the case has been presented, the jury is then selected based on a lottery of citizens currently active on the forum. All they would have to do is read the thread, deliberate, reach their verdict, and present it to the judge.
- Discord
- COE#7110
I like the failsafe of having the court decide the case if the jury goes inactive.
My main concern at this point is that the rulings on court cases set legal and constitutional precedents, and I'm not sure we should entrust that to anyone but elected judges.
My main concern at this point is that the rulings on court cases set legal and constitutional precedents, and I'm not sure we should entrust that to anyone but elected judges.
- Discord
- COE#7110
How is that any different from our current system?Andrew:Just throwing ideas, but what about elected jurorsCrushing Our Enemies:
im expecting abit of a noob-to-pro talk towards me now
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Either way, there should be a better appeals system, and a method for Pardons/Clemency via Executive Action.
Yes, with the sheer number of convictions we've had, and the outrageously strict penalties the courts have imposed for all of those convictions, we are desperately in need of an executive pardon.Romanoffia:
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
I disagree. I think the idea of elected officials, especially in light of how elections here are conducted generally, deciding legal interpretation is a horrible thing. But meh...Crushing Our Enemies:
To points raised by others: It is correct to state that no jury trial ever saw completion under the old system but it is incorrect to state that the sole reason for this was inactivity on the part of the jurors.
There were a number of cases that were dismissed or otherwise resolved prior to proper jury trial for myriad reasons outside of activity levels. Lumping these decisions in with the handful of trials that did make it to jury stage and failed is an improper comparison in my opinion.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
SillyString:
I'm fine with expanding executive oversight to include something like that. Even though convictions have traditionally been rare, it does not necessarily mean that having that as an additional power for the Delegate would be a bad thing. But I agree that the Courts have overall failed to provide suitably strict penalties when there has been a conviction.
Gracius Maximus:
We did discuss probably a year or so ago the idea of having Delegate appointed and RA confirmation of Justice's. It wasn't all that popular at the time. I think we tend to get into a situation where there is one or maybe two active Justices at a time at most... So the workload can be very one-sided. That doesn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't have the same scenario if the Justice's were appointed, but something to think about.
Pip pip.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
I would support Delegate appointments.mcmasterdonia:
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I think that it is a conversation worth having.
The bill has been re-done and the name has been changed to "Appeal Procedure Reform Act." Any ideas for the punishment of perjury?
- Discord
- COE#7110
Would could go in for a more americanized system: whenever a place on the bench is vacant, the delegate appoints justices for as long as they are willing to serve, and the RA approves the appointments with a 2/3 majority.
falapatorius
TNPer
I'm in agreement with your first sentence. I'm not really for/against the delegate appointing to fill a vacancy, but wouldn't requiring a 2/3 RA approval essentially be an election (since only RA members can vote anyway)?COE:
Nah, it's not equivalent. In an election, anyone can stand and voters can choose. In an approval, only one person stands and it's a straight up or down vote.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
plembobria:
We would need to pass legislation to make Perjury and actual crime, but that could easily done since it is such a logical law to have.
Crushing Our Enemies:
I agree. It would have to be a simple Up-or-Down vote, no abstentions and a specific 'quorum' requirement for this type of confirmation vote to pass.
It might also be wise to go as far as having more than just three justices (a fluid number of justices as in the American system in which there is no set number of Supreme Court Justices). I would also suggest that such justices also be subject to an impeachment process (for criminal offences versus a simple recall vote). This latter point would completely remove a Justice from considering political pressure in making a decision (or running justices off the bench via 'recall' just because a decision is unpopular). Under the current system, IMHO, only a fool would want to be a Justice at this point.
falapatorius:I'm in agreement with your first sentence. I'm not really for/against the delegate appointing to fill a vacancy, but wouldn't requiring a 2/3 RA approval essentially be an election (since only RA members can vote anyway)?COE:
The difference is that it is a 2/3rds vote and not a simple plurality of aye versus nay votes in which 75% of the votes are 'abstain'.
falapatorius
TNPer
2/3 majority is a high threshold. Higher than what an election requires.Roman:
I've written a separate "Perjury Act". I've taken the reference to perjury out of this bill.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Agreed. That is what I was thinking.Crushing Our Enemies:
My main concern with that would be if someone simply just goes inactive but doesn't meet the criterion for a vacancy. I guess that could be sorted out by recall.
2/3rds may be a high threshold but for something like a Justice confirmation vote I think it is reasonable.
Seeing as discussion of this bill has subsided. Mister Speaker, I move to bring this bill to a vote.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
This bill is now in formal debate. It will be in formal debate for five days, after which no further amendment to the bill can be made and the bill will be scheduled for a vote.
On a formatting note, I recommend making those sentences which are in italics sub-lists, rather than unlisted.
On a content note,
There are currently 81 members of the Regional Assembly. By my own personal estimation - which I admit right up front is not entirely impartial or objective - approximately 1/3 of that number can be trusted to be both active enough to serve any kind of court function and have a basic familiarity with the Constibillocode and overall legal process and reasoning. Assuming only the law of averages, that means for any particular appeals case, we can only expect one member of the panel to remain active and have a solid legal grounding. Given the grounds your bill provides of errors, legality, and procedure, this is not a terribly good outlook.
Rather than revert to a jury-like system, I think it would be a much better approach to more gently adapt the system we have now. Allow appeals, require any justice who ruled on the original case to recuse themselves, and follow normal Temporary Judicial Officer appointment procedures for any vacanices that causes.
On a content note,
This is as problematic, I think, as juries in general.
There are currently 81 members of the Regional Assembly. By my own personal estimation - which I admit right up front is not entirely impartial or objective - approximately 1/3 of that number can be trusted to be both active enough to serve any kind of court function and have a basic familiarity with the Constibillocode and overall legal process and reasoning. Assuming only the law of averages, that means for any particular appeals case, we can only expect one member of the panel to remain active and have a solid legal grounding. Given the grounds your bill provides of errors, legality, and procedure, this is not a terribly good outlook.
Rather than revert to a jury-like system, I think it would be a much better approach to more gently adapt the system we have now. Allow appeals, require any justice who ruled on the original case to recuse themselves, and follow normal Temporary Judicial Officer appointment procedures for any vacanices that causes.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I don't see a huge need for appeals.. to be honest. I think I have been debating other issues in this thread.
I kind of like the finality of court judgements. Often it can take a long time for us to get to the point of having an answer.. and by the time we get one, I think it is better to accept it and move on. Make amendments to the law if they are required.
Plus it is not like one justice simply decides everything on their own. They have a private back office and discuss cases together and reach a majority verdict. So I'm not really seeing a convincing argument for this and I don't think the OP has really presented one.
I kind of like the finality of court judgements. Often it can take a long time for us to get to the point of having an answer.. and by the time we get one, I think it is better to accept it and move on. Make amendments to the law if they are required.
Plus it is not like one justice simply decides everything on their own. They have a private back office and discuss cases together and reach a majority verdict. So I'm not really seeing a convincing argument for this and I don't think the OP has really presented one.
This bill specifically states the conditions under which an appeal can be made. If one of those conditions is present, it is likely that a decision was reached unjustly.mcmasterdonia:
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Can you think of an example where the court has reached an unjust decision? I'm not saying that it /doesn't/ happen. I'm sure that it has, however the RA can appropriately respond by amending the legal code in preparation for similar cases in the future.
Why should we opt for the method of random selection of RA members to determine the appeal?
Is it likely that an appeal would reach a different result, given the collaborative nature of judicial decision making? How is the jury style system you propose any better than how the court currently works? Is it better than SillyString's suggestion about temporary hearing officers?
Why should we opt for the method of random selection of RA members to determine the appeal?
Is it likely that an appeal would reach a different result, given the collaborative nature of judicial decision making? How is the jury style system you propose any better than how the court currently works? Is it better than SillyString's suggestion about temporary hearing officers?
This is a double post. Double posts are obnoxious. 'Twas an accident.
If you were convicted of a crime you did not commit, and you were banjected. Would rather wait for the RA amend the laws, or would you rather file an appeal? If you did file an appeal would you want the same judges who wrongly decided your case to decide it again?mcmasterdonia:
The random jury system makes sure that the people who decide the appeal aren't involved in the case prior to the appeal.mcmasterdonia:
It could if the defense is able to present convincing evidence that one of the listed conditions are present.mcmasterdonia:
The idea is to get more people involved in government affairs, without having to be some lofty bureaucrat.mcmasterdonia:
Getting more people involved is generally positive, but in this case it has very significant risks:
1) Choosing people who then go inactive/leave the region, with no mechanism for replacement
2) Choosing people who have no understanding of/experience with TNP's laws and practices, who therefore render decisions based on personal feelings rather than solid legal grounding.
So how is this better than appointing THOs, who can be selected on the basis of activity levels and judicial knowledge? Simply being appointed doesn't make them a "lofty bureaucrat" - or does it, in your mind?
(As a side note, given the history of the TNP Court, "wrongful conviction" of anybody would seem to be a pipe dream. )
1) Choosing people who then go inactive/leave the region, with no mechanism for replacement
2) Choosing people who have no understanding of/experience with TNP's laws and practices, who therefore render decisions based on personal feelings rather than solid legal grounding.
So how is this better than appointing THOs, who can be selected on the basis of activity levels and judicial knowledge? Simply being appointed doesn't make them a "lofty bureaucrat" - or does it, in your mind?
(As a side note, given the history of the TNP Court, "wrongful conviction" of anybody would seem to be a pipe dream.
)
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
Debate has ended, and a vote will be scheduled for the bill as it is now on the 16th of October, 2014.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
But for my recent illness, which has severely limited my time and energy, I would have already offered a much different appeal process amendment which could be implemented in a fairer way than this proposal.
As soon as I'm able to devote time to that proposal, I will offer it. I have described this proposal in the past, I just haven't had the time or energy to do so. I'm still not 100 percent recovered, and I need to catch up on my RL things first; but I will bring it forward before I retire from the RA in 2015.
As soon as I'm able to devote time to that proposal, I will offer it. I have described this proposal in the past, I just haven't had the time or energy to do so. I'm still not 100 percent recovered, and I need to catch up on my RL things first; but I will bring it forward before I retire from the RA in 2015.
PaulWallLibertarian42
TNPer
I have voted Nay - because I feel this is unnessicary, The adopted court procedures I am fairly certain has procedures built in, but I am just the Attorney General, and not a clerk of courts or stenographer.