This poll is intended to guide the development of the judicial reform legislation, and as such such an option would not be helpful. The question is not in regards to adversarial vs. non-adversarial, but of what kind of investigative office is preferred in a non-adversarial office.PaulWallLibertarian42:What about a third option? Maintaining the status-quo?
Because a move to a non-adversarial system requires more comprehensive alterations than that.Gracius Maximus:If that is the case then why bother with the proposed legislation at all?
Wouldn't it be simpler to amend the description of the AG?
Not according to you.Belschaft:Because a move to a non-adversarial system requires more comprehensive alterations than that.Gracius Maximus:If that is the case then why bother with the proposed legislation at all?
Wouldn't it be simpler to amend the description of the AG?
Due to the way that the various laws are structured, the major alterations that need to be made are to the Court Rules. As they are set by the Court itself, I need to work with the newly elected Justices to organize that.Gracius Maximus:Not according to you.Belschaft:Because a move to a non-adversarial system requires more comprehensive alterations than that.Gracius Maximus:If that is the case then why bother with the proposed legislation at all?
Wouldn't it be simpler to amend the description of the AG?
The vast majority of the legal edits you propose center around the removal of the AG's Office. You insert words like 'neutral' and 'fair' a couple of times but that is implied in the mandate of the Judicial branch regardless.