Is it time to re-imagine our judicial system?

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Re-imagining our Judicial system,

I know, I know, I have been saying it for years. But I think the time has come to be bold and re-imagine the way we conduct judicial affairs in TNP. Every now and again we have held constitutional conventions, where everything is laid on the table and we start again. Let me tell you why I think something similar is needed now.

our judicial system seldom works smoothly. Despite attempts at reform (which have helped slightly) we still have the situation where the simplest of trials become Wagnerian operatic cycles. If you know how to play the system, the simplest trials can be de-railed. We are seeing it at the moment. We try hard in TNP to be fair – which I applaud – but

Our system is vulnerable to delay and inactivity Few if any trials work according to schedule. Most suffer multiple delays, and it is easy to see why. We all have real lives, and when a trial involves many people, it is unlikely that all of them will be online for the weeks a trial takes. Also, we have suffered hugely from justices etc simply being inactive during trials. Remember: Justice delayed is justice denied. Thankfully, we are no longer at the stage when trials take months and months. But even a clear-cut issue like the current Tomb trial is now some six weeks from filing, and no end is in sight.

a real-life model is not fit for an online game We have drawn heavily but selectively from real life laws, especially American ones. The problem is that the RL laws are incredibly complex to cover every loophole, and every time we examine TNP laws more holes are found. The latest has been where the court rules state the grounds for R4R, but we have not been following this – establishing precedent that contradicts the plain text of our rules. Oy vey! Bluntly, I do not feel we need a real-life model to cover an online game.

we are over-hooked on precedent Every court ruling creates precedent, often well beyond the intent of the original ruling. This precedent is sometimes taken to supercede the actual wording of our laws. More importantly, like barnacles on the hull of a ship, these rulings will only grow and grow and grow. We have already reached the point where we have 42 rulings, and any new decision needs to be measured against these.
I would venture to suggest that only a handful of people can handle these competently, plus the BOR, ACPs, Constitution and legal code. Even Asta needs to use a search function these days. And it can only get worse and worse – and more confusing as contradictory precedents are given.

we put too much power in the hands of the court this may only be a personal thing, but I believe we put too much power in the hands of the court. I believe in the sovereignty of the Regional Assembly. I have done for a decade or more. But now, through a R4R, we have the situation where three NS players can overrule the will of over 100 NS players. That does not sit well with me.

There is more, but this post is already TL:DR.

I tried to model a different system with the Fiqh. The problem was that I dressed it up in religious symbolism, and I overestimated the ability of people to put real life prejudice on one side. People got fixated on the window dressing and did not objectively look at the substace.

So for my two cents, here is what I think TNP needs.
A much simpler system, which is more concerned with justice that with law, which focuses on a particular case rather than precedent and procedure.
A system which is more community based, concerned with restoration rather than punishment, but which has the ability to hold people to account.
A system which is less adversarial and more collaborative.
In the real world such systems exist, in dispute resolution systems, in some religious courts (don’t shoot me), in tribal hearings. One model from which we might learn might be the Gacaca village courts from Africa.
So this is really just ramblings, but my first point is – do we want to stick with a system that works so badly?
 
I think Flem is upset that people are calling the Kangaroo Court that Tomb stood before out for what it was, a ridiculous show trial that was as much of a witch hunt as it was a sham. Flem, of course, would very much like to see Tomb publicly shamed and punished, justice be damned.

I would agree that the Justice System needs some reform, but I very much doubt that Flem's intentions are to make the Courtroom into a more fair and just place. He seems more interested in crushing dissenting opinions.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I think Flem is upset that people are calling the Kangaroo Court that Tomb stood before out for what it was, a ridiculous show trial that was as much of a witch hunt as it was a sham. Flem, of course, would very much like to see Tomb publicly shamed and punished, justice be damned.

I would agree that the Justice System needs some reform, but I very much doubt that Flem's intentions are to make the Courtroom into a more fair and just place. He seems more interested in crushing dissenting opinions.
Click to expand...
And I believe you are upset because your pal was found Guilty by the Court, in part because he was not bothered to defend himself and/or appointed an incompetent defense team.

At no point was the Court at fault in what occurred. I have logically and completely countered every position to that effect that you and others have put forward. Tomb and his defense team were not obligated to submit a defense. They chose not to. The only obligation the Court had was to appoint defense for him if he couldn't appoint one himself, which he did. The Court can't make people post.

I agree with Flemingovia, the injection of RL into an online game as far as legal constructs are concerned is problematic.
 
Steady on: this is the second time in as many weeks that we have agreed with each other.

My position has not been shaped by the current Tomb trial. I think most here will recognise that I have been pretty consistent in my views for six years or more now. In fact I first voiced my concerns over the constitutional court back in the days of the Fullhead Land trial.
 
I find myself in complete agreement with Flem that a revision of the justice system is necessary. Personally, when I first ventured into The North Pacific the justice system appeared dauntingly complicated and arguably hostile to players and I suspect it would more so to new players to the game, let alone those in the younger age bracket.

I don't agree with Wolf's point that this is somewhat a personal matter for Flem and I applaud the latter for bringing this important issue up.

My biggest concern regarding our current state is our preferences for precedences. I fear this real-life add on (undoubtably effective but just in the real world) is a hindrance to our ability to effectively and efficiently conduct legal proceedings in-game, as Flem has attested to.

Should a revision go ahead, I will wholeheartedly support a simplification of the legal system.
 
So Amerion, how would you change things? Remember - we have tried tinkering with it in the past, and it has not worked well enough.
 
I agree completely with Flemingovia.

As long as it doesn't turn into a second Fiqh, of course. That would be heresy.
 
flemingovia:
So for my two cents, here is what I think TNP needs.
A much simpler system, which is more concerned with justice that with law, which focuses on a particular case rather than precedent and procedure.
A system which is more community based, concerned with restoration rather than punishment, but which has the ability to hold people to account.
A system which is less adversarial and more collaborative.
In the real world such systems exist, in dispute resolution systems, in some religious courts (don’t shoot me), in tribal hearings. One model from which we might learn might be the Gacaca village courts from Africa.
So this is really just ramblings, but my first point is – do we want to stick with a system that works so badly?
Click to expand...
This.
 
flemingovia:
we are over-hooked on precedent Every court ruling creates precedent, often well beyond the intent of the original ruling. This precedent is sometimes taken to supercede the actual wording of our laws. More importantly, like barnacles on the hull of a ship, these rulings will only grow and grow and grow. We have already reached the point where we have 42 rulings, and any new decision needs to be measured against these.
I would venture to suggest that only a handful of people can handle these competently, plus the BOR, ACPs, Constitution and legal code. Even Asta needs to use a search function these days. And it can only get worse and worse – and more confusing as contradictory precedents are given.

we put too much power in the hands of the court this may only be a personal thing, but I believe we put too much power in the hands of the court. I believe in the sovereignty of the Regional Assembly. I have done for a decade or more. But now, through a R4R, we have the situation where three NS players can overrule the will of over 100 NS players. That does not sit well with me.
Click to expand...
I always used a search function! I know where the things I'm looking for are, but scrolling is a PITA. :P

More seriously, though, I think you're incorrect here.

Legal reviews interpret the law for people to understand. They do not overpower it, and if the law changes, they do not bind it. In fact, changing the law that a ruling is based on, or the one it draws its arguments from, is a foolproof way to negate a terrible ruling. The RA is absolutely not permanently bound by a bad court decision - or even a good one.

Moreover, later decisions override earlier ones where applicable. If the court contradicts a prior ruling in a new one, it is the new one which holds future sway. The old one is dead and gone.

I don't think precedent is a bad thing, and to be honest I really don't think we have too much of it (or even enough, in some cases). It's not that hard to read through the Rulings page - most of them aren't that long anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top