Court Rulings Page - Suggestions

[SillyString]

I have a few suggestions for the Court regarding the R4R rulings page.

1. First of all, the last 2 rulings listed are extremely poorly named. One says merely "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Great Brigantia on May 7, 2015", with no description of what that inquiry was. The other, meanwhile, says "In regards to the Request for Review filed by Democratic Donkeys on the Conduct of Delegate Eluvatar", which while slightly more informative is also still needlessly vague. Compare to another case randomly selected from the list: "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on whether current trial procedures concerning time limits on replies, specifically those utilised in TNP v. Eluvatar, currently infringe on a Defendant's right to a fair trial" - this is much, much clearer and easier to understand, as well as to pick out as having or not having relevant information for anybody searching through the archives.
2. Second, I have some suggestions regarding improving the descriptions of other rulings as well. I prepared a list back when I was deputy AG, and would be happy to present it to the Court.
3. Thirdly, I would like to petition the Court to consider an alternate numbering system for court cases. As of now, if anything, we go strictly numerical - 1 to 49. However, I have devised an alternate system which I believe is easy to use and also significantly more informative. It consists of 2 numbers; the first is which court is ruling while the second is which ruling this is. So, the very first elected court issued rulings 1.1-1.5; the second court issued 2.1-2.17, and so on. I have done all the work already of assigning these numbers to the rulings themselves, so no research would be required to implement the system, and I think it gives some interesting information regarding the Court's history and use. Incidentally, the 2nd Court issued more rulings by far than any other.

I understand that adopting these suggestions would likely require the Court to hold a vote, formally or informally.

As a side note, I would like to suggest that the Court consider implementing a Criminal Rulings page, ideally with the following features:

1. At minimum, a list of all verdicts, both guilty and not guilty. Preferably this would include the actual ruling that was issued and the referenced law, as that can contain useful legal reasoning.
2. Information as to who prosecuted and who defended the case would be handy to have, though not strictly required. Also who was the moderating justice, and who else sat on the court that issued the ruling.
3. Also handy would be a reference to any R4Rs that arose in relation to the case, with a link to their decisions.
4. This page could use a similar number system as the one I proposed for R4Rs - 1.1 and so on. Again, the first number would refer to the court, and the second would refer to which criminal case it was. Overall, we could refer to the two sets as CCx.y (for Criminal Case) and RRX.Y (or RVx.y for review, or something else that would be better).

Obviously it would be a bit of work to implement a page like this, and I would be happy to volunteer the services of my office to help compile the necessary information.

 

[Eluvatar]

I have a few suggestions for the Court regarding the R4R rulings page.

Suggestions (in good faith) are always welcome

1. First of all, the last 2 rulings listed are extremely poorly named. One says merely "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Great Brigantia on May 7, 2015", with no description of what that inquiry was. The other, meanwhile, says "In regards to the Request for Review filed by Democratic Donkeys on the Conduct of Delegate Eluvatar", which while slightly more informative is also still needlessly vague. Compare to another case randomly selected from the list: "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Gaspo on whether current trial procedures concerning time limits on replies, specifically those utilised in TNP v. Eluvatar, currently infringe on a Defendant's right to a fair trial" - this is much, much clearer and easier to understand, as well as to pick out as having or not having relevant information for anybody searching through the archives.
2. Second, I have some suggestions regarding improving the descriptions of other rulings as well. I prepared a list back when I was deputy AG, and would be happy to present it to the Court.
3. Thirdly, I would like to petition the Court to consider an alternate numbering system for court cases. As of now, if anything, we go strictly numerical - 1 to 49. However, I have devised an alternate system which I believe is easy to use and also significantly more informative. It consists of 2 numbers; the first is which court is ruling while the second is which ruling this is. So, the very first elected court issued rulings 1.1-1.5; the second court issued 2.1-2.17, and so on. I have done all the work already of assigning these numbers to the rulings themselves, so no research would be required to implement the system, and I think it gives some interesting information regarding the Court's history and use. Incidentally, the 2nd Court issued more rulings by far than any other.

1. How about "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Great Brigantia on the effecting of RA oversight of the NPA" and "In regards to the Request for Review filed by Democratic Donkeys on Delegate Eluvatar's suppression of their double posts" ?
2. Such a list would be welcome in this topic.
3. I would be interested in reviewing such, however implementing such a numbering system in the laws page would require additional programming work, so I cannot promise immediate action if the decision is made to go in that direction.

I understand that adopting these suggestions would likely require the Court to hold a vote, formally or informally.

3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.

In the absence of any court rules on the matter, I believe I can accept or decline any of these suggestions regarding the index at my discretion. I will certainly solicit input from the other Justices however.

As a side note, I would like to suggest that the Court consider implementing a Criminal Rulings page, ideally with the following features:

Unfortunately, I believe a Criminal Rulings probably would not belong in the Laws page, as such rulings do not have any binding nature on anything but the defendant(s). However, an index that can be reviewed as a topic in the Court areas directly may be appropriate.

1. At minimum, a list of all verdicts, both guilty and not guilty. Preferably this would include the actual ruling that was issued and the referenced law, as that can contain useful legal reasoning.
2. Information as to who prosecuted and who defended the case would be handy to have, though not strictly required. Also who was the moderating justice, and who else sat on the court that issued the ruling.
3. Also handy would be a reference to any R4Rs that arose in relation to the case, with a link to their decisions.
4. This page could use a similar number system as the one I proposed for R4Rs - 1.1 and so on. Again, the first number would refer to the court, and the second would refer to which criminal case it was. Overall, we could refer to the two sets as CCx.y (for Criminal Case) and RRX.Y (or RVx.y for review, or something else that would be better).

1. Worth considering.
2. Understandable, also worth considering.
3. Certainly worth considering.
4. Given how frequently we've seen criminal cases cross over from one court to another, would that truly be that helpful?

Obviously it would be a bit of work to implement a page like this, and I would be happy to volunteer the services of my office to help compile the necessary information.

Before you go ahead and do that, I'd like to see a bit more discussion of the concept. I would certainly welcome help with the task once there is a determination of what if any index should be created.

 

[SillyString]

Here is my full list of descriptors. I had completed up through all but the last 4 rulings, so I have added them as well.

Spoiler

Review 1.1: The Attorney General Refusing to bring Trials to the Court
Review 1.2: The Limitations set by the Council of 5 in regards to World Assembly Voting
Review 1.3: The Scope of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights
Review 1.4: The Vice Delegate's Voting Rights within the Security Council
Review 1.5: The Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code
Review 2.1: The Speaker's Power to Restrict the Format of Votes
Review 2.2: Leaving a Candidate's Name off the Ballot
Review 2.3: Usage of the Arms, Flag, and Seal of The North Pacific
Review 2.4: Delegate Term Limits
Review 2.5: Applications to the Security Council
Review 2.6: Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Review 2.7: Oath Violations by Former Members of the Regional Assembly
Review 2.8: WA Nation Disclosure Requirements
Review 2.9: Right against Self-Incrimination
Review 2.10: The TNP Flag as National Flag
Review 2.11: The Speaker's Power to End Debate
Review 2.12: Advisory Opinion on the Role of the Attorney General
Review 2.13: Constitutionality of Sedition
Review 2.14: Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers
Review 2.15: Time Limits in Trials
Review 2.16: Vice Delegate Succession
Review 2.17: Constitutionality of the Minor Error Clause
Review 3.1: Delegate Term Limits in Special Elections
Review 3.2: Constitutionality of Intelligence Exception to Freedom of Information Act
Review 3.3: Standing and the Definition of Affected Party
Review 3.4: Justices as Government Officials
Review 3.5: Limits on the Powers of Election Commissioners
Review 3.6: Restarting Election Voting Periods
Review 3.7: Definition of Government Officials
Review 4.1: RA Membership Requirements for Candidates
Review 5.1: Time at which Oaths Become Binding
Review 5.2: Nonparticipation of Defendant in Civil and Criminal Trials
Review 6.1: Candidate Eligibility in Reopened Nomination Periods
Review 6.2: Standard of Proof and Intent
Review 6.3: Freedom of Information Requests against the Judiciary
Review 6.4: Permanence of Rejected Applications for the Regional Assembly
Review 6.5: Ownership and Freedom of Information Requests against the Security Council
Review 7.1: Meaning of Private Citizen
Review 7.2: Use of the Speaker's Power to End Debate
Review 7.3: Promptness and the Time at which Regional Assembly Membership Begins and Ends
Review 8.1: Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review
Review 9.1: Further Clarification on Restarting Voting Periods
Review 9.2: RA Oversight of the NPAF
Review 10.1: Utter Bullshit

 

[Romanoffia]

I like your categories, SS. Constructed in a fashion in which numerical ruling designations can be added as needed. It also allows people to look up relative precedent in a much easier fashion than is now available. It is a right, proper method to classify court rulings and reviews.

 

[SillyString]

Bump on this!

You're right, Elu - the numbering system may or may not be helpful for criminal trials... perhaps, looking at TNP-specific judicial history, they should instead be coded by defendant. JAL's trials would be 1.1, 1.2, and so on, for example.

I will have to think on an appropriate system to number them. To start with, a simple "TNP v. Nationstan" would probably work, but it might be nice to include a bit more detail, like what they were charged with... something like "TNP v. Nationstan: Treason, Espionage, Sedition, and Adspam".

If we went that route, we might have "TNP v. JAL: Treason" and "TNP v. JAL: More Treason" and "TNP v. JAL: Treason and Espionage". Or something like that. Still not hugely distinctive, but... maybe better than just calling them all the same thing.

 

[St George]

On a criminal rulings page can we have a 'Judicial Idiocy' section, containing only the ruling that a person on this forum with the same name as a person on another forum who is actually both those people isn't actually the same person?

 

[Eluvatar]

What ruling do you refer to?

 

[SillyString]

I have done a thing! Two things!

Firstly, I implemented the name suggestions that I listed above, with minor tweaks. The court rulings page now reflects the updated titles, which should be more descriptive and informative than the original versions. I have not edited any of the original rulings as posted in their r4r threads, so anybody interested can still track down an older version to compare.

The second thing I did was reduce the number of rulings on the ruling page from 49 to 44.

Before y'all set me on fire, let me explain.

There were two rulings which themselves cited earlier rulings in full - including the image of the court seal and all the intro text. Unfortunately, the script we use for the court rulings page uses that intro text to generate the list of links at the top of the page. As a result, we had five rulings that appeared twice in the list - first in their original position, and next after the ruling that cited them.

To clean this up, I deleted the aforementioned intro text and put the actual rulings that were cited in quote tags.

Once again, no original posts were edited at all, and no meaningful content was removed - just the extraneous cited portions that caused extra links. If you want to verify this, the specific rulings that were affected were (3) and (28).

Oh, and I believe I deleted all the extra [/center] tags as well, though there could still be a couple I missed and will get to within the next couple of days. The first template for rulings included it, and apparently nobody ever bothered to remove it before posting. >_>

 

[Darcania]

Oh, wow, thank you so much, SillyString! These Court Rulings, while not as popular as the Constibillocode, are just as important a part of our law, so thanks again for fixing the Rulings and making the titles clearer!

 

[lilith]