The Two Houses of Law - A proposal

[Vivanco]

Law is a living being. Not in the biological kind of way, but in the way that it's not set in stone. Civilizations, societies, people change, and the law, the moderation and how justice is given down among its peers are always fluctiating, sometimes hardening, sometimes softening, much like a pendulum, law follows the momentum. We find ourselves with the pendulum in, again, a critical stance on how the law is discussed, how it's managed. For this, I propose a settlement among the two general feelings I have seen in the region. A dual system.

We do not want to have a lengthy process, harsh and overly formal for cases that can be deemed as "menial", but at the same time, we do not wish to see serious cases under-handled. For this, I propose the "Two House" system.

Under management of the Courts to ensure equality under law and independence, a case may be brought up and then be sent one of two ways, at the Court's discretion (after hearing the petition of which of the two houses should a case belong to); The First House of Law, for those cases of high importance and that will need special precautions and seriousness, and a Second House of Law, for lower discussions that could bring up a more "simplified" version of the law (without ignoring it) for those cases that do not hold such importance.

It would need a proper study on how would both Houses rule each thing, but for now, to continue discussion outside of the Discord and in a more formal state where everyone can have a say and such things are properly archived and referenced in the futue, I present to the Regional Assembly the following questions and debate.

What would your opinion on this "Dual" system be if it came to be?
How would you address the glaring issues of this system?

 

[Comfed]

Without knowing the specific details of how this two-tiered system is intended to be structured, I don't think we can really give this idea full consideration, because the way you have presented it in the opening post of this thread is not particularly specific. In particular, the how the "simplified" version of the law this lower tribunal would consider would work seems to me to be a key elements of your proposal that is as of yet undefined.

In some RL jurisdictions, there is a distinction between indictable and summary offences. Summary offences are less serious than indictable ones (similarly to how in the United States, misdemeanors are less serious than felonies) and do not carry the right to trial by jury, instead being judged by one judge acting alone. This could apply here by amending our criminal law to create this distinction and have such cases decided by only one judge instead of the whole Court, but I am not sure how this solves the problem of procedural difficulties bogging down proceedings.

 

[Picairn]

What do you imagine are the structure, powers and responsibilities of the lower House that will try less serious offences? A detailed vision might help everyone understand what you are proposing.

 

[Sanctaria]

This seems very vague. If you could draft a specific bill/amendment so that we could more easily visualise the changes you suggest and how it'd impact our current approach, that would be better.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Bring back the Fiqh!

No, seriously... what this region needs is some mechanism for citizens to have "offenses" committed by others be brought forward to some judicial body to be adjudicated in a way for that same body to say "Hey, stop it" or "Eh, it's actually okay" in a way that is quick. For instance, the current case being heard is Dreadton vs Ardenyan... that could easily be solved if some third party would slap one of them on the wrist and say "Don't do that!"

It's already happened... Dreadton brought a complaint to me in May about certain EC communications not being made public, and I in return told those engaging in those communications to make things public, and a thread was created. It does work! Situations do get rectified in this manner.

Now, @Vivanco, you do still need some sort of codification on this if you want to propose anything. Take my perspective into consideration as you draft an actual bill. You are going to do that, right?

 

[Vivanco]

Now, @Vivanco, you do still need some sort of codification on this if you want to propose anything. Take my perspective into consideration as you draft an actual bill. You are going to do that, right?

I am going to do that. In fact, I'm drafting it right now, but it'll take at least a small week. I made this forum to try and condense everyone's thoughts on this vague idea before presenting the proper idea. Call it "warming up".