Judicial Branch Poll

[Hileville]

So we have quite a few different suggestions floating around and I want to break that off and have a poll to see where the consensus is.
 
If we select SB's idea who will be responsible for the interpretation of our laws?

[Topid]

I voted for one judge. I'd prefer the cabinet over 3 positions that just sit around most the time doing nothing.

[Milograd]

I'm torn between SB's idea and a single judge, but ultimately I have to go with a single judge.

[Belschaft]

My issue with a single judge is that our judicial system is then reduced to just one persons opinion. I remind you all why judicial review was originally taken away from the MoJ.

[Topid]

I'd agree ideally, but it is going to be hard to keep active people in those jobs. Just adding three jobs to the list of (about) 6 people that need to be active is a big deal, but throw on top of that the need for them to be active when in an issue arises every few months or so, with not much warning. If a region tries to have a judiciary with more than one judge, it only works if there is something for them to do regularly to keep them active (and so it is noticed when they go inactive). Otherwise we get what other regions have, when a case/judicial review comes up a court date is set, not all the judges are active still, so the judges are removed, a special election or appointment/approval happens, and then after all of that the trial can start.
 
It seems to me that while it is the most 'just' system, it rarely works well when implemented. If we tried that, it would be far smarter to turn the running of elections and any other responsiblities over the them as we could, to prevent the problems of an inactive judiciary.

[Belschaft]

Hmm... I do see your point. I'm changing my vote.
 
I suggest the following; when and where it's needed the Cabinet appoints three man tribunal to deal with whatever. No standing court.

[Brutland and Norden]

For me I'd prefer just one full time judge, but with modifications.When there is a criminal case, two other assistant citizen-judges should be called up for that particular case so that there it won't be just one person who will decide. And scrap the powers of judicial review. We're a small community, we know what the laws mean and want to do, and we can easily change it so if there's a problem.

[tsunamy]

For me I'd prefer just one full time judge, but with modifications.When there is a criminal case, two other assistant citizen-judges should be called up for that particular case so that there it won't be just one person who will decide. And scrap the powers of judicial review. We're a small community, we know what the laws mean and want to do, and we can easily change it so if there's a problem.

 
I like this idea.

[Awesomiasa]

For me I'd prefer just one full time judge, but with modifications.When there is a criminal case, two other assistant citizen-judges should be called up for that particular case so that there it won't be just one person who will decide. And scrap the powers of judicial review. We're a small community, we know what the laws mean and want to do, and we can easily change it so if there's a problem.

 
Agreed

[Drugged Monkeys]

I think the panel should be selected each time we have a case arise. Otherwise you have a bunch of pointless positions sitting around idle, just like the EC lol

[Hileville]

Balder runs a system where the Court is appointed as needed. I think it would work here.

[God-Emperor]

It could, but I think there needs to be stipulations for who can be appointed.

[Brutland and Norden]

It could, but I think there needs to be stipulations for who can be appointed.

 
I propose that we pattern it as in international arbitration tribunals IRL.
 
First, we have a sitting chief magistrate. The selection process will vary. We can either #1: elect the chief magistrate concurrently with the elections; or #2: have the delegate propose a chief magistrate, to be confirmed by the Assembly. I do prefer #2. For #2, the term of the chief magistrate could run concurrently with that of the delegate, or it could be a half-year term (so that we still have a judicial system in place even when there is elections). The chief magistrate should not have any other positions in the TSP government, and should not have any other positions in any other regional government. That is to at least try to ensure his/her independence and prevent him/her from being influenced by outside forces. The chief magistrate can be recalled by a supermajority (2/3?) of the Assembly.
 
Now, if there is a trial or a case that is to be filed, both parties will submit a list of nominees for their preferred citizen-judges. For example in a case A vs. B, party A will submit to the chief magistrate their nominees for the citizen-judges who will adjudicate their case, party B will also do so. The chief magistrate will then choose one nominee from each list, so that there will be three judges (the chief magistrate, the citizen-judge nominated by A, and the citizen-judge nominated by B). The citizen-judges must not be involved in the case, and exhibit no conflict of interest. For example, in a case C vs D, in which E has been involved, E cannot be chosen as a citizen-judge. Similarly, in a case involving the South Pacific vs. F, all cabinet members cannot be chosen as a citizen-judge, since they are part of the litigants. If one of the parties to the case fails or does not want to nominate a citizen-judge, the chief magistrate will be free to choose for that party.
 
Both parties will choose someone to represent them in court, though they can represent themselves in court should they want to. Both parties will present their evidence and their side of the story, and the judges will deliberate. The majority vote of the three judges will be accepted as the verdict of the court. Any punishments/damages that will be imposed shall be meted out by the Court and the Delegate (ex. ejection, ban).
 
As for judicial review: The Chief Magistrate and the Court of the South Pacific will not have the power for judicial review. It is too dangerous to rely on a single person to the interpret the laws. Corruption of that single person can expose the entire system to manipulation. Anyone who wants to clarify the law may seek an advisory opinion in the Assembly of the South Pacific.
 
Review, revision, and amendments to the laws of the South Pacific will be within the ambit of the Assembly of the South Pacific. Any challenges to legislation should be presented before the Assembly. The Assembly, being the region's legislature, should have the power, responsibility, capability, and mechanism to correct flaws in the legislation that it passes.

[Awesomiasa]

I completely agree! But I prefer for a consultative committee with the Judges and the Assembly coming together to intepret laws. Do you think that'd work? 

[Brutland and Norden]

I completely agree! But I prefer for a consultative committee with the Judges and the Assembly coming together to intepret laws. Do you think that'd work? 

 
Well, the Chief Magistrate, being a citizen of the South Pacific, is still a member and a voter in the Assembly, so he won't be excluded in the discussion of a particular law. He may, of course, try to convince the Assembly to his position, but ultimately it's the Assembly's vote that will matter.

[Awesomiasa]

Understood. I fully support this. Can this be put to vote?

[Brutland and Norden]

We might need to change the text first to something more law-speak. Also, let's wait for comments from others, there can still be room for improvement.

[Awesomiasa]

I can help with that. This shall be voted on post-election cycle perhaps?

[Brutland and Norden]

It'll probably be voted on as a part of the Charter, in one whole package.

[tsunamy]

Hold up. As much as I love to be that guy, this whole thing seems to be really effing compliated for the payoff.
 
Hypothetically speaking, each side gets to nominate a judge, even if it has to be picked by the chief magistrate. That means each side will pick a list that will be inclinded to their side. Unless there is overwhelming evidence, it's going to be a 1-1 spilt with the chief magistrae deciding the outcome anyhow.
 
I'm not trying to dismiss the idea, but I don't see what the value of this proces is, other than, to have the process?

[Brutland and Norden]

Hold up. As much as I love to be that guy, this whole thing seems to be really effing compliated for the payoff.
 
Hypothetically speaking, each side gets to nominate a judge, even if it has to be picked by the chief magistrate. That means each side will pick a list that will be inclinded to their side. Unless there is overwhelming evidence, it's going to be a 1-1 spilt with the chief magistrae deciding the outcome anyhow.
 
I'm not trying to dismiss the idea, but I don't see what the value of this proces is, other than, to have the process?

 
Well it could be so, but I've patterned it from arbitration committees IRL. Both sides probably don't know who will the chief magistrate will pick from their list anyway, and people's minds can change. I think the reason for both sides being given the opportunity to choose their jurors is to avoid the court as being seen as 'biased' or 'lopsided' towards one side or the other. They have had the opportunity to help determine its composition, and they can't criticize a court they themselves contributed in the formation, and accepted jurisdiction of.
 
The alternative is to have the Assembly select two of its own people to be citizen-judges. Again, that would have to meet the criteria for a fair court, but it risks being prone to popular manipulation. (Or, in a case involving the cabinet versus an individual, the cumulative cabinet member's votes in the Assembly will be more weighty). Or you can have a lottery, as in RL jury selection. The Chief Magistrate keeps a list of eligible citizens who had agreed to be called up for jury duty, and draws two when the need arises. Those are the alternatives that I see. Of the two, I like the second one better.

[tsunamy]

So ... if you have each side picking a judge, does the decision need to be unanamious? Otherwise, I think there are still charges of bias to be made.
 
The jury lottery gets into an activity issue, but two jurors might not be problem?
 
I like the idea of having a three-judge panel ... I'm just trying to make sure we're not making this unduly complicatied.

[Brutland and Norden]

So ... if you have each side picking a judge, does the decision need to be unanamious? Otherwise, I think there are still charges of bias to be made.
 
The jury lottery gets into an activity issue, but two jurors might not be problem?
 
I like the idea of having a three-judge panel ... I'm just trying to make sure we're not making this unduly complicatied.

Well, not really needing a unanimous decision. Although in retrospect, anybody who'd want to scream bias will probably scream bias anyway.
 
As for the jury lottery, jurors will be drawn from a list of citizens who had agreed to be included in the eligible for call-up; if somebody's going to be absent for long s/he should ask to be taken off the list, or the Chief Magistrate would make a criteria for putting citizens in the 'inactive' list. (Hmmm, that sounds like something to keep the Chief Magistrate busy while there are no cases. ) I don't know how the system in Balder works, perhaps we can also copy parts of that here in TSP.

[Hileville]

Very nice input here.

[Milograd]

I would really prefer it if we didn't use such a complicated system.