Judicial Reform

[Hileville]

This thread will be for all proposals relating to Judicial Reform.

[Hileville]

One idea I have for the Judiciary is to make it its on branch of government instead of part of the executive. We would could a Supreme Court with 3 justices that are all elected or appointed with Assembly approval.

[Antariel]

Do we have member size to have 3 justices, though; we struggle to fill vacancies as it is.

[Haxstree]

Well I think we should plan for a full and healthy TSP so I would support the idea.I'm sure we can make a blanket provision as part of the council that eases the need to fill vacancies as we work to grow again.

[LadyRebels]

This idea is a great one and we did have plans to do this very thing after Slacker got bogged down with so much to do. Desert Rose stepped up to the plate and again got bogged down with several things IRL......just a heads up as to how it used to work.The Assembly and Delegate would issue warnings, those warnings were gone over by the MoJ and either upheld or discarded as seen by the laws and by laws of TSP.

[Belschaft]

I'd support a Supreme Court, with the MoJ role transformed into the Cabinet's Legal Advisor/Attorney General, so long as the assembly has the power to remove a judge or force them to recuse themselves.

[Tsrill]

The judiciary being independent would be a good move. It being part of the executive as it is now has always bugged me a bit.Overstaffing the judiciary should be avoided at all costs. We don't want to divert active people to a role that rarely needs attention.

[Antariel]

The judiciary being independent would be a good move. It being part of the executive as it is now has always bugged me a bit.

Overstaffing the judiciary should be avoided at all costs. We don't want to divert active people to a role that rarely needs attention.

The latter part of this is my issue; it's all very well building for a judiciary in an active region *cough* Balder and Osiris *cough* but without more members here I don't see it working....

[Hileville]

I'd support a Supreme Court, with the MoJ role transformed into the Cabinet's Legal Advisor/Attorney General, so long as the assembly has the power to remove a judge or force them to recuse themselves.

I was thinking something like that as well.

[Southern Bellz]

As with the army thread, I feel that the judicial system should separate from elected politics into a branch that is overseen by the delegacy.

[LadyRebels]

In all honesty the Delegate is supposed to oversee all of the Cabinet. The one person in the region that anyone can ask about anything to do with the region should be the Delegate.At the same time that "power" is balanced by the Cabinet Members, if the Delegate is not doing the job then they can step up and say something and start the process of removing the Delegate.Checks and Balances is what was aimed for by the original Cabinet Members and Security Council, but it seems that somewhere along the way that ideal was either intentionally or accidentally put aside.The Judicial side of TSP has always been separate in that the only Law they follow is the Laws enacted within TSP, if they are failing to do the job at hand then they have to give an accounting to the General Assembly. The Delegate was not given the power to appoint or remove a Chief Justice unless a majority of the vote to do so comes from the General Assembly. Even the Cabinet Members were not allowed to remove a Chief Justice, they could vote for it but they could not "ban" together to remove CJ unless the Assembly wanted it to be so.Just a few thoughts.

[Bali Lo]

The judiciary being independent would be a good move. It being part of the executive as it is now has always bugged me a bit.

Overstaffing the judiciary should be avoided at all costs. We don't want to divert active people to a role that rarely needs attention.

If it would really only be a rarely-needed job then I'll volunteer to fill one of the seats...

(Disclosure needed? My only important job elsewhere in NS is as delegate, and currently main caretaker for the jointly-controlled founder, in the IDU.)

[Eluvatar]

I'm not sure we should be creating a supreme court with several permanent justices. That doesn't really seem to work well, either.However, having the MoJ in charge of procedure may be bad as well, given their executive nature and our natural inclinations to understand them to be a prosecutor.Perhaps a single Judge of the South Pacific to administer procedure impartially, allowing the MoJ perhaps to be a prosecutor? The Judge could be appointed by the Delegate with the agreement of the Assembly, for the term of the next Delegate. Am I making any sense? :ele:

[Antariel]

But just one judge suffers from the issue of balance/impartiality more than three.I still don't feel we have the personnel for three; will have to see how the auto-recruiter works.

[Eluvatar]

The judge would only administer the process. They'd still summon a jury as the MoJ is supposed to today.

[Antariel]

There is meant to be a jury?I'm sure my banning never had a jury..... :glare:

[Haxstree]

There is meant to be a jury?

I'm sure my banning never had a jury..... :glare:

You did have a jury. In an impeachment trial, the cabinet is the jury.

[Unibot]

What if a bad judge gets tenure?

[Antariel]

But on those grounds - what if a bad MoJ gets voted in. What's the difference?

[LadyRebels]

Then the Cabinet brings the charges against the MoJ in the General Assembly.just a thought.

[Antariel]

Exactly; but the same can be true of a Judge, is my point.

[Hileville]

I have added a poll to this thread in order to see where everyone is at. If there are any other options you want added to the poll let me know.

[Tsrill]

I think that a non-cabinet judge can be hold accountible by the assembly. Since our assembly includes all citizens in a pluriformity devoid of representatives or party alliances, I think this can work. The change would then be a rather simple one, namely removal of the position from cabinet.

[Hileville]

So it looks like we are leaning towards one elected justice. The following laws will need to be rewritten. I would prefer that we take the trial process completely out of the Charter and make it its own law as it just doesn't belong there IMO.

Article 7 - Judiciary

Allegations of violations may be lodged by any nation(s) against any other nation(s). Allegations must be lodged within the Ministry of Justice forum in the form of a post topic. These allegations must include the accused nation(s) and offense(s) they are accused of committing in addition to any witnesses or advocates each side wishes to have appear before the trial.


The Minister of Justice shall be responsible in all respects for the processing of the allegation. If an allegation is lodged against the Minister of Justice, the Delegate shall be responsible for the processing.


The Minister of Justice must call for evidence from the nation lodging the allegation during a consultation period that may last no more than three days. Upon the end of the three-day period, the Minister of Justice must determine if the evidence presented is strong enough to merit a trial. This decision will be made in a reply to the allegation post, and reasoning based on the charter and/or the code of laws shall be presented in the decision.


If a trial is deemed necessary:

The Minister of Justice?s reply to the allegation post should ask the defendant to enter a plea to the charges laid against them (i.e., not guilty or guilty). A plea of not guilty or a failure to enter a plea shall necessitate a trial. In the event of a defendant pleading guilty, the Minister of Justice may decide to hold a trial regardless or may pronounce sentence without trial. The Minister of Justice shall oversee the carrying out of the sentence within three days of the pronouncement as outlined by Article 7, 13.

The Minister of Justice is charged with creating a topic that designates a motion for trial. In the opening post, the Minister of Justice must establish the conflicting parties, charges brought upon the accused person(s) (labeled henceforth as the Defense) by the accuser(s) (labeled henceforth as the Prosecution), the jury, and if the trial is open to public comments or is private.


The Minister of Justice must select three nations to serve as jurors from a random pool of volunteering citizens. Either party may reject any nominated juror, and any requests to call for the removal of a juror must be registered within 24 hours of the creation of the trial thread. The Minster of Justice then has one day to select a new juror or defend the decision regarding the selection of the juror in question.


The Minister of Justice is charged with guiding the direction of the trial: from the motion, to evidence provided by the Prosecution, to the Defense, to opening the floor for questions, and suspending the trial to allow for jurors to reach a verdict. Only those given clearance to post during the trial may do so as directed by the Minister of Justice.


If the Minister of Justice believes they have an interest in the trial that may bring into question their impartiality then they may appoint a neutral Associate Justice from their staff to preside over the case. The Defense or the Prosecution may appeal to the delegate if they have compelling evidence that the presiding Judge is predetermined.


Procedure for any trial is as follows:

The trial will begin with three days for the Prosecution to present their case, three days for the Defense to make their case, and finally three days in which closing arguments can be made by both Prosecutor and Defender. The Defender always gets the last word.

If the Prosecution fails to attend during their three days, the trial will be cancelled and the accused acquitted of all charges.

If the Defense fails to show up during their three days, the defense is dismissed.

Either side may request for more time.

After the proceedings have ended, the trial thread is locked by the Minister of Justice.


Following closing arguments the jury has a maximum of seven days to reach a verdict. The jury will judge only the charges presented by the Minister of Justice following the proceedings. A verdict is reached when the majority of jurors are in agreement.


Verdicts must be announced giving only the charges laid, the parties involved, and whether those parties are guilty or not guilty.


If a verdict is not reached by a jury, for whatever reason, a mistrial will be declared and the Minister of Justice must re-examine the evidence, as specified in Article 7.5, and decide whether to proceed with a new trial.


Any nation found to be seeking to influence the deliberations of the jury will be prosecuted with a maximum penalty of expulsion from The South Pacific.


Sentences must be carried out within three days of a verdict being rendered by the Minister of Justice, unless the verdict specifies a different timing. The Minister of Justice may call upon forum administrators or the Delegate to assist with carrying out sentencing.


Appeals may be lodged with the Minister of Justice, but only if evidence is supplied showing the trial was not conducted legally.


Appeals will be heard by the Delegate, following the procedures for trial laid out in Article 7, 5-18.

Article 16 - Responsibilities and authority of the Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice shall be responsible for all judiciary activities in the region, as outlined in Article 7.

If a nation feels it was wrongfully ejected from the region, they may file a claim with the Ministry of Justice. Providing the Justice finds in favor of the plaintiff, the Delegate will then un-ban the nation in order to allow them to return to the region.

The Ministry shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Code of Laws (archiving, interpreting, etc.).

The Ministry is responsible for following through with Judicial Review when necessary.

If we are going to have an Attorney General to take the place of the MoJ we need to decide on if that position will be appointed or elected and what their duties are.

[Belschaft]

I'd recommend a 'Nomination/confirmation process similar to the EC's for the Justice. Elections politicize the process.Also, I've previously talked about writing up a formal Civil and Criminal Code. What are peoples thoughts on that?