Login

Farengeto · 01-21-2014, 04:58 AM

Let's be honest here, the judicial system is an unusable mess. I ran on a policy of reform, and it's time to open the discussion. It's time for a full reform of the system, rebuilding the whole Judiciary into a practical form.

Â

Let's take a look at what we have currently:

[spoiler=Charter]

Â Article 4: Judiciary
Section 1 - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court shall have an elected Chief Justice to hear all cases. He will be elected alongside Cabinet officials every four months.
A list of standing "volunteers" with suitable legal experience shall be maintained by the Chief Justice. If the need arises, two volunteers will be chosen on a rotating basis to join the Chief Justice in handling the case as temporary Associate Justices.
If a conflict of interest seems to be present the Chief Justice, with the consent of the Assembly, may chose a volunteer to serve as a temporary Associate Justice out of rotation.Ã¢â¬â¹

Section 2 - Powers

The Supreme Court is responsible for determining innocence or guilt in criminal cases.
The Supreme Court may declare any General Law that conflicts with the Charter defunct.
The Supreme Court may remove Citizenship if guilt is found.Ã¢â¬â¹

Section 3 - Criminal Cases

If charges are filled against a citizen the case may be conducted with either a partial court (defined as the Chief Justice presiding solely) or, at the defendants request, with a full court (defined as the Chief Justice presiding with two temporary associate justices).
If the case is held with a partial court, the defendant may appeal the case if they feel the sole justice acted unfairly. With a full court, no appeals may be made.
The court is responsible, in conjunction with the Assembly, for establishing a consistent and just manner for hearing legal cases.

Section 4 - Legal Questions

Legal questions will always be handled by a partial court.
Those asking legal questions referring to the Charter may request an additional legal opinion, which will be given by the next rotating temporary associate justice. If the legal opinions substantially differ, then a full court will convene to issue a final opinion.

Section 5 - Other

The Chief Justice is not prohibited from joining the Assembly or any associated organization in the South Pacific barring a political party or interest group.
The Chief Justice shall have the authority to examine laws and make recommendations to the Assembly, however he may not arbitrarily issue a judgement or opinion on laws without a specific legal question being filed.

[/spoiler]

Â

[spoiler=Code of Laws]

Â
Article 6: Criminal Code

Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with. Nations and citizens that refuse to endorse the Delegate during a State of Emergency shall be considered guilty of treason, and refusing to disclose the name of one's WA nation whilst the aforementioned circumstances are in effect is also considered an act of treason.
Defamation shall be defined as communication of a statement which makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, in an attempt to harm the reputation of another user or group of users on the forum. Â TheÂ offendedÂ must express the offense to the Court in order for the charge to be considered.
Fraud shall be defined as a deception made for personal gain or to damage anotherÂ individual.
Espionage shall be defined as an act of or attempt to obtain information that is confidential or not made publicly available for use by oneself or an entity one represents. Distribution of private information that originates on the South Pacific Forum without the express written permission of the Cabinet of the South Pacific shall be considered Espionage.
Conduct violations shall be defined as breaking in-game NationStates rules.Ã¢â¬â¹

Article 7: Penal Code

If found guilty of an act of treason, the offending nation will beÂ immediatelyÂ banned from the in-game region and offsite forums.
If found guilty of defamation, the offending nation must issue a public apology to the nation in which the offense was committed against. Â Further punishment may be determined by the Judiciary.
If found guilty of fraud, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. Â The sentence must beÂ proportionateÂ to the offence.
If found guilty of espionage, the offending nation may be banned from the in-game region and expelled from the offsite forums. Â The Judiciary may determine a lesser sentence in order to keep proportionality with the offense.
Conduct violations are punishable by immediate ejection and banishment from the region, albeit punished parties may appeal this decision to the court. In most cases, nations that appeal the decision and apologize should expect to have their ban lifted.

[/spoiler]

Â

Some of you might recall a failed proposal Judicial Reform back in November. I see no point in ignoring a perfectly good discussion, so I've included it below. It's a bit long so I'll try to add in a summary later.

[spoiler=
DISCUSSION: Judicial reform]

Article 4: Supreme Court

Â

Section 1 - Purpose of the Supreme Court

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court is a body charged with upholding the Charter, Code of Laws, and all other laws of the region, in all judicial matters civil and criminal.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court is an inquisitive body, and as such shall take a proactive role in investigating and establishing the facts in civil and criminal cases.

Â

Section 2 - Composition of the Supreme Court

1.Â Â Â Â Â The composition of the Supreme Court and the procedure for the selection of its Justices shall be determined by the Assembly.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be chosen from among the other Justices by majority vote.

3.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall not act upon a specific matter unless a quorum of members is reached for that matter, as determined by the Assembly.

Â

Section 3 Ã¢â¬â Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is responsible for the Supreme CourtÃ¢â¬â¢s general operation.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall deliver the opinion of the Supreme Court in all cases and questions about such opinions shall be directed towards him or her.

3.Â Â Â Â Â The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a leader among equals and does not have any greater legal power than any other Justice.

Â

Section 4 - Powers of the Supreme Court

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall investigate, establish the facts, and determine the guilt or innocence of persons in all criminal cases.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall have the authority to declare any law of the Assembly or action of the Cabinet null and void if it is found to be in violation of the Charter, when brought to its attention.

3.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court may issue opinions on legal questions posed to it by the Assembly or the Cabinet, but shall not act unilaterally to do so.

4.Â Â Â Â Â Any citizen may bring a civil or criminal complaint to the attention of the Supreme Court, and submit evidence into the record, but it is the decision of the Senate to take action upon complaints.

5.Â Â Â Â Â All cases of the Supreme Court shall be conducted publicly, unless doing so would harm the security of the region, except the deliberations of the Justices may be held in private at their discretion.

6.Â Â Â Â Â All decisions handed down by the Supreme Court are final and shall be explained thoroughly.

Â

----

Â

Procedure of the Supreme Court

Article 1: Composition of the Supreme Court and Election of Justices

Section 1 Ã¢â¬â Composition

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall consist of 3 Justices, with one Justice serving as the Chief Justice, with a quorum being at least 2 Justices.

2.Â Â Â Â Â Justices of the Supreme Court may not hold any executive offices, but are not prohibited from exercising their rights as citizens within the Assembly.

Â

Section 2 Ã¢â¬â Elections

1.Â Â Â Â Â Justices of the Supreme Court shall be elected half-way through the regular term of the Cabinet.

2.Â Â Â Â Â Election procedures for Justices of the Supreme Court shall be the same as those for all other elected offices.

Â

Article 2: Criminal Procedure

Section 1 Ã¢â¬â Preliminary Procedures

1.Â Â Â Â Â Criminal cases against a person may be brought to the Supreme Court by referral of the Cabinet or the Assembly.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Justices of the Supreme Court shall consider all cases referred to them, but may exercise their discretion in which cases they will accept.

3.Â Â Â Â Â The Justices of the Supreme Court shall establish common standards for the referral of criminal cases, which shall be published in public.

Â

Section 2 Ã¢â¬â Establishing Facts

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Justices of the Supreme Court have the core responsibility of establishing the facts in all criminal cases they hear.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Justices of the Supreme Court may call upon any person to aid them in establishing the facts of a case.

3.Â Â Â Â Â The referrer of a criminal case may offer evidence of criminal wrongdoing, but it is up to the Supreme Court to judge the veracity of all evidence submitted to it.

4.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall search for all evidence, incriminating and exculpatory, with equal ferocity.

Â

Section 2 Ã¢â¬â Due Process Rights

1.Â Â Â Â Â All persons accused of criminal wrongdoing have the right and expectation to due process of the law.

2.Â Â Â Â Â All persons accused of criminal wrongdoing shall be afforded the opportunity to state their defense in public.

3.Â Â Â Â Â In conformity with the right to a speedy hearing, the Supreme Court shall act in good faith to limit the length of a criminal case to no more than one week, with longer time frames for extraordinarily difficult cases.

Â

Section 3 Ã¢â¬â Verdicts and Sentencing

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall reach a verdict in a criminal case by the agreement of at least 2 Justices, or otherwise deliver a verdict of acquittal due the charges not being proven.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall issue a sentence in conjunction with a guilty verdict, but may not go beyond the punishments afforded to them by the Code of Laws.

3.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall have the authority to command any official to carry out the sentence, or otherwise hold them in contempt.

4.Â Â Â Â Â The verdict and sentencing delivered by the Supreme Court are final.

Â

Article 3: Civil Procedure

Section 1 Ã¢â¬â Preliminary Procedures

1.Â Â Â Â Â Any citizen of the Coalition wronged by the action of any official shall be able to bring a civil suit before the Supreme Court.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Justices of the Supreme Court consider all civil cases referred to them, but may exercise their discretion in which cases they will accept.

3.Â Â Â Â Â The Justices of the Supreme Court shall establish common standards for the submission of civil cases, which shall be published in public.

Â

Section 2- Procedure of Civil Cases

1.Â Â Â Â Â The plaintiff of a civil case shall be afforded the opportunity to establish their grievance, and the defendant shall be afforded an equal opportunity to defend their actions.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Justices of the Supreme Court are given discretion in requesting more information from the parties of a civil case.

Â

Section 3 Ã¢â¬â Opinions in Civil Cases

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall deliver an opinion in civil cases by the agreement of at least 2 Justices, or otherwise dismiss the case.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court may order the losing party to take equitable action to correct their wrongdoing, or otherwise hold them in contempt.

3.Â Â Â Â Â Opinions in civil cases delivered by the Supreme Court are final.

Â

Article 4: Legal Questions

Section 1 Ã¢â¬â Referral of Legal Questions

1.Â Â Â Â Â Any person may refer a legal question the Supreme Court, defined as a question on the interpretation of the Charter, the Code of Laws, a subsidiary law, treaty, or other binding legal document, or on whether or not a certain action would in conformity with the aforementioned.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall accept any legal questioned referred to it by the Cabinet or the Assembly, but may exercise discretion on legal questions referred to it by any other person or body.

Â

Section 2 Ã¢â¬â Opinion on Legal Questions

1.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court shall deliver an opinion on legal questions with at least 2 Justices in agreement, or otherwise dismiss the question.

2.Â Â Â Â Â The Supreme Court may choose to deliver a binding opinion or a non-binding advisory opinion.

Â

Article 5: Commutations and Pardons

1. Â Â The Delegate may commute any sentence delivered by the Supreme Court, which shall have the effect of shortening or removing time-related punishments, but shall not affect permanent punishments.

2.Â Â Â The Delegate may pardon any person convicted of a crime by the Supreme Court, which shall have the effect of removing the all punishments.

[/spoiler]

Â

A few discussion questions to consider. I'll be updating this every once in a while.

Pardons: Who should issue them and should a time-frame be involved?
Should the Assembly have the power to override the Judiciary?
What should the role of the Judiciary be?
Should the election procedures be changed for the Chief Justice?
How should Justices be chosen?
Should the Judiciary be involved with roleplaying affairs?

Geomania · 01-22-2014, 03:30 AM

Quote:Â

Pardons: Who should issue them and should a time-frame be involved?

Â

I believe that leaving pardons up to one single person (or even the cabinet) is something that could possibly lead to abuse. In addition, I feel like a pardon would be a repudiation and override of a whole branch of the government, and that such an override should require more than just the approval of the cabinet. It should also meet a high burden. Therefore, I think pardons should only be given upon a 2/3 supermajority vote by the assembly.

Â

Quote:Â

Â

Should the Assembly have the power to override the Judiciary?

Â

Technically, the Assembly can always override the Judiciary by passing an amendment to the constitution or passing a new law that makes the ruling moot. Other than what I just said about pardons, I don't see any cases where the Assembly should have the power to outright override the Judiciary on a certain judicial decision.

Â

Quote:Â

Â

What should the role of the Judiciary be?

Â

As currently constructed, it serves as one of the three branches of our government. The Judiciary of this region is intended to prosecute criminals and render interpretations of the charter. I am not sure we should change any part of that.

Â

Quote:Â

Â

Â

Should the election procedures be changed for the Chief Justice?

How should Justices be chosen?

Â

Well I am of the belief that the Chief Justice should be democratically elected, but I am malleable on this; I could be convinced that they should be appointed by the delegate or the cabinet.

Quote:Â

Â

Â

Should the Judiciary be involved with roleplaying affairs?

The charter never has said anything about regulating role play. What are we going to do, prosecute god-modders? I think the Judiciary should just stay out of RP.

HEM · 01-22-2014, 09:07 PM

Quote:Â

Â

I believe that leaving pardons up to one single person (or even the cabinet) is something that could possibly lead to abuse. In addition, I feel like a pardon would be a repudiation and override of a whole branch of the government, and that such an override should require more than just the approval of the cabinet. It should also meet a high burden. Therefore, I think pardons should only be given upon a 2/3 supermajority vote by the assembly.

Â

To an extent, I disagree. Leaving pardons up to the Assembly will open the door to mob mentality. For instance, we might all really like someone and just pardon them without considering the consequences. Or there might be someone who truly deserves to be pardoned (or at least have their sentence mitigated) but we don't consider it because they are personally unpopular.

Â

I would put the power of pardon in the hands of the Delegate, but allow the Assembly to overturn the pardon with a 4/5 majority. This prevents abuse, but also give the bulk of the power to an office the voters have entrusted to make logical, collected decisions.

Cormac · (This post was last modified: 01-23-2014, 04:21 PM by Cormac.)

I agree with HEM's suggestion regarding pardons.

Â

I think the Chief Justice should be appointed by the Delegate with the approval of the Assembly, and should serve until resignation or recall, because I think the judiciary should be independent and not subject to direct election -- I think direct election promotes politicization and mob rule in an area where such definitely should not exist. I think temporary Associate Justices should be appointed by the Chief Justice with the approval of the Assembly, serving only for the duration of the trial for which they're appointed.

Â

Other than that, I basically agree with Geomania.

Rebel-topia · 01-23-2014, 05:19 PM

The problem with appointment is that it could lead to nepotism. And I dont think a whole branch of our government should be handed jobs based on who the delegate likes. I think they should be elected.

HEM · 01-24-2014, 05:31 AM

Quote:The problem with appointment is that it could lead to nepotism. And I dont think a whole branch of our government should be handed jobs based on who the delegate likes. I think they should be elected.

Â

The position could be Delegate appointment with Assembly confirmation. Though I do prefer elections as they currently stand.

Punk D · 01-24-2014, 02:17 PM

I'm not in favor of appointment because I believe it makes it really difficult for newer people to get involved, but by and large I agree with Cormac's stance around the judicial office being a life time appointment.Â

Â

Those two statements probably appear contradictory. What I am saying is I would favor a system where we have at least 3 justice positions. Those positions are selected by the Assembly. Every six months each justice would be subject to a confidence vote. If confidence is less than 60% for any candidate, it would trigger an election for whichever justice received less than 60% confidence.

Â

The reasoning behind justices being elected for life is to allow them the impartiality that comes with being a justice and to increase the judicial strength of the bench. Cases don't come around all that often, but when they do, you want highly qualified people. In NS, I've really come to believe that justices when they are not deliberating cases should be writing about the law.

Â

I'd also be up for beginning judicial training for those who would one day want to become a justice. Use old cases and build out some tests and whatnot. That could be overkill, but a competent judiciary is worth a lot in my opinion.

Geomania · 01-24-2014, 04:46 PM

Hem's suggestion that pardons can be overruled with a 4/5 vote is very palatable to me.

Â

I am very much against a lifetime appointment. A lifetime appointment gives a justice carte blancheÂ to do whatever he/she wants, including running roughshod over our laws. There is no accountability. Punk, your suggestion for a confidence vote is an interesting alternative.

HEM · 01-28-2014, 10:12 AM

Quote:Hem's suggestion that pardons can be overruled with a 4/5 vote is very palatable to me.

Â

I am very much against a lifetime appointment. A lifetime appointment gives a justice carte blancheÂ to do whatever he/she wants, including running roughshod over our laws. There is no accountability. Punk, your suggestion for a confidence vote is an interesting alternative.

Â

I agree. I also think, despite Punk D's argument to the contrary, that lifetime appointments to deter any newcomer involvement. Yeah we can create more posts, but more positions in an inactive branch isn't going to do much. One frequently elected position is better.

Punk D · 01-28-2014, 01:03 PM

Quote:Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Geomania" data-cid="114769" data-time="1390581999">
<div>
Hem's suggestion that pardons can be overruled with a 4/5 vote is very palatable to me.

Â

I am very much against a lifetime appointment. A lifetime appointment gives a justice carte blancheÂ to do whatever he/she wants, including running roughshod over our laws. There is no accountability. Punk, your suggestion for a confidence vote is an interesting alternative.

Â

I agree. I also think, despite Punk D's argument to the contrary, that lifetime appointments to deter any newcomer involvement. Yeah we can create more posts, but more positions in an inactive branch isn't going to do much. One frequently elected position is better.

Â

</div>
</blockquote>
Â

I do believe that frequent elections is the best way to guarantee that new people will have a chance to serve, but I weigh that against the desire to have an effective bench. And I really do feel that we've got to give the justices something to do in-between cases and or judicial reviews. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but I think that will keep their intellectual juices flowing and hopefully give us a better bench.

Â

I do think confidence votes will enable us to remove justices whose philosophies are out of step with the mainstream and give newer folks a chance to run for those offices.Â

Arbiter08 · 02-10-2014, 08:27 PM

Quote:. Every six months each justice would be subject to a confidence vote. If confidence is less than 60% for any candidate, it would trigger an election for whichever justice received less than 60% confidence.

Â

I think 6 months may be too long, but otherwise I agree with this.

Farengeto · 02-11-2014, 01:12 AM

Quote:Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Punk D" data-cid="114764" data-time="1390573075">
. Every six months each justice would be subject to a confidence vote. If confidence is less than 60% for any candidate, it would trigger an election for whichever justice received less than 60% confidence.

Â

I think 6 months may be too long, but otherwise I agree with this.
Â

</blockquote>
What about every 4 months, with the vote taking place a few days before our general election so that if the confidence vote fails they'd be elected at the same time as the rest of the positions?

Arbiter08 · 02-11-2014, 03:11 AM

Quote:Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Arbiter08" data-cid="116283" data-time="1392064074">
<div>
Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Punk D" data-cid="114764" data-time="1390573075">
. Every six months each justice would be subject to a confidence vote. If confidence is less than 60% for any candidate, it would trigger an election for whichever justice received less than 60% confidence.

Â

I think 6 months may be too long, but otherwise I agree with this.
Â

</blockquote>
What about every 4 months, with the vote taking place a few days before our general election so that if the confidence vote fails they'd be elected at the same time as the rest of the positions?

Â

</div>
</blockquote>
That sounds good. Though would there be any sort of campaigning time for the justices? (Time to say, "I did this, this, and this and if I stay as justice I will do this")

Farengeto · 02-11-2014, 04:50 AM

Quote:Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Farengeto" data-cid="116351" data-time="1392081173">
<div>
Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Arbiter08" data-cid="116283" data-time="1392064074">
<div>
Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Punk D" data-cid="114764" data-time="1390573075">
. Every six months each justice would be subject to a confidence vote. If confidence is less than 60% for any candidate, it would trigger an election for whichever justice received less than 60% confidence.

Â

I think 6 months may be too long, but otherwise I agree with this.
Â

</blockquote>
What about every 4 months, with the vote taking place a few days before our general election so that if the confidence vote fails they'd be elected at the same time as the rest of the positions?

Â

</div>
</blockquote>
That sounds good. Though would there be any sort of campaigning time for the justices? (Time to say, "I did this, this, and this and if I stay as justice I will do this")

Â

</div>
</blockquote>
It would be conducted at the same time and roughly the same process as cabinet positions.

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-11-2014, 05:02 AM

Wasn't the six month term meant to allow for long trials to be adequately conducted, and to allow for more frequent elections?

HEM · 02-11-2014, 08:50 AM

Can we have a serious discussion about doing away with the judiciary? This region seems (not saying its a bad thing) very comfortable with administrators making all the choices regarding the fate of anybody misbehaving in the region. What is the point of having a separate court system? We don't take people to court who commit crimes, the administrators deal with it.

Â

I just think debating the court system is a huge waste of time. We are never going to use the court again (for better or for worse).

Unibot · (This post was last modified: 02-11-2014, 09:07 AM by Unibot.)

I think it is a serious problem that we put all of the decision-making in the hand of the admins, instead of the courts.Â

***tsunamy*** · 02-11-2014, 04:27 PM

Quote:I think it is a serious problem that we put all of the decision-making in the hand of the admins, instead of the courts.Â

Â

I have to agree here. While I think there are serious problems with any judiciary, I don't think we want the admins holding so much power.

Arbiter08 · Minister of Regional Affairs (Mar 7, 2014-Present)

Could there be some way to combine the administrative system and the judicial system Without giving the admins too much power?

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-11-2014, 07:04 PM

There are administrative offenses (which are violations of moderation policies) and there are criminal offenses (which are violations of our criminal code). Both are already separated, I don't see why we should combine them.

Escade · 02-11-2014, 07:37 PM

I like six month terms for the judiciary because it will give the judiciary time to get up start running and try different things before the next election.Â

HEM · 02-12-2014, 02:56 AM

Quote:Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unibot" data-cid="116387" data-time="1392109626">
<div>
I think it is a serious problem that we put all of the decision-making in the hand of the admins, instead of the courts.Â

Â

I have to agree here. While I think there are serious problems with any judiciary, I don't think we want the admins holding so much power.

Â

</div>
</blockquote>
Â

I agree. But there is no way to change this. Hileville has made it clear that any attempts to reform administrative power in this area will result in him dropping the forum coverage. Personally, I believe that is why it was a mistake to move away from Zetaboards / Invisionfree and give a sole member financial / legal stake in our community, but that is neither here nor there.

Â

Quote:Â

Â

There are administrative offenses (which are violations of moderation policies) and there are criminal offenses (which are violations of our criminal code). Both are already separated, I don't see why we should combine them.

Â

Yes, there are administrative offenses that consist of whatever Hileville wants them to consist of. Almost every single thinkable offense is handling by the administrators with no citizen input or oversight. To aid my point, here is the criminal code of the region:

Â

Quote:Â

Â

Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with. Nations and citizens that refuse to endorse the Delegate during a State of Emergency shall be considered guilty of treason, and refusing to disclose the name of one's WA nation whilst the aforementioned circumstances are in effect is also considered an act of treason.

Defamation shall be defined as communication of a statement which makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, in an attempt to harm the reputation of another user or group of users on the forum. Â TheÂ offendedÂ must express the offense to the Court in order for the charge to be considered.

Fraud shall be defined as a deception made for personal gain or to damage anotherÂ individual.

Espionage shall be defined as an act of or attempt to obtain information that is confidential or not made publicly available for use by oneself or an entity one represents. Distribution of private information that originates on the South Pacific Forum without the express written permission of the Cabinet of the South Pacific shall be considered Espionage.

Conduct violations shall be defined as breaking in-game NationStates rules.Ã¢â¬â¹

Â

Treason is almost the only thing handled by the courts. Even then though, since the days of Milograd this region, I wouldn't be surprised if administrators banned his accounts in advance of trial for "security reasons".

Â

Defamation could be pursued in trial, but it is also handled by admins through enforcement of "flaming" and "trolling" (which are about as vague as can be). The same could be said with fraud and espionage, both could be pursued by admins and the criminal court.

Â

If we are okay with the current state of affairs (which we might be) we just don't need a court.

***tsunamy*** · 02-12-2014, 03:29 AM

Quote:Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="tsunamy" data-cid="116425" data-time="1392136025">
<div>
Â

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unibot" data-cid="116387" data-time="1392109626">
<div>
I think it is a serious problem that we put all of the decision-making in the hand of the admins, instead of the courts.Â

Â

I have to agree here. While I think there are serious problems with any judiciary, I don't think we want the admins holding so much power.

Â

</div>
</blockquote>
Â

I agree. But there is no way to change this. Hileville has made it clear that any attempts to reform administrative power in this area will result in him dropping the forum coverage. Personally, I believe that is why it was a mistake to move away from Zetaboards / Invisionfree and give a sole member financial / legal stake in our community, but that is neither here nor there.

</div>
</blockquote>
Â

I mean ... I can say someone had a legal stake with Invision ... it was just me. And I was pretty absent for a couple of years.

Â

I also think there's a difference between deferring to Hile on issues that he's uncomfortable with and giving the entire admin team such power. Maybe Hile can contribute in this area?

Â

The main problem here is that our judiciary just doesn't work well. If there is a security threat, yet we can't figure out how to have a timely court case ... something needs to be done. We can't wait for a case that take two weeks when the threat is imminent.

Â

Maybe we can have some sort of arrangement/trial set up, so, the judge can determine if there is sufficient evidence to do restrict access during the trial?

Unibot · (This post was last modified: 02-12-2014, 06:07 AM by Unibot.)

Basically at this point, the point of the court is to render judgment on our laws: answer legal questions and uphold the supremacy of The Charter. Any issues of justice faced by the court are normally political topics (Ant in the MoFA, Hax = Frak), than just straight civil topics (flamebaiting etc.).Â

Â

We essentially have taken what was the main purpose of the courts before and outsourced it to the admins - my main beef with that is there is no consistent body of law there in regards to what constitutes flamebaiting or incivility, it's just kind of enforced without the approval or the say of the Assembly.Â

Belschaft · 02-12-2014, 03:39 PM

We've been arguing about this for months and getting nowhere; the last time legislation was proposed on this topic it was an unworkable compromise that tried to please everyone and pleased no one.

Â

Enough with the debate, what we need is functional legislation. The Court Justice, Chair of Assembly, and and a couple of learned citizens should get together in a closed room and hammer out a judicial system that works, and then present it to the Assembly.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me