Chief Justice and the Judicial System: Reform Discussion

[HEM]

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.

 

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.

 

The people of this region are more than capable of debating these issues. Speed is not always necessary, nor wanted. We aren't debating a straightforward issue, and it deserves to be done completely in the sunlight by all South Pacificians.

[Belschaft]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="116555" data-time="1392219590">
<div>
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.

 

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.

 

The people of this region are more than capable of debating these issues. Speed is not always necessary, nor wanted. We aren't debating a straightforward issue, and it deserves to be done completely in the sunlight by all South Pacificians.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Debate is a lovely thing, but what exactly are we debating right now? Nothing of meaningful purpose. We're going round in the same circle as last time. What we need is a concrete and functional proposal on the table that can be examined by the Assembly.

[Rebel-topia]

IMHO, we'll never actually come to any sort of agreement when it comes to judicial reform. Do we need it? Yes. But I doubt we'll ever actually come to an agreement.

[Belschaft]

Not like this we won't. Functional legislation isn't going to emerge from an open ended and directionless debate.

[Punk D]

Analysis paralysis is worse than "getting things done". But that's my opinion.

 

I'm actually disappointed we have had a significant amount of debate on things but haven't voted on much at all. It's like we're seeking to hold votes via discussion threads. I think that's a poor approach. I'd prefer a system wherein a bill needs to receive a certain level of support and then it automatically moves to vote unless the sponsor wishes to hold it back.

 

What we have here just seems like circular conversations going on and on and on.

[HEM]

I'd be happy to write a proposal and get feedback if that's what you are suggesting. I could write one, and another could write a competing one, and then we take votes on both. Majority rules.

[tsunamy]

I'd be happy to write a proposal and get feedback if that's what you are suggesting. I could write one, and another could write a competing one, and then we take votes on both. Majority rules.

 

I think you should just write one. If people like it, they can vote for it. If not, they can vote against it.

 

Then, if it fails someone else can try.

[Punk D]

That sounds like a good plan to me.

[Belschaft]

I have half a bill on file somewhere from the last election. I'll see if I can't dig it up.

[HEM]

Good. Let's get solid ideas out. I'll try to have my proposal up by Saturday night.

[Unibot]

I'll write a proposal too.

 

EDIT: To be honest, I'm basically in favor of returning to the old model of TSP Justice. I don't think there was a strong justification of moving away from our MoJ model. 

[Rebel-topia]

PROPOSALS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!

[Unibot]

My basic model would remove the idea of state prosecutors in TSP and return to the idea of having a MoJ be the senior justice - that's a flexible system, where he hands out punishments on the spot for summary convictions (flamebaiting etc.), leads the trials for indictable offenses (fraud, treason etc.) and answers legal questions. Appeals would be available for summary convictions, indictable offences and legal questions.

 

He would be assisted by two associate justices.

 

Admins would enforce the MoJ's rulings and the law, instead of getting into the business of adjudicating themselves.  

[HEM]

I have not forgotten about this. I just need another day to put the finishing touches on my proposal.

[Cormac]

I haven't looked at this thread in a bit because I thought the debate had become non-productive, but I agree that it's better to debate actual legislation than broad ideas. Debating broad ideas doesn't get us anywhere absent actual legislative drafts, which can then result in debate of both the broader ideas as well as the details and get us actually going somewhere.

 

I'll probably take a crack at a draft pretty soon, though I'm looking forward to HEM's and others' and might favor one of those once they're posted. If they're posted. 

[Rebel-topia]

... I'm looking forward to HEM's and others' and might favor one of those once they're posted. If they're posted. 

Thats exactly where I stand... IF!

[Unibot]

The major problem with our current system that I see is that we no longer have a Justice System that is actively involved in enforcing the day-to-day issues in The South Pacific.

Older players may remember that in our old system, we had a Minister of Justice who delivered warnings based on the ol' "Three Warnings Law". When we moved to the Supreme Court system, we outsourced most of the Justice System to the Admins - and kept the Supreme Court for rare trials and criminal cases.

So what I propose is essentially returning to that system - I've split offences in two categories: criminal and summary. Criminal is everything we once expected the Supreme Court to handle - and Summary Offences are what we've been letting the Admins handle (Flamebaiting, Spamming, Harassment).

The Chief Justice will give out warnings on the spot (without trial) for summary offences - players may appeal these warnings to the Supreme Court.

Article 6:  Criminal Offenses

<p style="margin-left:40px;">1. 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.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">2. 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.  The offended must express the offense to the Court in order for the charge to be considered.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">3. Fraud shall be defined as a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">4. 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.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">5. Conduct violations shall be defined as breaking in-game NationStates rules.
 
Article 7: Summary Offences

<p style="margin-left:40px;">1. Spamming shall be defined as excessive off-topic, irrelevant and multi-posts or messages.

<p style="margin-left:40px;">2. Flamebaiting shall be defined as personal attacks against other players, expressed via insults, swearing and anything posted with intent to offend.

<p style="margin-left:40px;">3. Harassment shall be defined as repeated, aggressive flaming directed at another player. 

 
Article 8: Enforcement

<p style="margin-left:40px;">1. The Judiciary shall hear all criminal cases, as per The Charter.

<p style="margin-left:40px;">2. The Chief Justice shall warn players for conducting summary offences.

<p style="margin-left:40px;">3. If a player is warned three times consecutively (temporally spaced), they shall be ejected and banned from The South Pacific.

<p style="margin-left:40px;">4. After six months, a warning shall expire and no longer count for the purposes of Article 8.3. 

<p style="margin-left:40px;">5. A public record shall be kept of all Warnings given, to whom and with links to the evidence, and this record shall be updated on a regular basis.

<p style="margin-left:40px;">6. All players may appeal to the Supreme Court regarding any warning they receive – the Supreme Court will either uphold the decision, or reverse the warning if they find the warning was not warranted.

 
Article 9: Penal Code
<p style="margin-left:40px;">1. If found guilty of an act of treason, the offending nation will be immediately banned from the in-game region and offsite forums.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">2. If found guilty of defamation, the offending nation must issue a public apology to the nation in which the offense was committed against.  Further punishment may be determined by the Judiciary.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">3. If found guilty of fraud, the Judiciary will determine a sentence.  The sentence must be proportionate to the offence.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">4. If found guilty of espionage, the offending nation may be banned from the in-game region and expelled from the offsite forums.  The Judiciary may determine a lesser sentence in order to keep proportionality with the offense.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">5. 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.

I'd also like to suggest a Constitutional Amendment to help prevent the bifurcation of the Admin System and the Justice System: disallow Admins from serving in the Judiciary.

Article 4: Judiciary
Section 1 - Supreme Court
 
<p style="margin-left:40px;">1.  The Supreme Court shall have an elected Chief Justice to hear all cases. He will be elected alongside Cabinet officials every four months.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">2.  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.
<p style="margin-left:40px;">3.  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.​
<p style="margin-left:40px;">4.  No member of the Judiciary shall serve simultaneously as a member of the Admin Staff. 

[Belschaft]

That isn't a reform of the justice system, that's an attempt to abolish forum moderation.

[Unibot]

We never used it before. All of this 'forum moderation' was done by the Minister of Justice for seven+ years, before the Supreme Court system. Nowadays we expect our admins to do it, instead of elected public officials bounded by The Charter.

[Punk D]

I see our present forum moderation in a hierarchical form like


 

Admins


E’erybody else


 

I think we may be missing an opportunity to use the Global Moderators to make the hierarchy like this


 

Admins


Global Moderators


E’erybody else


 

Admins are ultimately the final arbiters of the forum. But, Global Moderators can function to watch over the areas covered in Unibot’s post. Personally, I don’t believe this needs to be legislated but the admins should have a forum rules section (if there isn’t one already).


 

I also don’t think disallowing admins to be a part of the judiciary has any effect at all. Overall I think we should take advantage of the Global Moderator to more of the lower level moderating on the boards. 


 

FWIW - I hated the 3WL, but I'm a bit biased.

[Belschaft]

3WL was awful, truly truly awful, which is why we got rid of it. The Courts shouldn't be handling matters like trolling or spam, which aren't criminal 'GP' related offences.

 

As for Global Mods, the Delegate and Vice Delegate are GM's at present. There is a set of forum/moderation procedures which can be find in the 'links' drop down box. Admin is currently discussing replacing it with a new, simplified set, however.

[HEM]

I have spoken to Hileville about crafting a "compromise" proposal that allows players to make appeals on some administrative decisions to the Supreme Court, rather than back to the administrative team. I feel like the devil will be in the details though, and I don't have the time at the moment to try to sort the specifics of such a compromise out.

 

I will agree with Unibot that we need some sort of change. Giving admins power over almost every single judicial decision (with no oversight) does not make for a democratic region.

[Unibot]

3WL was awful, truly truly awful, which is why we got rid of it. The Courts shouldn't be handling matters like trolling or spam, which aren't criminal 'GP' related offences.

 

This is not a complaint I've ever heard. The system always worked quite well I found. 

 

What seems to be unclear is why we ever moved away from civilian moderation to forum moderation: it was handled by civilians until the Great Council of 2013. That's only a year ago. During the Great Council of 2012 - not once was 3WL criticized, the Supreme Court was simply established because Hileville proposed we separate the judiciary from the executive. 

 

Then, Code of Law (Criminal) Act was passed in 2012, with a boat load of offences that the Supreme Court could try people for (with the exception being flamebaiting). 

 

It seems along the way, the Supreme Court's power was whittled away during 2012 to 2013 - till it was just a unwieldy mechanism for providing a facade of legitimacy for our rare political trials. Elected public officials should have a hand in the moderation of our community - it's well established how the Justice System can be perverted for political purposes, thus there needs to be better representation and better accountability to our laws and our rights as regional citizens than what we currently possess. 

 

EDIT: I cannot find a link to the Great Council of 2013. 

[Kris Kringle]

Perhaps Bel should explain, for those of us that weren't here at that time, why is he saying was 3WL so awful? 

[Sandaoguo]

Why can't ministers moderate their own forums, with admins only handling masking and banning issues?

 

I think there should be accountability for admins, and a way for the Court to overrule an admin decision. But I also see the danger in placing full moderation of these forums in the hands of a political agent. I opposed the creation of an Attorney General for the same reason: when you elect somebody to persecute, they tend to seek out people to persecute. In an ideal world, this Minister of Justice wouldn't be doing anything. But when you're elected to a position of power, you want to execute that power.