Agenda item 4: Judges

To plan and discuss the meetings to take place under the auspices of the Comission

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":19a9rib2]There are many reasons for a judge to overstay his welcome in a judiciary: the prestige of being a judge in our litle republic, the stigma of being impeached or having to resign, sheer malice, etc. etc. Why are so many things "inconceivable" to you?[/quote:19a9rib2]

That response misses the point: you assume that the mere possibility of these things is a sufficient reason for a fixed term, yet do not substantiate that with reasons. Is there any particular reason to believe that the liklihood of any of these things occurring immediately after the expiry of the term is significantly graeter than immediately before expiry? Why are these merely speculative possibilities more important than the far more real and present concern that there will simply not be enough good people to enable us to get through five brand new judges every single year, such that we will end up with far [i:19a9rib2]worse[/i:19a9rib2] judges, causing far [i:19a9rib2]more[/i:19a9rib2] harm to the system than a set of judges over whom the merely speculative possibilities that you outline above applies?
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":19q8m756]I've wrote on how an unelected body such as the SC - and by extension, a judiciary - helps combat passions of the moment among the citizens. However, the flip side of this is such bodies can become too paternalistic and resist a desired change simply because they don't like it. By forcing the 'pot' of the makeup of the bodies to be stirred every once in awhile, this should act as a counterbalance to that stagnation.[/quote:19q8m756]

As I have written before, the judiciary is designed so that it does not have the power to resist "desired change", since it is bound to follow all of the legislation passed by the RA that has been ratified: our courts cannot, unlike US courts, refuse to follow a statute because they hold it to be unconstitutional. This is the preferred check on the judiciary's power.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":13dpv8qt][quote="Flyingroc Chung":13dpv8qt]There are many reasons for a judge to overstay his welcome in a judiciary: the prestige of being a judge in our litle republic, the stigma of being impeached or having to resign, sheer malice, etc. etc. Why are so many things "inconceivable" to you?[/quote:13dpv8qt]

That response misses the point: you assume that the mere possibility of these things is a sufficient reason for a fixed term, yet do not substantiate that with reasons. Is there any particular reason to believe that the liklihood of any of these things occurring immediately after the expiry of the term is significantly graeter than immediately before expiry? Why are these merely speculative possibilities more important than the far more real and present concern that there will simply not be enough good people to enable us to get through five brand new judges every single year, such that we will end up with far [i:13dpv8qt]worse[/i:13dpv8qt] judges, causing far [i:13dpv8qt]more[/i:13dpv8qt] harm to the system than a set of judges over whom the merely speculative possibilities that you outline above applies?[/quote:13dpv8qt]

1. Speculation is not a sin. It's not wrong when you do it, and it's not wrong when others do it. We all have valuable predictions to make, based on experiences we bring to the discussion.

2. Perhaps you do not understand that having a term of office does not necessarily mean having a term limit.

3. In the case of mental incapacitation, or seeking glory from the job, or any of the other reasons Flyingroc mentioned, it would be much less dramatic and much more dignified for the judiciary if the terms simply expired rather than going through an impeachment process.

4. As for the argument that it might be tough to get "5 good people" to be judges, perhaps our definitions of what makes a good person are different; I would just as soon have almost any citizen judge a case as I would keep this incredible power in the hands of some who are likely to become judges. Not to say I'm giving up hope that this system won't be forced on the unwilling.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":36ptaosz]1. Speculation is not a sin. It's not wrong when you do it, and it's not wrong when others do it. We all have valuable predictions to make, based on experiences we bring to the discussion.[/quote:36ptaosz]

Are you seriously suggesting that mere conjecture is "valuable", or could conceivably ever be a proper basis upon which to take an important decision?

[quote:36ptaosz]2. Perhaps you do not understand that having a term of office does not necessarily mean having a term limit.[/quote:36ptaosz]

What do you mean by this? What is an unlimited term other than the security of tenure that we presently have?

[quote:36ptaosz]3. In the case of mental incapacitation, or seeking glory from the job, or any of the other reasons Flyingroc mentioned, it would be much less dramatic and much more dignified for the judiciary if the terms simply expired rather than going through an impeachment process.[/quote:36ptaosz]

That does not mean that "less dramatic and more dignified" means of departure for people in relation to whom there is only mere conjecture and idle speculation to suggest will need to be removed is more important than having enough good judges.

[quote:36ptaosz]4. As for the argument that it might be tough to get "5 good people" to be judges, perhaps our definitions of what makes a good person are different; I would just as soon have almost any citizen judge a case as I would keep this incredible power in the hands of some who are likely to become judges. Not to say I'm giving up hope that this system won't be forced on the unwilling.[/quote:36ptaosz]

You again miss the point, probably delibeartely. Being a judge needs real skill: one needs to have not only a serious legal mind, which entails a great deal of intellect, reasoning and analytic ability, and a good semantic memory, but one needs to be honest, fair, forthright, independent, practical, decicive and consistent. Finding five people who have that degree of skill every year is likely to be difficult. It is extremely dangerous to predicate the success of the system on a model that requires this. Furthermore, that people disagree on what makes a good judge does not make the point, because it will be equally difficult to find five good people on any given meaningful definition of "good".
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1pcel3xg]That response misses the point:[/quote:1pcel3xg]
When you use words like "inconceivable" when yo actually mean "unlikely," it is difficult not to jump on the hyperbole.
[quote:1pcel3xg]
you assume that the mere possibility of these things is a sufficient reason for a fixed term, yet do not substantiate that with reasons.[/quote:1pcel3xg]

Hm, I could use your tactic of saying: "I've explained this many many times before" and imply that a.) you do not read my posts, or b.) you cannot understnad what you read. But this is not true, sometimes certain kinds of explanation are difficult for certain peole to understand, and some other kinds of eplanation are easier. So... I will attempt to explain another way.

Maybe a little personal background will help. I come from the Philippines, originally. It's a wonderful country with people as warm as its tropical climate. It would be paradise on earth, except we have a very corrupt and inefficient government.

While many of you view your RL judiciary with respect, a lot of Filipinos view ours with distrust. Our judges are likely to be corrupt than not. We have a set of byzantine legal procedures in the Philippines, probably not so different from other countries, but there judges use these procedures to throw out cases against the rich and powerful on small technical matters.

Where I come from, people who win court cases are quite often those who can afford the most expensive lawyers, *not* the party who is *right*. Despite this, nobody seeks to remove judges from their lifetie terms. Aside from the personal risk to life and limb, guess what, the judge is better at navigating the complex legal system than the ordinary person.

So you will forgive me if I don't view *this* judiciary or *any* judiciary as necessarily good. And I hope you understand if I am leery of judges with lifetime terms. That the likely new judges don't seem to be corrupt does not mean that future judges won't be. It is not mere speculation but my own personal experience that tells me that judges are likely to be corrupt than not (legislators too, but the RA has proven itself as an institution); and this JA does not inspire confidence that this will not be the case in the future.

In fact, there are already troubling signs to *me* that the judiciary is trying to hold on to more power than it should have: the insistence on lifetime terms; a procedural code only its author seems to be able to explain, the resistance to change the same procedures. And from yesterdays commission meeting, flat out saying that the RA should *not* continue having a special commission for the judiciary.

All this insistence on judicial independence to my ears sounds like a judiciary trying to avoid oversight. This is all very troubling to me, and perhaps it should be troubling to all of us.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":10ajgkyq]Hm, I could use your tactic of saying: "I've explained this many many times before" and imply that a.) you do not read my posts, or b.) you cannot understnad what you read. But this is not true, sometimes people certain kinds of explanation are difficult for peole to understand, and some other kinds of eplanation are easier. So... I will attempt to explain another way.

Maybe a little personal background will help. I come from the Philippines, originally. It's a wonderful country with people as warm as its tropical climate. It would be paradise on earth, except we have a very corrupt and inefficient government.

While many of you view your RL judiciary with respect, a lot of Filipinos view ours with distrust. Our judges are likely to be corrupt than not. We have a set of byzantine legal procedures in the Philippines, probably not so different from other countries, but there judges use these procedures to throw out cases against the rich and powerful on small technical matters.

Where I come from, people who win court cases are quite often those who can afford the most expensive lawyers, *not* the party who is *right*. Despite this, nobody seeks to remove judges from their lifetie terms. Aside from the personal risk to life and limb, guess what, the judge is better at navigating the complex legal system than the ordinary person.[/quote:10ajgkyq]

It is unfortunate that your judiciary is corrupt. It is very unfair, however, for you to criticise the proponents of our judiciary, who come from countries with judicial systems that work well, for being power hungry, or for pressing for an unreasonable or unworkable system based on your anti-judicial prejudices from your unfortunate judicial background. The fact that there are many nations on earth with well-functioning judiciaries proves that it most certainly is possible to have a judiciary that works well, is truly independent, skilled and fair, and produces the best outcomes. That is what the elected legislature voted for thrice when it passed the judiciary act, and that is what I am not entirely unreasonably asking people now to respect.

[quote:10ajgkyq]So you will forgive me if I don't view *this* judiciary or *any* judiciary as necessarily good. And I hope you understand if I am leery of judges with lifetime terms. That the likely new judges don't seem to be corrupt does not mean that future judges won't be. It is not mere speculation but my own personal experience that tells me that judges are likely to be corrupt than not (legislators too, but the RA has proven itself as an institution); and this JA does not inspire confidence that this will not be the case in the future.[/quote:10ajgkyq]

It is unfortunate that judges in your country are corrupt. That is not any reason at all, however, for predicating our system design on the premise that ours will be.

[quote:10ajgkyq]In fact, there are already troubling signs to *me* that the judiciary is trying to hold on to more power than it should have: the insistence on lifetime terms[/quote:10ajgkyq]

Why is it troubling to you that the present judiciary should defend the constitutional principle of security of tenure that was agreed upon after a lengthy, detailed, intensive principled debate by the legislature thrice in a row unanimously, and that is a vital bastion of judicial independence and therefore impartiality and fairness?

[quote:10ajgkyq]a procedural code only its author seems to be able to explain, the resistance to change the same procedures.[/quote:10ajgkyq]

I have explained many times the importance of having detail. If you cannot muster arguments against those principled points, then mere assertions to the contrary have no worth.

[quote:10ajgkyq]And from yesterdays commission meeting, flat out saying that the RA should *not* continue having a special commission for the judiciary.

All this insistence on judicial independence to my ears sounds like a judiciary trying to avoid oversight. This is all very troubling to me, and perhaps it should be troubling to all of us.[/quote:10ajgkyq]

If you took the trouble to listen to what I was saying yesterday, it was that the judiciary should most certainly be overseen: by the body that the constitution provides for to oversee it: the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel. I was arguing against duplication, as, indeed, were a number of other people. Ludo Merit is hardly biased or power-hungry, is she?
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":15uliomc]
It is unfortunate that your judiciary is corrupt. It is very unfair, however, for you to criticise the proponents of our judiciary, who come from countries with judicial systems that work well, for being power hungry, or for pressing for an unreasonable or unworkable system based on your anti-judicial prejudices from your unfortunate judicial background. The fact that there are many nations on earth with well-functioning judiciaries proves that it most certainly is possible to have a judiciary that works well, is truly independent, skilled and fair, and produces the best outcomes.
[/quote:15uliomc]
That you come from a background where the judicairy is fair does not mean that *this* judiciary also will be. I hope you understand that because of my background, I need better reassurance that this system is is going to be good. I hope you see that because even at this early stage, I see many parallels betwen this system and the bad one in my past, that I would be skeptical of claims that this system will be fair.

[quote:15uliomc]
That is what the elected legislature voted for thrice when it passed the judiciary act, and that is what I am not entirely unreasonably asking people now to respect.
[/quote:15uliomc]
This is the same legislative body that is now considering amending the JA, no? I don't see why the RA passing it 3x means that this thing is good. It means that 2x there were constitutional problems with the JA that the RA failed to find. Is it unreasonable to assert that there are more problems--perhaps problems other than constitutional--that the RA missed?

[quote:15uliomc]
It is unfortunate that judges in your country are corrupt. That is not any reason at all, however, for predicating our system design on the premise that ours will be.
[/quote:15uliomc]
That is reason enough for me to seek more safeguards against the possiblity that ours will turn out to be corrupt as well.

[quote:15uliomc]
Why is it troubling to you that the present judiciary should defend the constitutional principle of security of tenure that was agreed upon after a lengthy, detailed, intensive principled debate by the legislature thrice in a row unanimously, and that is a vital bastion of judicial independence and therefore impartiality and fairness?
[/quote:15uliomc]
What is troubling to me is that those things that are being defended in the consitution are those very same things that put the JA into place. I'm very sorry I missed that debate, I expect I'd have had many things to say.

[quote:15uliomc]
I have explained many times the importance of having detail. If you cannot muster arguments against those principled points, then mere assertions to the contrary have no worth.
[/quote:15uliomc]
Detail is useless if it is incomprehensible or unusable. BTW, I think you just called me stupid. I call on the moderators to... oh nevermind!

[quote:15uliomc]
If you took the trouble to listen to what I was saying yesterday, it was that the judiciary should most certainly be overseen: by the body that the constitution provides for to oversee it: the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel. I was arguing against duplication, as, indeed, were a number of other people. Ludo Merit is hardly biased or power-hungry, is she?[/quote:15uliomc]
There are many good reasons why a doctor should not diagnose and treat her own brother. I suggest this is the case here. Let me suggest also that asking an unproven institution to study itself may not be the wisest course of action. After all, the RA asked the judiciary to write its own procedures, and had to change it.

As for your last question, I don't really know Ludo much; but that's irrelevant, it doesn't change my impression that the judiciary is asking the RA to keep off its turf. And that is troubling.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":5trpmbfi]That you come from a background where the judicairy is fair does not mean that *this* judiciary also will be. I hope you understand that because of my background, I need better reassurance that this system is is going to be good. I hope you see that because even at this early stage, I see many parallels betwen this system and the bad one in my past, that I would be skeptical of claims that this system will be fair.[/quote:5trpmbfi]

Mere scepticism that a system that, after an extremely intensive debate on many matters of principle, was agreed on in good faith as a compromise by all involved in the two-month long debate by a person who has an unfortunate background is not capable of being sufficient reason to overturn the -principled agreed on in that compromise before the system based on those principles has been working. You should note that judges may be impeached for corrption, and by a body entirely independent of the judiciary (the Scientific Council).

[quote:5trpmbfi]This is the same legislative body that is now considering amending the JA, no? I don't see why the RA passing it 3x means that this thing is good. It means that 2x there were constitutional problems with the JA that the RA failed to find. Is it unreasonable to assert that there are more problems--perhaps problems other than constitutional--that the RA missed?[/quote:5trpmbfi]

What it means is that the duly elected representatives agreed in principle that a judiciary of the sort provided for the Judiciary Act is the sort of judiciary that we ought to have. As I have expressed many times before, that is a very different question to the question of whether the details need refining.

[quote:5trpmbfi]That is reason enough for me to seek more safeguards against the possiblity that ours will turn out to be corrupt as well.[/quote:5trpmbfi]

It is not, however, reason enough for the legislature to upturn an important principled compromise on the very nature of what sort of judiciary that we ought to have on the basis of mere speculation that some judges might be corrupt, especially when there is a perfectly good impeachment mechanism.

[quote:5trpmbfi]What is troubling to me is that those things that are being defended in the consitution are those very same things that put the JA into place. I'm very sorry I missed that debate, I expect I'd have had many things to say.[/quote:5trpmbfi]

So, in essence, what you find troubling is people advocating things with which you disagree?

[quote:5trpmbfi]Detail is useless if it is incomprehensible or unusable. BTW, I think you just called me stupid. I call on the moderators to... oh nevermind![/quote:5trpmbfi]

It is entirely untrue to claim that the detail of the Code of Procedure was "incomprehensible" or "unusable". Indeed, a number of people reported that it was very logically organised, easy to follow, and made sense. And why on earth do you think that me pointing out that you are making bald assertions instead of reasoned argument entails that I am saying that you are stupid in general?

[quote:5trpmbfi]There are many good reasons why a doctor should not diagnose and treat her own brother. I suggest this is the case here. Let me suggest also that asking an unproven institution to study itself may not be the wisest course of action. After all, the RA asked the judiciary to write its own procedures, and had to change it.

As for your last question, I don't really know Ludo much; but that's irrelevant, it doesn't change my impression that the judiciary is asking the RA to keep off its turf. And that is troubling.[/quote:5trpmbfi]

Are you seriously suggesting that that the PJSP is not independent from the judiciary? That is the whole [i:5trpmbfi]point[/i:5trpmbfi] of it: it would not be any use if it is anything other than independent. Since the judiciary cannot tell it what to do in any respect whatsoever, in what conceivable way is it anything other than independent?
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3br8zv3m][quote:3br8zv3m]What is troubling to me is that those things that are being defended in the consitution are those very same things that put the JA into place. I'm very sorry I missed that debate, I expect I'd have had many things to say.[/quote:3br8zv3m]

So, in essence, what you find troubling is people advocating things with which you disagree?
[/quote:3br8zv3m]
No, what I find troublign is that certain people (ok, that means you) are arguing to keep themselves in power.

[quote:3br8zv3m]
And why on earth do you think that me pointing out that you are making bald assertions instead of reasoned argument entails that I am saying that you are stupid in general?
[/quote:3br8zv3m]
I don't know, maybe it was the condescending tone.

[quote:3br8zv3m]
Are you seriously suggesting that that the PJSP is not independent from the judiciary?
[/quote:3br8zv3m]
Yes.

It is one of the institutions created by the judiciary act, thus it is part of the judiciary, not independent from it. I like to think of it as a branch of the judiciary that is independent of the other branches.

[quote:3br8zv3m]
That is the whole [i:3br8zv3m]point[/i:3br8zv3m] of it: it would not be any use if it is anything other than independent. Since the judiciary cannot tell it what to do in any respect whatsoever, in what conceivable way is it anything other than independent?[/quote:3br8zv3m]
Gwyn pointed out last night (after you left, I think) that she believes that the PJSP's role is to determine how well the judiciary is implementing the judiciary act; not how well the judiciary act itself is working. I'm inclined to believe her.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":1loz2wd7]No, what I find troublign is that certain people (ok, that means you) are arguing to keep themselves in power.[/quote:1loz2wd7]

I am arguing to defend a system that I have spent [i:1loz2wd7]six months[/i:1loz2wd7] and [i:1loz2wd7]hundreds of hours[/i:1loz2wd7] of my time creating, that I genuinely believe is the best way of doing things, and that the elected legislature [i:1loz2wd7]thrice[/i:1loz2wd7] unanimously approved from being destroyed, or altered to such an extent that it might as well be destroyed, before it has even had a chance to start working. If you find that troubling, I find you very troubling indeed.

[quote:1loz2wd7]I don't know, maybe it was the condescending tone.[/quote:1loz2wd7]

There is nothing more condesending than expecting one's opponent in a debate to accept one's contrary position merely because one asserts it. Attempting to "argue" by bald assertion implies that one should be the subject of unquestioning deference.

[quote:1loz2wd7]Yes.

It is one of the institutions created by the judiciary act, thus it is part of the judiciary, not independent from it. I like to think of it as a branch of the judiciary that is independent of the other branches.[/quote:1loz2wd7]

Why on earth do you think that the act that created it is capable of determing its dependance or otherwise? The Judiciary Act made provisions about citizenship, the Scientific Council and marshals of the peace: do you, for that same reason, conclude that marshals of the peace, the Scientific Council and all citizens are part of the judiciary? The PJSP is independent from the judiciary in the sense that the judiciary has no power over the PJSP, whether direct or indirect. That is all that is required for any body to be independent from any other.

[quote:1loz2wd7]Gwyn pointed out last night (after you left, I think) that she believes that the PJSP's role is to determine how well the judiciary is implementing the judiciary act; not how well the judiciary act itself is working. I'm inclined to believe her.[/quote:1loz2wd7]

Why? Where in the constitution does it say that?
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3vb69hqm]I am arguing to defend a system that I have spent [i:3vb69hqm]six months[/i:3vb69hqm] and [i:3vb69hqm]hundreds of hours[/i:3vb69hqm] of my time creating, that I genuinely believe is the best way of doing things, and that the elected legislature [i:3vb69hqm]thrice[/i:3vb69hqm] unanimously approved from being destroyed, or altered to such an extent that it might as well be destroyed, before it has even had a chance to start working. If you find that troubling, I find you very troubling indeed.[/quote:3vb69hqm]

Ash, I understand that you have great pride of ownership, and you can imagine the judiciary working well and meeting your goals for it. I understand that sentiment from the many projects I have undertaken in real life and second life. Sometimes others share my dreams, sometimes not. Sometimes my dreams work out, sometimes not. The correlation between how much people share the dream and how well it works out is not 100%, but it is pretty high.

I've asked you something several times before and never had an answer from you: why not test your judiciary (since that is what you want to do) as a private business, non-compulsory for participants. Then we could all get what we want in the short term, and hopefully you could show us that the system as you envision it works well. :)
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Mandate to Form a Judiciary

Post by michelmanen »

I am sorry to vehemently disagree with you. The work the Chief Justice has done to structure a fair, stable, efficient and effective judiciary is not "his" pet project or dream. Whilst it indeed benefits (and thankfully so!) from his RL knowledge, skills and practical experience, the Mandate to do so was expressly conferred upon him by the RA and the SC, as formalised and democrcatically legitimated in the Judiciary Act. It is an egrigeous misunderstanding of the deomcratic process in general and of our institutions in particular to qualify our judiciary as any one individual's personal plaything.

Your failure to understand what we are trying to do in CDS is further reflected in your incongruous indea of having a "private" Ashcroft judiciary operating at the same time with other "models" structured entirely differently. This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the concepts of fairness and justice for all under the rule of law truly mean.

How in the world can you believe, even as a provate citizen with no specific legal knowledge, that competing "private" judiciaries functioning in the same jurisdiction could either properly function, administer justice fairly, or uphold the equal rights of all CDS citizens? Truly, the mind boggles.....

But that's fine because according to those who support the rotating 6-month term judicial tenure proposition, individuals holding such views can be outstanding citizen judges and as such, be entrusted with applying our laws as judges....

I think I will retire to my Colonia Nova estate, set up my own judiciary, appoint myself Chief Justice and run it in accordance with my own Constitution! Who knows, maybe that will prove the answer to this dillemma for each and every one of us: One Citizen - One Justice System!

All in favour, say Aye....
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2nzkmhlt]Ash, I understand that you have great pride of ownership, and you can imagine the judiciary working well and meeting your goals for it. I understand that sentiment from the many projects I have undertaken in real life and second life. Sometimes others share my dreams, sometimes not. Sometimes my dreams work out, sometimes not. The correlation between how much people share the dream and how well it works out is not 100%, but it is pretty high.[/quote:2nzkmhlt]

People are [i:2nzkmhlt]never[/i:2nzkmhlt] going to agree in principle on what sort of judiciary to have. The best that one can hope for is people agreeing to defer to a proper democratic process, and live with whatever the outcome of that is. That is what I reasonably thought had already happened, but, apparently, some people don't respect the product of democratic processes.

[quote:2nzkmhlt]I've asked you something several times before and never had an answer from you: why not test your judiciary (since that is what you want to do) as a private business, non-compulsory for participants. Then we could all get what we want in the short term, and hopefully you could show us that the system as you envision it works well. :)[/quote:2nzkmhlt]

Because the function of a judiciary is only served by being compulsory: it only works if its orders are [i:2nzkmhlt]enforcable[/i:2nzkmhlt] against those who do not want them to be enforced. A wholly voluntary (and free) judicial was tried in 2005 called the Superior Court of SecondLife, and, wholly predictably, failed, because it had no means of enforcing its judgments.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Re: Mandate to Form a Judiciary

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="michelmanen":38exkhes]I am sorry to vehemently disagree with you. [/quote:38exkhes]

Somehow I doubt this. :)

[quote:38exkhes] The work the Chief Justice has done to structure a fair, stable, efficient and effective judiciary is not "his" pet project or dream. Whilst it indeed benefits (and thankfully so!) from his RL knowledge, skills and practical experience, the Mandate to do so was expressly conferred upon him by the RA and the SC, as formalised and democrcatically legitimated in the Judiciary Act. It is an egrigeous misunderstanding of the deomcratic process in general and of our institutions in particular to qualify our judiciary as any one individual's personal plaything.[/quote:38exkhes]

It is the reason Ash came to the CDS, he wrote the JA and proposed it to the RA, and he has been at the helm of every part of it thus far, except for the recent Commission.

[quote:38exkhes]Your failure to understand what we are trying to do in CDS is further reflected in your incongruous indea of having a "private" Ashcroft judiciary operating at the same time with other "models" structured entirely differently. This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the concepts of fairness and justice for all under the rule of law truly mean. [/quote:38exkhes]

I disagree - in fact it is for fairness especially that I think this system should be private, at least until it has proven to be effective in SL. And although you do not remember a time when the CDS was concerned with any matter other than the judiciary, I do. It is NOT all we are about.

[quote:38exkhes]How in the world can you believe, even as a provate citizen with no specific legal knowledge, that competing "private" judiciaries functioning in the same jurisdiction could either properly function, administer justice fairly, or uphold the equal rights of all CDS citizens? Truly, the mind boggles.....

But that's fine because according to those who support the rotating 6-month term judicial tenure proposition, individuals holding such views can be outstanding citizen judges and as such, be entrusted with applying our laws as judges....[/quote:38exkhes]

You did a nice job of combining condescension and lack of imagination in a short section of text. Congratulations. :)

Perhaps I should just stop taking part in government, in both SL and RL, and leave it up to the "professionals" who clearly have lots more experience building virtual world governments than I do. Forgive me, wise one!
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3d2yhgrg]People are [i:3d2yhgrg]never[/i:3d2yhgrg] going to agree in principle on what sort of judiciary to have. The best that one can hope for is people agreeing to defer to a proper democratic process, and live with whatever the outcome of that is. That is what I reasonably thought had already happened, but, apparently, some people don't respect the product of democratic processes.[/quote:3d2yhgrg]

I understand what you're saying, but democratic processes include revision based on public opinion, not just what the first action of said democracy is.

[quote:3d2yhgrg]Because the function of a judiciary is only served by being compulsory: it only works if its orders are [i:3d2yhgrg]enforcable[/i:3d2yhgrg] against those who do not want them to be enforced. A wholly voluntary (and free) judicial was tried in 2005 called the Superior Court of SecondLife, and, wholly predictably, failed, because it had no means of enforcing its judgments.[/quote:3d2yhgrg]

That was my suspicion about your belief. The effect of your plans carried to fruition, I think, will be to scare off everyone from the CDS who doesn't agree to YOUR coercion. For you see, it is much easier and less costly to leave the CDS than any RL country.

A key difference between a private judiciary in the CDS and the Superior Court of Second LIfe is being part of a comunity of people who want such things to succeed.

As I have said before, your system has no real means of enforcing its decisions other than the esteem with which the participants hold the system. So build some esteem by testing it out privately before you try to force it down our throats.
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”