Agenda item 9: Formalities and procedures

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

Indeed, much of what applies to the SC should apply to the judiciary as well, since the judiciary takes over much of the SC's previous role. A long time ago I proposed [url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread ... 0:1bd30dzv]this bill[/url:1bd30dzv]. I still think it's sensible; my position hasn't changed much.

Whoa... it seems that I proposed that half a lifetime ago. But it was really only back in May. So, I think I can support having judges serve lifetime terms, but only if we define "lifetime" as 14 months.
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":1kv0exjv]Indeed, much of what applies to the SC should apply to the judiciary as well, since the judiciary takes over much of the SC's previous role. A long time ago I proposed [url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread ... 0:1kv0exjv]this bill[/url:1kv0exjv]. I still think it's sensible; my position hasn't changed much.

Whoa... it seems that I proposed that half a lifetime ago. But it was really only back in May. So, I think I can support having judges serve lifetime terms, but only if we define "lifetime" as 14 months.[/quote:1kv0exjv]

Why would you want to lose good people after an arbitrary period of time with no guarantee of being able to replace them with equally good people?

I also notice that, under your proposal, Gwyneth's term would have ended last month. That would have been a very great loss indeed to our government.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 585
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2kuxsfhk]
Why would you want to lose good people after an arbitrary period of time with no guarantee of being able to replace them with equally good people?

I also notice that, under your proposal, Gwyneth's term would have ended last month. That would have been a very great loss indeed to our government.[/quote:2kuxsfhk]

It would have been no loss at all, since FR's proposal did not specify a term limit. I expect Gwyn would have been easily re-confirmed.
Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
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":3aqx1yj3]It would have been no loss at all, since FR's proposal did not specify a term limit. I expect Gwyn would have been easily re-confirmed.[/quote:3aqx1yj3]

In which case we are back to the original problem that the people who decide whether to re-appoint a judge have the capacity to have a dangerous and illegitimate influence on that judge's decision in individual cases.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 585
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":18ioui43]
In which case we are back to the original problem that the people who decide whether to re-appoint a judge have the capacity to have a dangerous and illegitimate influence on that judge's decision in individual cases.[/quote:18ioui43]

As opposed to the dangerous and illegitimate influence they have when first appointing the judge...?
Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Or as opposed to the dangerous and illegitimate influence the first judge has when appointing (or qualifying) his peers and successors?

Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

Optional formalities and procedures

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

The wearing of the robes, the forms of address and the bowing should be made optional. However, their intended purpose is to impart a sense of respect, seriousness and decorum to the proceedings.

As long as proper respect and seriousness are demonstrated I see no need to enforce formalities. A well defined procedure is essential, and should be agreed upon in advance. If no agreement is forthcoming, a default code of procedure must be used. I'd prefer to see a multitude of procedures for 3rd party arbitration but only 1 or 2 for actual court cases. This would make running cases and analyzing precendents much easier for all concerned.
Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”