Fairness Study Group

Moderator: SC Moderators

Locked
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Fairness Study Group

Post by michelmanen »

This thread will contain information, notices, discussions, transcripts and policy proposals of the CARE Fairness Study Group.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

Hello

I don't really know who you are since the composition of the Fairness Study group hasn't really been published anywhere that I am aware of. However I'd be very interested to hear if you could perhaps elaborate a bit on the statement made by your candidate Michel Manen in the electoral debate and subsequently of your ambition to introduce a 'fair, stable and professional judiciary into the CDS.'

I have written a [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 2:wz9d4vgd]somewhat longer post[/url:wz9d4vgd] over in the Judiciary Discussion group, where I try to establish a taxonomy of professionalisation and I'd be very interested to hear where in this you envision our judiciary as fitting in.

It is my impression that my inquiry is justified on the grounds of the issue being one of general interest to the electorate since the topic has indeed been controversial in the last term of the RA and since it entails our citizens entrusting a branch of government with protecting their rights.

Thanks in advance for your contribution to the debate. It will be good to see CARE accomplish their goal of a policy stemming from a more inclusive approach.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

As a newly minted CARE observer I'd like to propose the following as CARE's official position on the judiciary:

[b:1u5y0h5p]A. CITIZEN COMMISSION[/b:1u5y0h5p]

1) The commission - which was open for any citizen to attend and participate in - has uncovered substantial concern among the population regarding the proposed judiciary.

2) Accordingly, there is no need for any further ponderance, discussion or issuance of a fourth survey on the matter. The people have spoken and it is now up to the parties to submit their proposal for a reform of the Judiciary for electoral scrutiny and approval/rejection.

3) The operations of the Judiciary as described by the judiciary act should remain suspended until such a time as the new RA has agreed on its future form and mandate.

[b:1u5y0h5p]B. PARALLEL PROCEDURES - FREEDOM OF CHOICE
[/b:1u5y0h5p]
1) The conceptually simple, parallel procedure for citizens to arbitrate their disputes should remain in place.

2) The simple procedure should be supported by a collaboratively maintained wiki listing case precedent like a FAQ - organised thematically.

[b:1u5y0h5p]C. UNFOLDING THE JUDICIARY CAUTIOUSLY - ONE STEP AT A TIME[/b:1u5y0h5p]

1) The new Judiciary should not start with all out jurisdictional competence but rather start with a very limited scope, which could be extended gradually along the way as we gain experience with its merits and in line with recommendations from the SC.

2) Specifically, the Judiciary should in the beginning only have the power to pass verdict in the following types of cases:
- Appeals of non-citizens banished by Marshalls of the Peace for alleged griefing
- Appeals by citizens or companies of a decision taken by a government official representing the executive, which affects him/her personally
- Disputes between parties (citizen or not) over an agreement between them, which has been previously signed and notarised with the explicit provision that arbitration will be performed by the court
- Pre-emptive review of any decision by a government official taken against a citizen / company involving banishment and/or forfeiture of assets

3) The judiciary should not deal with cases where a sanction for the claimed offense can be better obtained through a parallel channel such as the LL abuse reporting procedure, DMCA procedure or through RL courts except in so far as to rule that a sanction imposed by the executive is improper to the extent that it has not followed this principle.

4) If over a period of six months from its first case it is found that the judiciary goes unused the matter should be placed on the agenda of the RA to discuss if the CDS should continue to incur expenses to maintain such a costly machinery or replace it permanently with something simpler.

[b:1u5y0h5p]D. JUDGES[/b:1u5y0h5p]

1) There should at any time be no less than three judges serving. The SC may at its discretion require a higher number of judges.

2) The SC should take into account when confirming a person's suitability for the position as judge the following:
- The length of time in which a person has been a citizen of the CDS
- The extent to which the individual has involved him/herself in CDS activities other than the judiciary
- The extent to which the person has expressed publicly strong convictions on the interpretation of law or the moral standing of other citizens in so far as it would have a severe impact on
(a) his ability to function as an impartial judge for the majority of the community
(b) his ability to elicit trust and goodwill for his office and the institution of the judiciary in general among the community
- The ideal of having the college of judges represent sufficiently the diversity of CDS citizens in terms of RL nationalities, outlook, gender and professional experience

3) All sitting judges should be subjected to the same qualification and confirmation procedure in order that they may be truly considered as each others peers.

[b:1u5y0h5p]E. MISCELLANEOUS[/b:1u5y0h5p]

1) The power of the judiciary to compel citizens to serve as jurors should be abolished since we already have citizen involvement through the simple arbitration procedure.

2) The judiciary should not be able to force anyone to don silly robes or to call the persons serving in the capacity as judges or similar by particular names.

3) The judiciary should be obliged to produce more accessible versions of its essential documents utilising wiki-technology and people skilled in communication. A full record of all cases containing summaries, transcripts and verdicts should also be made available online.

4) The provisions of the judiciary act should be taken out of the constitution except for an article referring to the fact that there exists independent courts and that their circumstances are governed by law. The remainder of the provisions should be in a seperate act so as to restore our constitution to the readability of former days and to enable easier working conditions for the RA in continually heeding the recommendations of the SC.

I have a bit more to add following an update of Simplicity Party policy but that will come later. May the debate begin!
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

Thank you for your contribution. A legthy repy to your longer post has been posted in the Judiciary Discussion Thread (with the last, critical section due to be uploaded shortly).
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

As an observer member of the CARE Fairness Study Group, which according to the CARE constitution has the authority to decide on its own meeting schedule I'd like to suggest that we meet in the Biergarten on Sunday at 1PM SLT to discuss and possibly vote on elevating my proposal to become the official CARE policy on a future judiciary.

Could the other members of this study group please give indication as to their membership and their position on my proposal for a meeting on Sunday at 1PM?
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Diderot's porposal

Post by michelmanen »

Oni Jiutai is the Chair (Quaestor) of this Study Group. He will reply your proposal shortly.

In the meanwhile, since I am also FSG member, i'd like to make two obervations:

First, the date and time you propose conflicts with another CARE meeting as listed some days ago on the CARE Events page of our Website.

Second, for our deliberative process to function properly, we must give all members of the FSG the time and opportunity to both evaluate the merits of your proposal and to come up (if they so choose) with their own submissions on this matter. Since you have already posted your contribution, let's give everyone else a chance to do the same and post their own proposals and suggestions - let's say, by Sunday, 27 January (which also gives everyone some time to think about this after the voting booths have closed). If Oni agrees, we will post an announcement to this effect.

Once everyone has had a chance to post and read the proposals submitted by everyone else, we can indeed get together to discuss them and work out what the GSG's recommendation on this matter should be to the CARE Membership as a whole. Sunday, February 3rd at 1:00 pm would be a good time for this, in my opinion.

I realise the process of opinion- and policy-formation thorough deliberative methods may not be as fast as "voting aye or nay" on onne unique proposal drafted by the party leadersship; but if we wish to actually put into practice our core principles of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, and the power of the best argument, this is the kind of process we must follow.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Proposal Update

Post by michelmanen »

Diderot, I note your judiciary proposal is identical to that made to the Simplicity Party on 20 December 2006 here: http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=711. As such, it does not take into account more recent legislative developments. Kindly update your proposal accordingly and re-post it.

Secondly, please remember that, as a CARE observer, your role is not to rigidly represent your Faction in our debates, but to actually contribute to our debates and discussions. You are therefore encouraged to assist us in developing a coherent and comprehensive policy by taking into account other CARE Members' ideas and proposals and excercising your powers of constructive criticism.

We look forward to your contribution.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Proposal Update

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="michelmanen":1y34nyf2]Diderot, I note your judiciary proposal is identical to that made to the Simplicity Party on 20 December 2006 here: http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=711. As such, it does not take into account more recent legislative developments. Kindly update your proposal accordingly and re-post it.[/quote:1y34nyf2]
Michel kindly take a closer look at my proposal before posting. The one submitted to your study group is indeed updated to reflect recent legislative developments and has been so since it was posted in the first place.

[quote="michelmanen":1y34nyf2]Secondly, please remember that, as a CARE observer, your role is not to rigidly represent your Faction in our debates, but to actually contribute to our debates and discussions.[/quote:1y34nyf2]
I find this admonishment a little premature considering that you have yet to observe my participation in a single CARE meeting.

I notice that Oni is heading the Fairness Study Group and I look forward to working with him on this since I have previously had the pleasure of working with him on the Jiutai-Ashcroft-Mirabeau (JAM) act on arbitration. I found Oni to be an unbiased, open-minded, forthcoming and skillful 'colleague' in working on this and in exchanging views on related matters and I entertain the faint hope that he perhaps had the slightest impression of me sharing some of these characteristics.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

Diderot, my comment was in no way meant as an admonishment; it was, rather, a clarification of the recommended role of an Observer in the CARE policy-making process, in light of the fact that the Observer in question is simultaneously a Faction Member of a CARE opponent who is the principal architect of that Faction's policy on the judiciary. I have in no way pre-judged the manner in which you will interact with the rest of the CARE Fairness Study Group members; in fact, I specifically stated that we all look forward to your contribution.

I stand corrected on my first comment. Thank you for pointing that out.
Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

Thank you, Diderot, for your kind words.

I'd like to add to them, by saying that our conversation confirmed what I'd already suspected. That actually, everybody here is trying to achieve much the same thing and is honestly expressing their point of view. It's extremely unfortunate that we've somehow convinced ourselves that there's more distance between our views than there actually is and that we've begun to see evil motives where none exist.

Which doesn't mean, of course, that I don't profoundly disagree with many of you about many things. Or that everyone has acted saintly throughout for that matter. But I think we can a lot of progress by working on the assumption that everybody means well. ;-)

In any event, I look forward to your input into the Fairness Group.
Locked

Return to “New United Citizens' Alliance for Rights and Equality (CARE)”