[b:33akttz1]On language. [/b:33akttz1]I find the language of the code quite difficult. I'm a bit shy of using myself as an example, but I'm pretty sure that each time I have to check Google define or my Webster's Unabridged a lot of speakers of English as second language will experiment similar difficulties. Also, I had to translate into Spanish some obscure clauses before understanding it, and usually I don't need to translate what I'm reading. This is an example.
[quote:33akttz1]“applicant†shall mean any person who becomes or remains a party to proceedings by virtue of having filed a notice requesting the court to make any adjudication other than allowing an appeal, or making any orders or declarations (other than an interim order, or set of orders consisting only of interim orders) against any person, or in response to any such request;[/quote:33akttz1]
I also find very strange the reference to American English, first because there's no reference to British English as the language of the court, and also there's not an only view of what [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... h:33akttz1]International English[/url:33akttz1] is.
[b:33akttz1]On hearings.[/b:33akttz1] I know that our first impulse is to mimick real world, but I want to open a reflection on the so-called oral hearings (as they should be called written readings).
When an oral hearing came (if the timetables of every character in the hearing can be reconciled; but this is another question), everybody will be reading or writing (at least as long Linden Labs doesn't set up an in-world VoIP system). We won't have any of the advantages of a oral hearing in RL.
An oral hearing iRL is a good way to know that the person who is answering (say a witness or a defendant) is the person we want to question; second, that he is using his own words (althougt training with the lawyers modify this to a point); third, he is not being influenced (at least as long he's in the witness box); and fourth, the judge or jury can interpret some non verbal language (voice intonation, gestures...).
In our hearings we won't know if the person behind the avatar is the person we are trying to question (yes, I know that we are summoning the avatar, but, in fact, we require the answers of a real person); second, he can cut and paste a previously written declaration, and can be helped during his declaration via IM or via chatting with an out-of-SL application; third, even a good faith witness can be IMed during his declaration to put some pressure on him; and fourth, if somebody uses a gesture of guilt during his declaration he should be fined for stupidity.
Also, we have again a problem with non-native English speakers. Chatting in another language is quite stressful and very prone to mistakes (not only of grammar, but affecting the meaning, like a mistake with tenses), and I think we don't want to hire a translator to do it during the hearings. And if somebody is thinking about using automatic translators, it's the best way to send somebody to the electric chair for a traffic offence. Some years ago, when the European Union (that now has twenty something languages to translate) began to look into automatic translators, somebody made a test. He gave 'traffic jam' to the translator to put it into French and then again into English. The output was "car-flavoured marmalade".
So I suggest to rely in a wholly written procedure, based in notecards and e-mail. Of course, they have all the disadvantages of SL hearings, but, as the difficulties are more evident, it's easier to be aware of them. It would be also a system much more simpler to manage, and it wouldn't make four or five persons to be in-world several hours (or several days). After several rounds of written questionnaires (it could be a turn-based system to allow some cross-examination), the parties would made his final considerations. Also, for non native English speakers, having several hours to answer a questionnaire makes things easier.
This system would work even with a jury, that could either receive 'live' each of the questionnaires, or, finally, as a file, all the proceedings, to answer the questions. Also, and to keep the publicity of the process, they could be published, inside the world via a notecard dispenser, in the web, or both. And this process wouldn't prevent to have very short meetings between the judge and the parties to solve procedural questions.
Finally and to give we can have two very brief hearings in the courthouse, first to open the trial and another one to read the decision.
[b:33akttz1]On appeals.[/b:33akttz1] Perhaps it's a custom in the Anglo-American judiciary (and perhaps it a mere formality), but I'm quite shocked that the court whose decision is going to be appealed has the power to grant the leave to appeal. I'd like much more a system in which the superior court accepts or not the appeal, and a set of rules about on what grounds can a decision be appealed. I mean, and only as an example, facts as settled by the court can't be appealed, but the interpretation of the law can be appealed.
[b:33akttz1]On jury.[/b:33akttz1]Aside with the practical problems of the jury I think we could leave it for criminal cases. I must note that after the JA we are not mandated to have trials by jury.