Developing our legal system

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Addendum: penalties of the Court of Scientific Council

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:34e9bm36][u:34e9bm36]Addendum: penalties of the Court of Scientific Council on impeachment[/b:34e9bm36][/u:34e9bm36]

I have realised that I have not detailed what penalties should be available against office-holders successfully impeached before the Court of Scientific Council, only mentioning its greatest penalty (removal and disqualification from office). It is unwise for a court only to have its most draconian penalty at its disposal, and I therefore propose the following:

1. [b:34e9bm36]Removal and permanent disqualification[/b:34e9bm36]: the defendant is removed from office forthwith, and disqualified from holding public office anywhere in the Confederation in perpetuity.

2. [b:34e9bm36]Removal and disqualification for a term certain[/b:34e9bm36]: the defendant is removed from office forthwith, and disqualified from holding public office anywhere in the Confederation for a fixed term specified by the court.

3. [b:34e9bm36]Suspension from office[/b:34e9bm36]: the defendant is suspended from public office, without pay, for a fixed term set by the court.

4. [b:34e9bm36]Public admonishment[/b:34e9bm36]: the court passes no coercive sanction, but delivers a detailed and reasoned admonishment of the defendant, to be kept on public record in perpetuity.

[i:34e9bm36]Point for further discussion[/i:34e9bm36]: I suspect that it is not appropriate to [i:34e9bm36]fine[/i:34e9bm36] office-holders, per se: the penalty of suspension should be used instead. Do others agree?

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

Re: Ok, so I haven't read it yet...

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":2r23in5x]But I still love it![/quote:2r23in5x]

That's reassuring to know :-)

[quote:2r23in5x]Ashcroft, are you a citizen yet?[/quote:2r23in5x]

Yes :-) Find me at 1415 Ulrikastrasse.

[quote:2r23in5x] BTW I likes the robes/gestures. There may be an opening on the SC <wink wink>.[/quote:2r23in5x]

I'm glad that you like the robes idea. It makes the process so much more dignified.

[quote:2r23in5x]Chatlogs: Easily forged, however, notarized/signed documents using Nota Bene are not. This is why I use these for all serious commercial contracts when I do business.[/quote:2r23in5x]

That is, of course, very true: a jury would have to hear all the evidence, and make its own assessment of who is telling the truth if authenticity was in dispute.

[quote:2r23in5x]PS: The Nota Bene in the Rauthaus isn't quite working right (can't sign with a document too long message). That's why I'm currently using the one on Thyris.[/quote:2r23in5x]

It's worth fixing that if we want serious commercial interests joining our Confederation :-)

I shall look forward to your detailed comments when you have read it all.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

HELP — I'll take a least a month to read and digest everything you posted here, Ashcroft, but I see this as being a full treaty on law ;)

Thanks very much for the patience to write all this much-needed document. I'll be enjoying reading it over this week — it'll take ages to finish it, so bear with me.

I wonder if all this will beat the record of the longest ever bill ever to be presented at the RA... :)

No comments so far from a first reading. It'll take some time to come to a point where I'll have some questions, and I certainly have no answers yet to many of your open questions, although I sense that Patroklus has a point about the sheer dimension of the judiciary. Very likely we'll have to work with cases of single judges in a court; at this very moment, we can only count upon 3 people from the SC to serve as judges...

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

My impression is that the SC is broadly empowered to decide the nature and structure of subsidiary courts. I think this one may be very much in the SC's "court" (just realizing what a bad pun I made).

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

Yes. I don't disagree that some modification to the constitution may be necessary, but by and large I think - just as the Guild currently has toal power to determine its internal workings - the SC has total power to decide how it goes about things, up to and including implementing a series of subsidiary courts as it likes, so long as a Professor is ultimately overseeing the proceedings.

But then, my opinion is just the Ali-in-the-street. ;)

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

This contribution just to chime in that I'm attentive to Ashcroft's thorough and well thought out proposal for a reform and procedural guidelines for our court system.

I have read it cursorily once, have printed it out (19 pages in small print) and intend like the Dean of the SC to read it thoroughly over the week and add my comments and questions as a future contribution to this forum.

Like the other posters here I agree that the decision on the reform of the court system is fully within the prerogative of the SC to decide although a decision on financing the courts from public coffers would have to be cleared with the other government branches obviously. I would also expect the discussion on this reform to carry on at the next SC meeting for which I'd like to extend an informal invitation for Patroklus and Ashcroft to attend.

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

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

I am glad that you welcome my proposals; I should be most interested to read any comments that you have when you have all read it through thoroughly :-)

Please note, however, that, contrary to what Gwynneth suggested, it is not entirely complete: a number of points are left open to discussion, and a number of details (especially on procedure, although a full Code of Procedure would be a bigger undertaking than this series of posts) are left unspecified. Nonetheless, I hope that it is detailed enough for discussion then agreement in principle.

Also, my view is that the development that I propose would require some constitutional amendments, notwithstanding the powers of the Scientific Council as they currently stand, but I shall go into the details of that as and when the discussion turns to the method of implimentation and after broad agreement on the principles have been reached.

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":1yxky3oy]...I would also expect the discussion on this reform to carry on at the next SC meeting for which I'd like to extend an informal invitation for Patroklus and Ashcroft to attend.[/quote:1yxky3oy]

Thank you very much for your invitation. This information is probably available elsewhere, but when is the next meeting, and where is it held?

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

Addendum: significance of ratification

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:1eplchcm][u:1eplchcm]Addendum: significance of ratification[/b:1eplchcm][/u:1eplchcm]

[quote="I":1eplchcm]The Scientific Council is not a full-time, professional judiciary, but has an assortment of functions, which are mainly constitutional in nature, one of the most significant being ratification of bills passed by the Representative Assembly (this function has a particular significance with respect to the legal system, to which I shall return later).[/quote:1eplchcm]

I have just realised that, contrary to what I had intended, I did not return to the particular significance of ratification later in the main posts.

In my proposal, however, the relevance of ratification by the Scientific Council would be this: ratification should be taken by the courts as conclusive of the constitutionality of any Act of the Representative Assembly, such that, in proceedings before any court (either the Courts of Common Jurisdiction or the Court of Scientific Council), no party can seek to assert that any ratified act of the Representative Assembly is invalid for unconstitutionality.

The reason for this is twofold: without this effect, ratification would be largely redundant, and, additionally, such a system ensures a greater degree of legal certainty (which, as earlier noted, is of particular importance to commerce, although is always a virtue of a legal system).

To balance that against the possibility that the Scientific Council will not notice what might be a fairly technical but nonetheless important element of unconstitutionality, which may then adversely affect a citizen's interests, it might be desirable to give citizens the right to make, on written application within a strict time limit, oral submissions before the Scientific Council as to why a bill, or any part thereof, should not be ratified.

Last edited by Ashcroft Burnham on Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

Plans to expedite the development of our legal system

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:33lsx408][u:33lsx408]Plans to expedite the development of our legal system[/b:33lsx408][/u:33lsx408]

See [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 2:33lsx408]this post[/url:33lsx408] for details of my latest plans to expedite the development of our legal system.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Our judiciary - from a minimalist perspective..

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

I have had the opportunity to read your thorough and well thought out proposal outlining the foundation for a judiciary for Neufreistadt. First, I'd like to reiterate my gratitude for you having had the ability to undertake a work of this magnitude. It is truly a remarkable feat and there is no doubt in my mind that whatever solution we decide upon in the end it will be of immense benefit for our community as a whole to have had such a solid basis of thoughts upon which to make our decisions.

Having said that I must admit that I disagree with your proposal on a number of issues most of which are about technical details of implementation rather than principled or conceptual disagreements.

My point of departure in my line of reasoning about this question is this: I think that an independent court system is a necessary and beneficial part of government services in a democratic community that allows free enterprise - be it virtual or physical. Having said that I am at the same time of the conviction that an immensely small number of people base their continued presence in Second Life on the prospect of being able to act as impartial arbitrators and administrators of a system of laws - especially when considering the duration of a 'typical court case' compared to how much time the average SL user spends online in a week.

This outlook on the issue places me firmly in what I'd call "the minimalists' camp". As a minimalist I am of the opinion that we should of course strive to model our court systems after democratic and legalistic ideals but at the same time try to keep it as lightweight as possible in all and any aspects (people involvement, administrative overhead, procedure) in order to make it easily accessible for both users and staff and to not scare people away from playing an active role in its upkeep.

I therefore propose that we incorporate the following positions in any legal system that we decide to establish:

1) Jury service is unrealistic. Requiring every court case to be overseen by two impartial citizens sitting alongside a judge will only result in making it even more difficult to schedule court cases - especially those spanning more than a single meeting. Furthermore, since our constituency numbers around 40 citizens it is not unlikely that an undue strain will be put on these citizens to act as jurors in the case where our legal system gears up to handle a greater volume of cases. Let's face it: The wording in the constitution is simply unrealistic on this point and we should seek to have it amended.

2) Financial compensation to the professional actors in the court system is unlikely to serve as sufficient incentive to retain these persons in so far as it does not correspond to RL levels of compensation: I.e. at least 5 - 10,000 L$ per hour served. Alternatively, we should devise a system that keeps at a low level the volume of cases delegated to the individual judge. Possibly each case could be assessed before being handed to a judge for how long it is expected to last and for the degree of complexity in relation to Neufreistadt legislation. Individual judges could indicate the level of workload they are willing / able to contribute on a monthly basis and the chief administrator of the judiciary would then delegate cases on a random basis in accordance with these indications. The ideal model for this should be not unlike how tasks are delegated in the development of open source software.

3) Jurisdiction should be limited to those areas where NFS has effective means of enforcement and where there is no other body with jurisdiction. It should therefore in my opinion be limited to "(2) the conduct of all avatars in relation to the interests they hold in resources over which the Government of Neufreistadt purports to exercise sovereign control including the discussion forums in so far as the dispute in question is not subject to arbitration by another body." This means for example that complaints regarding abuse in relation to individual citizens should be dealt with by the proper Linden abuse system and not by the government of Neufreistadt. Let us not waste the time of our judges by asking them to resolve petty abuse cases when there is already a Linden-scalable system in place to deal with these matters.

4) Instantiation: In my view a case should only be considered by the courts on the initiative of a citizen (or possibly a non-citizen but in that case regulated by some qualitative mechanism such as requirement to pay RL legal fees, to have petition sponsored by citizens or to present an extensive notice that lives up to formal requirements outlined in an act), who is of the conviction that his interests have been wronged by another individual or by action of a government body. In the case where John Random Avatar is banned by an Estate manager representing the government there should be no consideration by a court unless the person affected by the decision appeals to have it overturned by the court. Requiring government officials to file a suit with the court within x days of banning a person and to file the necessary administrative paperwork will only serve as a deterrent and might well result in the being reluctant to establish order in the sim from fear of all the resulting paperwork.

5) Robes and heraldry are in my opinion not worth wasting resources on unless some talented artist wants to donate the trappings as a pro bono effort for our courts. I am on par with Patroklus in this one in that I'd rather see our court system be seen to be effective by SL standards of accountability, transparency and fairness and have the "wordly trappings" of the system be in tune with the surrounding society. Wigs and robes will only serve to reinforce the impression that the judiciary is an aloof aggregation of incomprehensible legal geeks out of tune more concerned with roleplaying an English court than with the actual problems and issues of the world around them.

I would have written a more comprehensive and systematic response following the order of the issues as you presented them in your contribution but unfortunately I left my notes at home and I wanted to expedite this now having left it unanswered for too long already. I might well return with further comments once I gain access to my notes, though.

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

Re: Our judiciary - from a minimalist perspective..

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":2ejcfh7f]I have had the opportunity to read your thorough and well thought out proposal outlining the foundation for a judiciary for Neufreistadt. First, I'd like to reiterate my gratitude for you having had the ability to undertake a work of this magnitude. It is truly a remarkable feat and there is no doubt in my mind that whatever solution we decide upon in the end it will be of immense benefit for our community as a whole to have had such a solid basis of thoughts upon which to make our decisions.

Having said that I must admit that I disagree with your proposal on a number of issues most of which are about technical details of implementation rather than principled or conceptual disagreements.[/quote:2ejcfh7f]

Thank you very much for your comments; it is always welcome, and the more discussion the better. I respond to your detailed points below.

[quote:2ejcfh7f]1) Jury service is unrealistic. Requiring every court case to be overseen by two impartial citizens sitting alongside a judge will only result in making it even more difficult to schedule court cases - especially those spanning more than a single meeting. Furthermore, since our constituency numbers around 40 citizens it is not unlikely that an undue strain will be put on these citizens to act as jurors in the case where our legal system gears up to handle a greater volume of cases. Let's face it: The wording in the constitution is simply unrealistic on this point and we should seek to have it amended.[/quote:2ejcfh7f]

The main reson that I put trial by jury into my proposals was that it was already in the constitution; I rather assumed for that reason that the practicalities had already been considered. That was not the only reason, however: trial by jury is, generally, a fairer way of administering justice than trial by judge alone. Although there will inevitably be [i:2ejcfh7f]some[/i:2ejcfh7f] practical problems with trial by jury (just as there are in real life), it is not clear to me at this stage just how great those problems are or will be: after all, nobody has ever, as far as I am aware, tried to conduct a trial by jury in SecondLife. It would be helpful to have input from others, perhaps those more experienced than I in planning events in SecondLife, on the question of the practicality of jury service (given that, for example, for a jury of four, seven or so people would be called, four of whom would then be selected, and the remaining three stood down, and the trials would be scheduled some time in advance to give potential jurors sufficient time to raise any issues of timing). If, all that taken into account, it is still not realistically practical to hold trials by jury, then so be it. If, however, albeit with some effort, the problems can largely be managed effectively, then it is my view that the benefits of trial by jury would make that effort worthwhile. If it is not clear either way, it is worth experimenting with trial by jury, and then changing the position if it is clear that the system is untenable.

[quote:2ejcfh7f]2) Financial compensation to the professional actors in the court system is unlikely to serve as sufficient incentive to retain these persons in so far as it does not correspond to RL levels of compensation: I.e. at least 5 - 10,000 L$ per hour served. Alternatively, we should devise a system that keeps at a low level the volume of cases delegated to the individual judge. Possibly each case could be assessed before being handed to a judge for how long it is expected to last and for the degree of complexity in relation to Neufreistadt legislation. Individual judges could indicate the level of workload they are willing / able to contribute on a monthly basis and the chief administrator of the judiciary would then delegate cases on a random basis in accordance with these indications. The ideal model for this should be not unlike how tasks are delegated in the development of open source software.[/quote:2ejcfh7f]

I am not entirely sure that I follow the economic reasoning here: I never suggested that financial compensation would, in the foreseeable future, be the [i:2ejcfh7f]only[/i:2ejcfh7f] incentive for legal professionals in our jurisdiction to work; just like everyone else in the community, the builders, the planners, the government officials and the like, they would do it mainly for the joy of doing it itself. However, some financial reward, not enough to earn anything near a real-word living, but maybe a few hundred L$ per month, enough, for example, to go towards land rent and buy some SecondLife furniture, clothes, gestures and so forth now and again, would provide extra incentive which, along with the non-financial incentives, should be sufficient in combination even if each were not sufficient on their own. Above all, a salary, even a relatively small one, comes with it a sense of responsibility not present in the truly voluntary worker that can help to ensure continuity. Furthermore, the salary should be in approximate proportion to the GDP of the CDS; since the judiciary is a potentially important element in the economic success of our community, not only is it fair that they receive some small portion thereof, but such people would be incentivised to practise in the expectation that, if the CDS would become greatly more financially successful, their salaries might increase, too. Furthermore, in my view it would be a selling point for the Confederation to potential citizens and/or customers thereof if we could claim that we have a truly professional judiciary: we would, after all, thereby be unique in that aspect in all of SecondLife: the world's first professional judiciary for a virtual world.

[quote:2ejcfh7f]3) Jurisdiction should be limited to those areas where NFS has effective means of enforcement and where there is no other body with jurisdiction. It should therefore in my opinion be limited to "(2) the conduct of all avatars in relation to the interests they hold in resources over which the Government of Neufreistadt purports to exercise sovereign control including the discussion forums in so far as the dispute in question is not subject to arbitration by another body." This means for example that complaints regarding abuse in relation to individual citizens should be dealt with by the proper Linden abuse system and not by the government of Neufreistadt. Let us not waste the time of our judges by asking them to resolve petty abuse cases when there is already a Linden-scalable system in place to deal with these matters.[/quote:2ejcfh7f]

Part of the reason for having our own judicial system is precisely that other means of enforcement, especially reporting complaints to Linden Labs, are notoriously ineffective. The mere fact, therefore, that Linden Labs would have power to punish an individual for misconduct should never be a reason why our judicial system should not also have jurisdiction. Indeed, were that to be so, no in-world judicial system other than Linden Labs' own quasi-judicial powers of summary punishment could exist, as Linden Labs has powers broad enough to punish anybody for anything.

If our judicial system is not as all-encompassing as its powers of enforcement (including banishment and forfeiture) allow it to be, then there is a serious risk that it will be considered irrelevant. It would also be extremely unwise to make it ever possible for a defendant to be able to defeat a case brought against her or him soeley on the ground that Linden Labs would, if it chose to do so, be able to punish her or him. That would risk making the whole judicial system woefully ineffective.

The whole point of having a private community is that we can ban those who behave improperly either within it or anywhere towards other members of it. In the interests of justice, and of fostering confidence in non-citizens that they will be treated justly by us, we declare that no person may be banished without order of the court, and the opportunity to have a trial. From that flows the principle that should form a part of our law that our law runs in parallell to any other legal system or system of enforcement, and that our courts ignore other such codes (save to the extent that they must not themselves act in violation of any duly applicable real-world law or SecondLife term of service), and decide the issues based only on the law of the Confederation.

For those reasons, it most certainly is not a waste of judicial time dealing with abuse cases (whether petty or not), since our ability both to punish effectively the perpetrators thereof by our own means, and our unwaivering commitment to treat alleged such perpetrators fairly are both essential cornerstones of our emerging system of justice upon which our unique and excellent community is founded.

[quote:2ejcfh7f]4) Instantiation: In my view a case should only be considered by the courts on the initiative of a citizen (or possibly a non-citizen but in that case regulated by some qualitative mechanism such as requirement to pay RL legal fees, to have petition sponsored by citizens or to present an extensive notice that lives up to formal requirements outlined in an act), who is of the conviction that his interests have been wronged by another individual or by action of a government body. In the case where John Random Avatar is banned by an Estate manager representing the government there should be no consideration by a court unless the person affected by the decision appeals to have it overturned by the court. Requiring government officials to file a suit with the court within x days of banning a person and to file the necessary administrative paperwork will only serve as a deterrent and might well result in the being reluctant to establish order in the sim from fear of all the resulting paperwork.[/quote:2ejcfh7f]

I have already given reasons above why the banishment of non-citizens must have judicial involvement; it is, after all, a great potential selling point of our community that people who visit it, whether citizens or not, will not be banished without the right to a hearing.

Your concern seems to be more the administrative burden on those with powers of summary enforcement than anything else, which is undertandable. However, I must emphasise that the plan that I set out involved only a most minimal amount of work for the proposed Marshals of the Peace in uncontested cases (service of a notice with only some basic requirements). In cases where the defendant does not respond to the notice, there need be no court [i:2ejcfh7f]hearing[/i:2ejcfh7f]: the matter can be decided swiftly by a judge in chambers based on the written notice and nothing else. (From what you have written above, I think that even you agree that contested cases deserve a full hearing). I do not, however, agree that such a hearing should be considered as an [i:2ejcfh7f]appeal[/i:2ejcfh7f], since that would imply that those with summary powers of banishment have the power to make a final determination on the issue (albeit subject to appeal), which is not in the interests of justice, but that is perhaps more a semantic issue than anything else.

To give an idea just how little a burden that the service of the notice would be, I take as an example a case dealt with under the existing system (a Notice of Banning being posted in the AC Announcements forum), the [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 0:2ejcfh7f]case of RavenOfShadow Fool[/url:2ejcfh7f] on the 18th of June this year. That link is a link to the post on which the Notice of Banning was made. In the system that I propose, instead of issuing a Notice of Banning on the forums, the Marshal of the Peace would instead serve notice in standard form both on the defendant and on the court. Doing so would take almost no more time than posting a Notice of Banning on the forum. In the above example, it would look something like this:

[i:2ejcfh7f][Formal heading - would not be written every time, but would be copied from a blank form.]

You have been made the subject of an order of summary banishment for a period of 14 days because you approached two citizens of Neufreistadt, namely Ranma Tardis and Sudane Erato, firing guns and using abusive language towards them. You acted unlawfully in so doing because you harrassed Ranma Tardis and Sudane Erato. You were culpable in so doing in that you did so intentionally.

If you do not respond [details would be given, in standard form, as to how to do so], an independent Court of Common Jurisdiction will consider whether, on the information given, you should be the subject of a longer or permanent order of banishment, and you will be notified in writing of the outcome in due course.

If, and only if, you submit a Notice of Response by [deadline], you will be entitled, if your notice of response contains an arguable defence, to a trial, and to show cause as to why you should not be made the subject of an interim banishment order until your trial.

[date of notice, and name of person serving notice][/i:2ejcfh7f]

As you will see, writing that notice will take no more work than the current Notice of Banning forum posts, especially since much of it will be in pro-forma.

There is a slight innovation in that, which differs from what I suggested in my original post, which takes into account your point about adminstrative burdens, in that, in cases of summary banishment, unless they are particularly complicated, the court could permit the Notice of Summary Banishment to stand as a Notice in the Ordinary (provided that it sets out, as mine does above, the sense in which the defendant is said to have acted unlawfully and culpably). In complex cases, the court could order a separate Notice in the Ordinary, but those cases would likely be very few. This should streamline the procedure so that, in a simple, uncontested case, a Marshal of the Peace need only submit one, simple notice, and then do nothing else, the workload thereof being no greater than the workload involved at present in the forum posts.

[quote:2ejcfh7f]5) Robes and heraldry are in my opinion not worth wasting resources on unless some talented artist wants to donate the trappings as a pro bono effort for our courts. I am on par with Patroklus in this one in that I'd rather see our court system be seen to be effective by SL standards of accountability, transparency and fairness and have the "wordly trappings" of the system be in tune with the surrounding society. Wigs and robes will only serve to reinforce the impression that the judiciary is an aloof aggregation of incomprehensible legal geeks out of tune more concerned with roleplaying an English court than with the actual problems and issues of the world around them.[/quote:2ejcfh7f]

Are not robes and heraldry perfectly in tune with the medieval European surroundings of Neufreistadt? Whether to have robes and heraldry is, of course, a quite separate question of how much is worth spending on them. I address the former point in my response to Patroklus above, and need not repeat it here. As to resourcing, whether it is worth it depends entirely on how much that it costs, which has, in the case of robes, yet to be determined. As for heraldry, not only does the Judiciary Commission need a logo of [i:2ejcfh7f]some[/i:2ejcfh7f] sort (and, given that, it might as well be a coat of arms as anything else), my father (who knows a fair bit about heraldry) as indicated a willingness to design such a coat of arms for us, so that would be free. Ultimately, however, what to spend the Judiciary Commission's budget on would ultimately be a matter for the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, not the legislature in deciding whether or not there should be one :-)

[quote:2ejcfh7f]I would have written a more comprehensive and systematic response following the order of the issues as you presented them in your contribution but unfortunately I left my notes at home and I wanted to expedite this now having left it unanswered for too long already. I might well return with further comments once I gain access to my notes, though.[/quote:2ejcfh7f]

It is unfortunate that you left your notes at home, and I look forward to any further replies when you find them. Thank you for expediting the discussion - your contribution has been most valuable (especially in relation to the administrative burden of simple, uncontested cases of culpable misconduct against non-citizens). Do have a look at the legislative proposal that I have made recently (see the post above yours), and tell me what you think of that, too (I know that the point about juries you have already made - perhaps that should be taken out of the constitution and made a simple rule of procedure to account for the possibility of it being impractical).
All further comments would be extremely welcome :-)

Ultimately, however, although we must of course be careful not to be extravagant and impractical with the designs for our judiciary, what we are planning and seeking to acheive - a professional, independent judiciary for a democratically-governed community in an entirely virtual world - is something that nobody in the world has ever done before. We are the pioneers of something truly unique and ground-breaking, and we should not, in the name of over-cautiousness, dilute what I hope will one day become renowned the oldest and finest virtual legal system in the world. To be timid rather than bold now is something that we may very well regret in years to come.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Developing our legal system

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

I suggest we revisit this body of work and perhaps streamline it based on what we know of the last several years of CDS being in existence. Minimalist approach..?? with the essence of the Judiciary and a code of law more specific than what we currently have on the books now. Lets use our experience over the past few years show us that if we do intend to grow at all and be able to welcome new comers we need to be able to have an enforceable fair code of law.

Having Land Managers eject and Ban at whim as I have seen followed by a group of their friends called the SC backing them up with the SC rubber stamp isn't sophisticated enough for my taste. Anarchy is the opposite of democracy

As we grow the SC will have plenty of other duties to perform to keep them relevant and occupied.

cleo

Ideas not people.

Cleo
User avatar
Tor Karlsvalt
Chancellor
Chancellor
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:56 am
Contact:

Re: Developing our legal system

Post by Tor Karlsvalt »

During the four consecutive years I have been a citizen of CDS I am unaware of anyone being banned on a whim, i.e. for no good reason. Certainly, I am aware of only one citizen being banned. That person was Ulrika. The CDS has been rather hesitant to ban people in general and certainly has never acted harshly toward its citizens.

The system put forward by Ashcroft was quite overreaching at that time. I believe it was the subject of a great deal of political angst leading to Ashcroft leaving Neufreistadt. I also remember reading that one complaint was that it created a judiciary totally above any control from RA. I would have to research that more fully, but obviously that would not be acceptable.

Citizen
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”