Judiciary Act Hearing Commission Bill

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:39 pm

This is an honest attempt to take the heat out of the current debate, assess if there really is a need for changes to be made to the Judiciary Act at this extremely early stage of its development, bring in the voices of the majority of citizens (who have not been heard yet) and make recommendations that can command a greater consensus. I don't understand why you can't support this, Beathan.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:20 pm

I might support this prososal if implementation of the Judiciary Act was suspended for the duration of the review process. Pending cases could be heard, on an emergency basis, by the SC.

However, without suspension of the Act, this proposal looks to me like the handcuffing of opponents of the Act rather than a good way to remove the heat from the debate. I don't doubt that the proposal is well-meant. As with my objection to Moon's other proposal, I object to the specific mechanism and not to the motivation.

Moon is a well-meaning person with sound general instincts. I am sure she wants to move us in the right direction and toward real consensus on terms that are not uncertain or subject to the claim that they are the will of a "vocal minority" over-ruling a "silent majority." Again, it is the means, not the end, that concerns me.

Beathan

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:54 pm

[quote="Beathan":33nfjknk]I might support this prososal if implementation of the Judiciary Act was suspended for the duration of the review process. Pending cases could be heard, on an emergency basis, by the SC.[/quote:33nfjknk]

You may be interested to know that the SC does not have a good record of hearing cases. The old rules were that a person could be banished by a person appoined under the now repealed Defense of the Republic Act. That banishment was supposed to be "reviewed" (in an unspecified way) after 28 days by the Scientific Council. Despite numerous people being banished under the Act, not one review was ever held.

Why do you not think that the current judiciary should be tested while the debate plays out? After all, would it not be infinitely easier for those who are debating the merits and demerits of a system to do so on the basis of hard evidence about how it is working, rather than the speculation that has dogged this debate? Or are you concerned that, once it is up and running, people might realise that it is not such a bad thing after all, and give you less of a chance to put forward your idea of how a judiciary should be run?

Diderot Mirabeau · Post by **Diderot Mirabeau** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:58 pm

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1uqmpelq]You may be interested to know that the SC does not have a good record of hearing cases. The old rules were that a person could be banished by a person appoined under the now repealed Defense of the Republic Act. That banishment was supposed to be "reviewed" (in an unspecified way) after 28 days by the Scientific Council. Despite numerous people being banished under the Act, not one review was ever held. [/quote:1uqmpelq]

I kindly request you to substantiate these accusations as I have no recollection of being presented with a request to review a ban and subsequently neglecting to do so. I am quite convinced that had I been notified of the need for the SC to perform such a review I would have acted with expediency to assure myself that steps were being taken to expedite this procedure.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:03 pm

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":nzm9xdaz]I kindly request you to substantiate these accusations as I have no recollection of being presented with a request to review a ban and subsequently neglecting to do so. I am quite convinced that had I been notified of the need for the SC to perform such a review I would have acted with expediency to assure myself that steps were being taken to expedite this procedure.[/quote:nzm9xdaz]

It is not necessarily your fault, but if the information was not even reaching you, something was going badly wrong.

Diderot Mirabeau · Post by **Diderot Mirabeau** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:13 pm

So where is the substantiation, please?

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:33 pm

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":19r0rtt6]So where is the substantiation, please?[/quote:19r0rtt6]

I spoke to soembody who was banished. There were forum posts when people were banished. You know whether you had any review hearings.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:49 pm

Ashcroft based his overhaul of the preexisting judicial procedure on he criticism of "someone who was banished"? I wonder if any judicial system would survive if we based it legitimacy on what the criminals it punished think of it. Talk about a loaded test.

Personally, I would rather talk to the victims and see if they were satisfied with the process.

Beathan

Diderot Mirabeau · Post by **Diderot Mirabeau** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:17 am

I have in the "Artisanal Collective Announcements" forum found notices of banning for "RavenOfShadow Fool" and "Nicole Barnett" both of which took place after the passing of the 4-24 Defense of the Republic Act on May 27th under which the SC was obliged to meet after a period no longer than 28 days after the incident to determine whether a banishment should be extended beyond the interim period.

In neither case have I been able to find mention of the two names in question in transcripts of SC meetings. I have found one mention of the name "Nicole Barnett" in an email correspondence of mine dated June 17th where I write the following:

"Banning an avatar from our entire sim rather than from the property of
an individual resident is not something to be taken lightly in my
view. Also in the case of harassment - what some people consider to be
offending is shrugged off by others using mute and/or ban.

I would therefore require evidence or testimony to be presented to
support the charge against the avatar in question. If an abuse report
has been filed I'd like to be notified of this as well. In short, I'd
want the individuals requesting or effectuating a temporary injunction to
present the case against the avatar before the SC.

The accused avatar should be contacted directly and be presented with
the fact that charges are being pressed against him/her and get a
chance of presenting the case from the other perspective.

What I would be concerned with here would be establishing beyond
reasonable doubt that there has been an occurence of intentional
griefing on the part of the avatar in question. Any testimonial, chat
log or notification of filed AR report would be helpful in that
regard.

In the case where such an occurrence is determined to have taken place
I would ensure that any sanction is passed with due respect to
proportionality in relation to the damage incurred and to the fact
that the victim has tools and procedures at his disposal to alleviate
the impact of any further persecution by the individual in question.

I do not consider the relationship between the defendant and XXX to be relevant to the case. It should be up to the defendent
to justify why this is relevant."

As this seems to me to document that I have been aware of at least one case of sanctioning under the "Defense of the Republic Act" but have neglected to ensure that the case was actually reviewed by the SC in accordance with the law I find it prudent to stand down from my office as a chair of the Scientific Council. (incidently this will free me from having to wear a silly costume when sitting in court)

I urgently recommend that the cases of the two persons sanctioned under this act be reviewed with a view to delivering justice. Quite likely our new judiciary is the entity best suited for this.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:06 pm

To ensure that all options will be taken in to account and be seen to be taken into account, I suggest the following text (with the amendment in bold):

We propose that a Judiciary Act Hearing Commission be appointed, under the framework of the also proposed Citizen Participation Bill, to:

1. Investigate the apparent deadlock and determine the reasons for it.
2. Investigate the reasons for public mistrust.
3. Propose eventual modifications [b:2kh2l7t2](if any)[/b:2kh2l7t2] to the Judiciary Act to address these issues.

The addition of "if any" after "eventual modifications" makes explicitly clear that such modifications may be proposed, but also reognises the possibility that none may be required. This does not necessarily represent my position, that no modifications at all are necessary; it simply seeks to make explicit in the text of the Act for future members of the Commission who may be in doubt as to the exact meaning and scope of "eventual modifications", that all possibilities, including that of making no changes at all, will be taken into consideration in accordance with the letter of the Act..

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:19 pm

[quote="Beathan":2h2d1luv]Ashcroft based his overhaul of the preexisting judicial procedure on he criticism of "someone who was banished"? I wonder if any judicial system would survive if we based it legitimacy on what the criminals it punished think of it. Talk about a loaded test.

Personally, I would rather talk to the victims and see if they were satisfied with the process.

Beathan[/quote:2h2d1luv]

Please check your facts before making such absurd claims. I spoke to that gentleman long after I had proposed our present judiciary.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:22 pm

I stand corrected. I should have said

Ashcroft bases his defense of his radical overhaul of judicial procedure in the CDS on he criticism of "someone who was banished" under the old procedure? I wonder if any judicial system would survive if we based it legitimacy on what the criminals it punished think of it. Talk about a loaded test.

Beathan

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:39 pm

[quote="Beathan":eeb113jz]Ashcroft bases his defense of his radical overhaul of judicial procedure in the CDS on he criticism of "someone who was banished" under the old procedure? I wonder if any judicial system would survive if we based it legitimacy on what the criminals it punished think of it. Talk about a loaded test. [/quote:eeb113jz]

What he thought of it was irrelevant. If you read what I had written, you would notice that I mentioned nothing of what he thought of it. He was asking legitimate questions, and the answers that I had to give him were indicative of a seriously flawed system. And I do not "base [my] defence of [my] radical overhaul of judicial procedure" on that one example: I cited it as just that - an example.

Justice Soothsayer · Post by **Justice Soothsayer** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:31 pm

I have decided not to introduce my proposed amendments to the Judiciary Act in favor of the following to be introduced at the next RA meeting:

1. Substantial concerns regarding the Judiciary Act and its implementation have been raised by a significant number of citizens, a number of proposals have been made to amend or repeal the Judiciary Act, and considerable discussion has taken place on the forums.

2. The RA concludes that it is appropriate to seek public input regarding the Judiciary Act beyond that which occurs on the forums, and therefore appoints a Special Commission on the Judiciary, to be co-chaired by an RA member to be named by the leader of each faction. Any citizen may join as a member of the Commission by sending notification to the LRA by IM.

3. The Special Commission shall take public testimony regarding the Judiciary Act, judicial qualifications, and the Code of Procedure in at least two hearings to be scheduled by the co-chairs between (a) __:00 SLT and __:00 SLT (Euro-friendly) and (b) 3:00 SLT and 10:00 pm SLT (US mainland friendly). Each citizen wishing to address the Commission shall be afforded the opportunity to speak uninterrupted for up to five minutes, following which testimony the hearing shall be open for dialogue . Public testimony may also be made by written submission to the forums.

4. The Special Commission shall meet on December 13, 2006 to make written recommendations to the RA no later than 5:00 pm SLT on December 14, 2006 regarding what action, if any, the RA should take on the various proposals to amend or repeal the Judiciary Act, and the recommendations shall be posted on the forums. Any member or group of members of the Special Commission may submit dissenting opinions on the forums.

5. The RA will consider the report of the Special Commission and any dissenting opinions during its regularly scheduled meeting on December 16, 2006. The Code of Procedure issued on December 5, 2006 is hereby suspended until December 17, 2006.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:35 pm

Justice, this is a good proposal, but we need to suspend the operation of the Judiciary Act in the meantime. I note that your Act favors suspension of the Code of Procedure. This is good, but not enough. We should also suspend appointment and qualification of judges.

We are already hearing the argument that we have gone too far down that road to consider real change. We should not go any farther. Continuing on path, in the face of public outcry, privileges one side of the debate over the other in inappropriate ways.

I think that, in the meantime, emergency legal matters and hearings should be taken up by the SC under the old rules, which should be restored by operation of the suspension of the Judiciary Act.

Beathan

CDS Discussion

Judiciary Act Hearing Commission Bill

Text of the Act