As a general result of the ongoing 'debate' over the Judiciary I think it is timely to produce a revised draft of what our policy might be regarding the Judiciary. Specifically, the revised proposal incorporates input from what Fernando and Gxeremio have uncovered about the potential problems in allowing citizens of the CDS to draw the Judiciary and by extension the government and all of the CDS into whatever disputes they may have with mainland parties.
This is just a rough draft and I would very much like to hear your opinion on whether it might be too demanding or not sufficiently ambitious in the extent to which it imposes a Simplicity agenda on the Judiciary:
***
[b:35xa870m]A. CITIZEN COMMISSION[/b:35xa870m]
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 should be suspended until such a time as the new RA has agreed on its future form and mandate.
[b:35xa870m]B. PARALLEL PROCEDURES - FREEDOM OF CHOICE
[/b:35xa870m]
1) We should establish as quickly as possible a conceptually simple, parallel procedure, which citizens could choose to use instead to arbitrate their disputes.
2) The Soothsayer procedure and the arbitration bills fit these roles and are supported by the Simplicity party.
3) The simple procedure would be supported by a collaboratively maintained wiki listing case precedent like a FAQ - organised thematically.
[b:35xa870m]C. UNFOLDING THE JUDICIARY CAUTIOUSLY - ONE STEP AT A TIME[/b:35xa870m]
1) The 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 PJSP and 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:35xa870m]D. JUDGES[/b:35xa870m]
1) There should at any time be no less than three judges serving. The PJSP may at its discretion require a higher number of judges.
2) The PJSP should take into account when confirming a persons 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:35xa870m]E. MISCELLANEOUS[/b:35xa870m]
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. We have already allocated funds to pay three judges a monthly salary.
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 PJSP.
