| Fines and Court Procedures |
(02-02-2015, 12:56 PM)Unibot Wrote: Can you make a new thread for this, Awe? Feel free to use what you've already posted. To get back on topic, and given the democratic nature of the region, I'd suggest that the Courts should inform the region that they will start an investigation on so and so, and perhaps have the region vote on whether this investigation should occur, by a simple majority.
Uh, what? Are you proposing Assembly votes on whether to start an investigation?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
That makes absolutely no sense.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Why on earth would we want the Assembly telling the Court whether it's ok to investigate this or that person? Investigations are not meant to be politically correct, they are meant to uncover the truth, regardless of how many people may dislike it. Involving the Assembly would greatly diminish the independence of the judiciary.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (02-03-2015, 12:21 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Why on earth would we want the Assembly telling the Court whether it's ok to investigate this or that person? Investigations are not meant to be politically correct, they are meant to uncover the truth, regardless of how many people may dislike it. Involving the Assembly would greatly diminish the independence of the judiciary. You're right, and that was why I was worried about the separation of powers. Perhaps we could instead have a majority of the Justices (like 3/4) to agree that an investigation should be undertaken. Our main objective now is to prevent the abuse of such a system, and logically speaking, on the assumption that cooler heads will prevail, it would not be possible that one radical would influence the whole Court
It's a difficult one given that we don't have a prosecutor's office which would put a wall between the court and investigations prior to formal charges being brought. However, the idea of the Court leading investigations worries me as it could undermine perceptions of the courts independence.
I would certainly support fines as a punishment as it's really just an act of public censure. Naming and shaming does have an impact. In respect of the earlier question, I do think the Court should be able to impose bars/suspensions from office and order elections to be re-run where electoral fraud is proven. (02-03-2015, 04:09 AM)Hopolis Wrote: It's a difficult one given that we don't have a prosecutor's office which would put a wall between the court and investigations prior to formal charges being brought. However, the idea of the Court leading investigations worries me as it could undermine perceptions of the courts independence. Even if we did have a prosecutor's office, it'll still be under the aegis of the Court. Unless we were to create a new position of Chief Prosecutor and clearly define the separation between the Justice Branch and the Investigations Branch, the Court's independence would still be undermined. To be honest, the thing about our Courts are that the processes, for one reason or another, are not transparent. A few days ago, either you or Escade brought up the assumption that a set of procedures for the conducting of criminal trials should exist, and while it does exist, it is hidden in the Court Office and has never been shown to the community, in part because we thought we'd never have needed it. However, with the lack of this information in Mock Trials, it seems to be as if 'anything the Justice says, goes'. Once this bench of Justices have been elected, I hope to work in consultation with the community, with regards to the drafting of a comprehensive document governing the Courts. This document will not only contain legal provisions and processes of the Court, but also sections on principles of the Courts as well as ethics of Justices. Somewhat like the Court version of the Code of Laws + SPSF Code of Conduct, if you will.
1) To use the U.S. government as an example, prosecutors at either the state or federal level are considered to be part of the Executive Branch, not the Judiciary, because their basic purpose is to ensure that the laws promulgated by the executive branch are followed. The Judiciary consists of just the judges and courts. So if a prosecutor's office were created, it wouldn't necessarily blur separation of power lines. Having said that, are there enough criminal cases in existence that would prompt the creation of such an office? Honest question, I have no idea what the volume of cases before the court is like.
2) What do the current procedures for the Court look like? I'm curious to see them
Turtles all the way down.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |