View Topic

Re-Elect CoS


Yesss, come clossser peonsss votersss! Enjoy the coffee and sssnacksss!


-------------------------------------------
|_|                                             |_|
|_|                                             |_|
|_|                                             |_|
|_|                                             |_|

Okay, now that we both know you're not going anywhere, let's get down to brass tax. I want to be re-elected to The Underhusen. You want to come out of this thing alive. Maybe we can work something out that will benefit both of us. So here's what's gonna happen, you're going to vote for me and I'll let you live. Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds like a pretty good deal.

As an added bonus, I'll even tell you what my platform is. You see, last session I didn't accomplish what I set out to do. That doesn't sit well with me so I want to rectify this oversight. I still have more violence to give. So above all, I want to get around to fixing our judicial system. That and I have my own disagreements with it. What? It's unfair that you don't have a fair chance of getting out of this? Okay, we'll settle this like men. I'll roshambo you for it!

Aww, sorry man. Looks like I won. Remember though, I'm doing this for The Frozen Realm of Wintreath!

Good luck to all my opponents. I look forward to a clean and productive campaign.

What do you think you can do differently?

What can be done as a whole, for the next UH to work on?

That's a good question and I thank you for asking. Well, I may just use the relevant areas of the forum when I need a refresher of Wintrean law. I find that in that regard the law index is unfortunately, an unreliable source.

Next, aside from Judicial reform, I can't be certain. I myself have no issue with the rest of our current laws. I can't speak for my opponents and/or potential fellow Skrifa, but I intend to explore potential new laws. What such laws might entail I'm not sure of.

How would you like to see the legal system reformed?

Well I'd like to amend sections 2.3 & 3.1 of The Judicial Offices Act. Section 2.1 turns judge selection into a math equation. Judges should be determined, in my humble opinion, by the availability of Peers and Skrifa, not by how many positions they hold.

I firmly believe that section 3.1 stifles the judicial process by limiting how many witnesses one may call on any given day. I would like to amend it to a more reasonable number, possibly removing the limit entirely. Although I'm not quite bent on going to that extreme.

I was reading through the Judicial Offices Act and I agree with the reforms you propose. I must ask though, is there any appetite for a permanent judiciary of one or two judges as opposed to having an ad hoc judiciary selected from the legislature?

I was reading through the Judicial Offices Act and I agree with the reforms you propose. I must ask though, is there any appetite for a permanent judiciary of one or two judges as opposed to having an ad hoc judiciary selected from the legislature?

That's actually something that at least me and @Reon want. I've been a proponent of something like that here since day one.

I find the ad hoc method to be more effective. If the judiciary maintains a permanent presence then the possibility of corruption rises. Making its physical existence temporary and random is a strong security measure.

In what sense do you mean "corruption"? I don't see how either permanent or temporary judges could be "corrupted" beyond "you are my friend and I will support you", but surely that is a problem applicable to both permanent and ad hoc judges and solved by having more than one judge?

I also think that by having a randomised ad hoc set of "judges" drawn from the legislature means that it will be very difficult for the judiciary to come together as a proper branch of government. It will forever remain a legislature-with-a-different-hat-on. Whereas, if we have judges in a court, or even one or two judges permanently placed in the legislature (if we don't want to deprive the region of their legislative expertise) then the judiciary will have a chance to grow into a body with its own set of rulings and an advanced legal culture.

If the judges are predetermined then outside parties know exactly who to try and manipulate. With the current method, the entire legislature would have to be corrupted, a far more difficult feat.

I was reading through the Judicial Offices Act and I agree with the reforms you propose. I must ask though, is there any appetite for a permanent judiciary of one or two judges as opposed to having an ad hoc judiciary selected from the legislature?

That's actually something that at least me and @Reon want. I've been a proponent of something like that here since day one.

To be clear I do want a permanent judge but I do want that judge to be the monarch... So like you are correct but there is specification...

I certainly think that having the monarch as a judge could work out perfectly fine, though it might be an idea to have one or two lay judges to act alongside him or advise him on points of law. After all, not every monarch will be passionate about the law or keen to develop detailed legal philosophies.

It looks like @Emoticonius, @Laurentus, and @Augustus Anumia and I are on a similar wavelength here.

Good luck, you have my support COS. 

I would like to state though, in cases where the Monarch is a party, we would need to have a replacement, which is why it may not be useful to have the Monarch as a presiding judge.  Maybe the Monarch could be the route of final appeal, or a designate in the cases of conflicts of interest?

Thank you for your responses, and good luck.