View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Judicial Offices Omnibus Amendment Act

Amendments
2. The entire Judicial Offices Act is to be amended to read as follows:

1a. Title
  1.1 This Act shall be cited as the "Judicial Offices Act".
1b. Purpose
  1.2 The purpose of this Act is to create the offices of the Judiciary
       and outline due process.

2. The Offices of the Judiciary
  2.1 In accordance with Section 3 (parts 1 and 2) of the Fundamental
       Laws of Wintreath, upon acceptance of a case by the Storting, the
       Monarch will select a Peer from the Overhusen and two Skifra from
       the Underhusen. The Peer will serve the duration of the trial (or 1
       month) as Chief Justice, and the Skifra will serve the duration of
       the trial (or 1 month) as Associate Judges.

  2.2 The term of a judicial appointment lasts either the length of a case
       or a duration of 1 month from appointment, whichever comes first.
       At the end of the 1 month period, if the case is still being heard, it
       falls to the Monarch to reappoint members of the Storting to the
       Judiciary, or to the Speaker of the Undehusen and the Chairman of
       the Overhusen in the case of Monarchical absence.

  2.3 A Peer or a Skifra of the Storting may not hold more than one
       judicial position at any one time if the combined number of
       members from both houses exceeds 14. If the combined number of
       members from both houses is less than 14, a Peer of Skifra may
       hold two judicial positions at any one time.

3. Powers of the Judiciary
  3.1 The Plaintiff may call up to three witnesses on a given day to
       provide evidence on a case. A defendant can also request up to 3
       witnesses in their defense on a given day.

  3.2 After all evidence is heard by the Court, the three Judges must
       discuss their verdict privately and inform no-one of the judgement
       until it is publicly announced by the Chief Justice.

  3.3 A Court can return a NOT GUILTY, a GUILTY or a
       RECOMMENDATION verdict.
         NOT GUILTY - The Court finds the defendant innocent of his/her
         charge or specific charges, if more than one is brought.
         
         GUILTY - The Court finds the defendant guilty of his/her charge
         or specific charges, if more than one is brought. The punishments
         for a GUILTY verdict are to be drawn from the Code of Criminal
         Law Act upon its passage.

         RECOMMENDATION - The Court finds the defendant either
         innocent or guilty but recommends special provisions be made
         that fall outside of the remit of the Code of Criminal Law Act. It is
         up to the Monarch to decide whether to implement these
         recommendations. A case can therefore have an INNOCENT -
         RECOMMENDATION verdict and a GUILTY - RECOMMENDATION
         verdict.


4. Due Process
  4.1 When a Court is formed and a case brought before it, a topic must
        be created with the title laid out as follows by the Chief Justice:
       [CASE NUMBER]-[DEFENDANT NAME] v. [PLAINTIFF NAME
       ]-[CHIEF JUSTICE]/[DATE]

       The first post must then outline the name and charge of the
       defendant, the name of the Prosecution, the name of the Chief
       Justice and the names of the Associate Judges. This post should
       be updated to list witnesses called and by whom.

  4.2 Only the Court Officials (Chief Justice and the Associate Judges),
       the defendant, the plaintiff and any witness called may post
       within the thread. Uninvolved citizens may observe the proceedings
       but cannot comment.

  4.3 During the first 12 hours of a trial either the defendant or the
       plaintiff may motion to dismiss, with the judges privately voting
       on it and the Chief Justice posting the decision, should the vote be
       successful then the Case shall be dismissed. Otherwise the case
       shall continue as normal.

  4.4 During the proceedings, the plaintiff or defendant, whom ever
       called the  witness, must pose their questions within the same post
       they summon that witness. A witness then has one post to provide
       their responses to the questions put to them. At any time, a Court
       Official, the Plaintiff, or the Defendant may post a question(s)
       for the defendant so long as no other questions for the defendant
       are unanswered and so long as no witness has questions left to
       answer.

  4.5 Once the Court feels it has enough evidence to reach a verdict,
       the Chief Justice must post to inform the public that the Officials
       are withdrawing to debate their verdict. From this point on, no-one
       is allowed to post in the thread until the next post by the Chief
       Justice announcing a verdict.

  4.6 The Chief Justice will then post the verdict in the thread and lock
       it once he/she has done so. The verdict should go through charge
       by charge and provide guilty/not guilty/recommendations for each
       individual charge the defendant is in court for. Punishments will be
       assigned for each individual charge and enacted upon as soon as
       the verdict is posted.

  4.7 If the Chief Justice and his Associate Judges feel more than 3
       witnesses are required per day, they may argue the Monarch to
       raise the limit for the duration of a specific court case.

  4.8 If the two parties has reached a settlement they must announce
       to the court that they have done so, afterwards the justices shall
       discuss and debate whether or not the court will accept the
       settlement, should the court not accept it then the trial shall
       continue. 

  4.9 During the case the Justices may privately meet and dismiss the
       case, if they dismiss the case without prejudice then the
       Prosecution shall be allowed to amend their case and seek retrial,
       otherwise if it is dismissed with prejudice then the case shall never
       be retried unless the monarch invokes a recall.
    4.9.1 With Prejudice shall be allowed only if Proprietorial Misconduct
            occurs or a Harmful error occurs. Furthermore the acceptance
            of a settlement by the case shall be Dismissed With Prejudice
    4.9.2 Without Prejudice shall be allowed if there were filling issues,
            procedural issues, or if the Prosecution wishes to revise their
            claims by a motion to dismiss.

5. Recall and Appeal
  5.1 The Monarch has the Right of Recall. If after a one week period
       has passed since a verdict was decided the Monarch wishes for a
       retrial, he/she may summon a new Court to hear the case again.

  5.2 A defendant, if found guilty, may Appeal his/her case after 2 weeks
       have passed since a verdict was decided. To do so, a defendant must speak directly with the Monarch and gain his/her approval.

6. Compliance with previous and future law
  6.1 Upon passage of the legislation, the Judicial Offices Act will enforce
       Section 3 [clause 1 and 2] of the Fundamental Laws.

  6.2 Upon passage of the legislation, the Underhusen is required to
       present a Code of Criminal Law Act within the next term. At such a
       point, Section 3 Clause 3 of this Act regarding punishments for
       GUILTY verdicts is to be amended.       

Alright so this changes a few things, a few minor changes (ex: changed speaker of the Overhusen to the Chairman), and I also changed the role of the judges, removing their ability to call witnesses and removing the fact that the person who brought on the case could not actually make their case. As such I changed the layout for the cases as well.

Edit: I changed Prosecution to Plaintiff as it better fits with what the Judicial system is designed to do.

We don't need a judiciary at all. I'm against any bill advocating for one or attempting amend our extant one short of abolition.

We do need a judiciary which is why we have one. However we need to make our current system work at least for the time being.

I agree with Joshua, here... I'm against this...

Also the argument we need it because we have it is literally the worst argument possible...
If in doubt, use it for genocide.

Here's the thing though is that it's necessary for any government to be able to work on it's citizens and since abolishment will never happen, and reform will probably never happen we need to make our current system work. Otherwise when we do need it, it won't work.

Why will abolishment never happen?

Because I am sure that Wintermoot will not allow it.

Wintermoot has already said that he would allow it. That has already happened. We already had that discussion.

I've discussed with him as well and he himself doubts that it will ever get that far and from my discussions it seems like he will not allow it.

Besides why stonewall efforts to fix our current system? I don't see you proposing anything.

I just have no interest in fixing something that is both broken and useless... It seems like a grand waste of time.

To clarify Chanku's comments, I doubt that any judicial reform proposal will pass the Storting and a referendum to land on my desk to begin with.

I just have no interest in fixing something that is both broken and useless... It seems like a grand waste of time.

Well we aren't going to get rid of it so might as well make it work in the meantime.

I just have no interest in fixing something that is both broken and useless... It seems like a grand waste of time.

Well we aren't going to get rid of it so might as well make it work in the meantime.

Blanket statements aren't a good idea. It's broken and useless; this bill changes neither of those.

It's like putting duct-tape on a broken cup...it's still broken but it's a little less...