View Topic

@Point Breeze - Essentially, yes. As I was saying to Chanku, consensus among the branches is a secondary principle of the government, especially when it comes to the revocation of Citizenship where an appeal is granted as part of the Declaration of Rights. I suppose that it could be argued that the initial judicial panel represents the Storting, but a revocation is a major decision that shouldn't be taken lightly, and I felt that it makes sense for the full Storting to be able to weigh in.

On the other hand, it would not be a full appeal, because the Storting could only rule on the actual revocation of Citizenship, not the judgement or any other sentence. If the Storting supported an appeal, the sentence would go to the initial judicial panel for modification of the sentence in place of the revocation.

@Emoticonius - What alternative system would you prefer?

Any other discussion or questions? The only Skrifa to comment on the text of the proposal has been Chanku and Point Breeze...

I've mainly been in agreement with what's been said in favor of this act, and I haven't really had much to add to it.

Oh...well, if everyone feels the same way, perhaps it's time it came up for a vote soon.

I have your blessing to submit this to the UH proper, then?

Unless someone has something to add to the discussion, I don't see why not, lol.

I don't have anything to contribute at this time. The act looks good to me.

I added a bit more to Section 3...Chanku's case made me realize that technically people could be chosen to judge cases that they're a party to under the current law, which would be bad...another loophole closed!

So...discussion?

@Wuufu
@Joshua Bluteisen
@Reon
@Colberius X

The Underhusen has made its stance known. I believe new perspectives would be handy.

Any other citizens who want to give their thoughts are also encouraged.

I would personally like to know which version of the Act the Underhusen prefers as well, so I know which one to work with.

Option 1

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Judicial Reform Amendment Act.

Provisions
2) Article I Section 17 shall be amended as follows:

17. The Storting shall have the authority to create and revise the rules of judicial proceedings for judicial panels.

3) Article III Section 1 shall be amended as follows:

1. Upon the filing and acceptance of cases within the Storting, the Monarch shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen who are not parties to the case to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.

4) The following shall be added as Article III Section 3:

3. Rulings may be appealed to the Monarch, who shall have the authority to vacate, modify, or uphold the ruling of the judicial panel. The Monarch shall have the authority to define procedures and rules for hearing and deciding upon appeals, as well as to delegate these authorities to other officials or offices.

5) The following shall be added as Article III Section 4:

4. Any sentence resulting in revocation of Citizenship which is conferred or upheld by the Monarch may be appealed to the Storting, which shall only have the authority to consider the appeal of the revocation. In the event that the appeal is successful, the case shall return to the initial judicial panel, which shall only have the authority to modify the sentence.

6) Article VI Section 4 shall be amended as follows:

4. The Winter Nomad and all subordinate administrative officials shall be responsible for protecting Wintreath properties from any content which is illegal or otherwise, violates the terms of service of the provider of the Wintreath property, or otherwise brings harm to the region or community. Actions taken under this responsibility shall supersede the Declaration of Rights.

Option 2

I'm not sure if this would be a preferable version, but I've attempted to make some modifications to sections 4 and 5 address some of your concerns. In this version the Monarch would hear all appeals, and the Storting wouldn't so much hear an appeal but have the option to consider that a revocation sentence be overturned, a format which may better suit the Stortings legislative nature.

As for section 6, that is the nature of the authority of the founder...given that the founder owns the forums and holds the regional founder account. You're trusting that they will respect and uphold the spirit of the law as part of the social contract between the founder and the community and won't do things such as banish people for no good reason outside the law. I'm going to hold firm on that one for those reasons.

Again, if the Storting prefers the original version I'm fine with that as well, but I thought I'd take a crack at addressing some of the issues you brought up.

The Judicial Reform Amendment Act

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Judicial Reform Amendment Act.

Provisions
2) Article I Section 17 shall be amended as follows:

17. The Storting shall have the authority to create and revise the rules of judicial proceedings for judicial panels.

3) Article III Section 1 shall be amended as follows:

1. Upon the filing and acceptance of cases within the Storting, the Monarch shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen who are not parties to the case to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.

4) The following shall be added as Article III Section 3:

3. Rulings may be appealed to the Monarch, who shall decide to vacate, modify, or uphold the ruling of the judicial panel. The Monarch shall have the authority to define procedures and rules for hearing and deciding upon appeals, as well as to delegate these authorities to other officials or offices.

5) The following shall be added as Article III Section 4:

4. Any revocation of Citizenship as a result of a sentence which is conferred or upheld by the Monarch may be overturned by an Act of the Storting if the person whose Citizenship is being revoked requests that it consider doing so within 7 days of the appeal ruling. In the event a revocation is overturned, the initial judicial panel shall determine an alternative sentence. The Storting shall have the authority to define procedures and rules for requesting a sentence of revocation be overturned.

6) Article VI Section 4 shall be amended as follows:

4. The Winter Nomad and all subordinate administrative officials shall be responsible for protecting Wintreath properties from any content which is illegal or otherwise, violates the terms of service of the provider of the Wintreath property, or otherwise brings harm to the region or community. Actions taken under this responsibility shall supersede the Declaration of Rights.

These are the two being considered, for easier reference.

Thanks Laurentus...I felt lazy and didn't want to repost them.

No problem, it's technically the Underhusen's responsibility anyway, lol.

And I would also like to hear from @Sapphiron and @Aaron Specter, as I greatly respect their opinions, even if they're not part of the Storting.

I'm a bit fatigued of this debate, so I'll respond later with my own preference out of the two proposed bills.

I haven't exactly formed an opinion yet but what is the range of actions that "brings harm to the region or community"?

Forgive me, it appears that this question has already been addressed by Wintermoot.

As for section 6, that is the nature of the authority of the founder...given that the founder owns the forums and holds the regional founder account. You're trusting that they will respect and uphold the spirit of the law as part of the social contract between the founder and the community and won't do things such as banish people for no good reason outside the law. I'm going to hold firm on that one for those reasons.