View Topic

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Judicial System Omnibus Amendment Act.

Amendment to the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath
2. Section III of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath shall be amended to read as follows:

1. Any citizen of Wintreath may file a civil case against any other citizen of the region by petitioning the Overhusen. The petitioner must clearly articulate the following in their petition:
   Accused party/parties
   Accusations
   Desired Relief

2. Any duly appointed officer of the Monarch may file a criminal case against any citizen of the region, alleging a violation of the Code of Criminal Laws. The petitioner must clearly articulate the following in their petition:
   Accused party/parties
   Accusations and specific violations of the Code of Criminal Laws

3. The Chairman of the Overhusen, upon receipt of the petition, shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen, and The Speaker of the Underhusen shall select, at random, two Skrifa of the Underhusen, to oversee and dispense with the case. The selected persons shall not be the  Monarch, Chairman of the Overhusen, Speaker of the Underhusen, plaintiff, or defendant. The Peer shall serve as Chief Justice, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Justices.

4. All cases shall proceed according to the procedures established by the Storting.

5. Any revocation of Citizenship as a result of a sentence which is conferred or upheld by the appeals board 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.

Amendment to the Judicial Offices Act
3. The Judicial Offices Act shall be amended to read as follows:

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the "Judicial Offices Act".

Pre-Trial Process
2. Once appointed, the Chief Justice presiding over the case will create a topic with the title stylized as follows: [CASE NUMBER][PLAINTIFF NAME][DEFENDANT NAME][DATE].
   2a. During criminal proceedings, the Plaintiff will be referred to as “The Crown”, with the petitioner representing the Government of Wintreath.

3. The first post must outline the name and charge of the defendant, 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. Parties will then notify the Court if they will be representing themselves or if they are appointing counsel. Parties who appoint counsel will notify the court immediately and provide the name of their appointed counsel.

5. Once both parties have chosen their representation, the court will hear opening arguments from both parties, beginning with the Plaintiff. Initial evidence may also be introduced at this time.

6. Once the court has heard opening arguments and viewed initial evidence, it will decide, by majority vote, whether to continue to hear the case or to dismiss it. If the court decides at this time to dismiss, the case, they must clearly articulate their reasoning.

Trial Process
7. If a case continues to trial, the trial will begin with the Plaintiff calling any relevant witnesses. Witnesses will be called one at a time, and will present their testimony as expeditiously as possible. Once testimony has been delivered by each witness, the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and ask any relevant questions. Witnesses will answer, under penalty of law, all questions truthfully and to the best of their knowledge.

8. The defense will then call their witnesses. Witnesses will be called one at a time, and will present their testimony as expeditiously as possible. Once testimony has been delivered by each witness, the plaintiff will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and ask any relevant questions. Witnesses will answer, under penalty of law, all questions truthfully and to the best of their knowledge.

9. Additional evidence may be introduced by either party at anytime during the trial. The Court will have final say on what evidence will be considered at trial.

10. Once all witnesses have been called, and all relevant evidence introduced, the court will hear closing arguments from both parties, beginning with the plaintiff. No new evidence may be introduced during closing arguments.

Deliberations, Verdict, and Sentencing
11. The Court will deliver a verdict which is agreed upon by at least two of the three justices. If the court is unable to come to a decision, a mistrial will be declared and a new court will be appointed to rehear the case.
12. The Court can declare the defendant AT FAULT or NOT AT FAULT. A verdict must be entered for each charge if there is more than one.
   12a. A finding of AT FAULT finds the defendant guilty.
   12b. A finding of NOT AT FAULT finds the defendant innocent.
13. If the defendant is found to be AT FAULT in a civil case, the court shall either grant the plaintiff’s desired relief or grant lesser relief than sought by the plaintiff.
14. If the defendant is found to be AT FAULT in a criminal case, the court will determine the penalty in accordance with the Code of Criminal Laws.

Appeal and Recall
15. The Monarch has the Right of Recall. If the Monarch wishes for a retrial, they may request that the Chairman and Speaker appoint a new Court to rehear the case.

16. A defendant, if found to be AT FAULT, may petition the Monarch and appeal their sanction. If an appeal is granted, the Monarch, Chairman of the Overhusen, and Speaker of the Underhusen will review the case and either uphold the original ruling, modify it, or drop it. The decision of the appeals board will be final.

Amendment to the Code of Criminal Laws
4. Section 7.3 of the Code of Criminal Laws shall be repealed.

Passage and Compliance
5. This bill will only become effective if it passes, in its entirety, a referendum of all citizens of Wintreath and is approved by the Monarch, in accordance with Section VII of the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.

tl;dr

CASE REQUESTED AND CREATED
1. Petition to Overhusen.
   1b. Petition must clearly state the following: accused party/parties, accusations, and    desired relief.
2. Chairman acknowledges case, appoints Chief Justice from OH (not Chairman or involved parties).
   2b. If no one to appoint, Chairman may appoint an independant citizen.
3. Speaker of the UH appoints two Associate Justices from UH (not Speaker or involved parties).
   3b. If no one to appoint, Speaker may appoint an independant citizen.
4. Court opens case. Styled as: [CASE NUMBER][PLAINTIFF NAME][DEFENDANT NAME][DATE].
5. Parties appoint representation, if needed.
6. Court hears opening arguments.
   6b. Plaintiff presents opening argument and any initial evidence.
   6c. Defendant presents opening argument and any initial evidence.
7. Court decides whether to hear or dismiss case.

CASE CONTINUES TO TRIAL
8. Plaintiff may call relevant witnesses, subject to objection.
9. Plaintiff's witnesses are heard and then cross-examined. New evidence may be introduced.
10. Defendant may call relevant witnesses, subject to objection.
11. Defendant's witnesses are heard and then cross-examined. New evidence may be introduced.
12. Court hears closing arguments from Plaintiff and Defendant.

DELIBERATIONS AND RULING
13. Court takes recess and begins deliberations.
14. Court issues ruling either in favor of plaintiff or defendant, or dismisses case. If unable to come to a decision, a mistrial is declared and the process begins again at step 2.

APPEAL AND RECALL PROCESS
15. The Monarch has the Right of Recall. If the Monarch wishes for a retrial, they may request that the Chairman and Speaker appoint a new Court to rehear the case.

16. A defendant, if found to be at fault, may petition the Monarch and appeal their sanction. If an appeal is granted, the Monarch, Chairman of the Overhusen, and Speaker of the Underhusen will review the case and either uphold the original ruling, modify it, or drop it. The decision of this appeals board will be final.

I wrote this the other night at work, so it probably needs some work, but I figured I'd post it. Have at it.

Interesting that this implies the Speaker can never be a juror. Why that choice specifically?

Interesting that this implies the Speaker can never be a juror. Why that choice specifically?

The Monarch, Speaker, and Chairman make up the board of appeal, and thus cannot sit on the initial court. I modified the language to clarify who makes up the appeals board.

Aside from opposition of blending amendments in both areas, I furthermore generally dislike the design of this system and have my own which I've been working on. I'm pretty tired though, so I'll post more indepth response later on

I furthermore generally dislike the design of this system and have my own which I've been working on.

I would expect nothing less

Alright, so let me go into depth about this bill.

First off, it entirely and completely conflates a Constitutional Amendment and a Statutory Law Amendment which is something that I have considered to be entirely bad form for years, and has been adopted by the Storting without issue as an exceptionally bad idea, and that the laws must be separated. Even our Omnibus Correction Acts have not mixed Statutory with Constitutional Law -- the only author who has ever done that and for some reason believes it to be a good idea is Dawsinian. The reason this is bad is because it then creates questions of IF certain parts of the law are then, entrenched into the Fundamental Laws and thus require constitutional Amendment to change. Furthermore, it leads to additional issues of where to look for such Amendments and changes to a specific law -- making access to law more complicated.

Next, the bill replaces the entire text of the Judicial Offices Act. I don't think I need to entirely state why this is a bad thing. If the entire text of an act is changed, then amending a prior statute is not the correct course of action, as it effectively makes it impossible to follow the changes (even somewhat) and just replaces the act outright, instead of a new act that repeals the prior one, thus making clear the legislative history and intent. No such amendments have taken place in Wintreath History, and for good reason, and again makes clear why this bill should not be adopted.

Furthermore, in the act amending the Constitution it removes the section on appeals -- but instead adds in prohibition onto the Speaker, Chairperson, and Monarch from serving on Panels in the Fundamental Laws while codifying the appeals into Statutory Law. Therefore, if the mechanism for appeals changes then the restrictions on serving within the Fundamental Laws becomes confused and an artifact of history that only adds complexity into the laws and requires additional explanation. While I do not, fundamentally, object to the moving of the Appeals away from the Fundamental Laws and into Statutory Law, I do object to enshrining restrictions into the Fundamental Laws for reasons supplied in Statutory Law that may amended easily and may quickly become outdated.

Finally, there is the fact that this merely makes our justice system generic and like every other system in existence throughout NS. While this is not, necessarily a bad thing, it fails to bring any particular innovation or change, or take advantage of the unique Wintrean System of Justice that we have -- namely that we have no standing Court. While this is not necessarily bad, I do believe that the typical NS system of courts and justice can be improved greatly and we should avoid implementing what is generally not the most effective system.

yes, our 'unique' legal system is a feature, not a bug
the fact that you yourself suggest that it would be used more if it worked at all is, of course, completely irrelevant to the matter
rather than take cues from the legal systems of...oh...every country on the planet, all of which see daily use instead of 'only twice ever, and one of those as a joke', we're just going to convene assizes largely at the discretion of the Monarch for individual cases as necessary like we're the feudal Kingdom of England

First off, it entirely and completely conflates a Constitutional Amendment and a Statutory Law Amendment which is something that I have considered to be entirely bad form for years, and has been adopted by the Storting without issue as an exceptionally bad idea, and that the laws must be separated. Even our Omnibus Correction Acts have not mixed Statutory with Constitutional Law -- the only author who has ever done that and for some reason believes it to be a good idea is Dawsinian. The reason this is bad is because it then creates questions of IF certain parts of the law are then, entrenched into the Fundamental Laws and thus require constitutional Amendment to change. Furthermore, it leads to additional issues of where to look for such Amendments and changes to a specific law -- making access to law more complicated.

Next, the bill replaces the entire text of the Judicial Offices Act. I don't think I need to entirely state why this is a bad thing. If the entire text of an act is changed, then amending a prior statute is not the correct course of action, as it effectively makes it impossible to follow the changes (even somewhat) and just replaces the act outright, instead of a new act that repeals the prior one, thus making clear the legislative history and intent. No such amendments have taken place in Wintreath History, and for good reason, and again makes clear why this bill should not be adopted.

You are correct, this was done with the Speaker Selection Omnibus Amendment Act. It seems as though it was simply added to both the Constitutional Law and the Underhusen Procedure section, which seems reasonable as this bill would be applicable in both sections. Second, when you're dealing with something like reforming our ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM, it is unreasonable - in my opinion - to expect that you're going to be able to pass bill after bill just to accomplish the same goal as passing this one omnibus bill. Not to mention, what if we pass a constitutional amendment but then the bill to change the Judicial Offices Act fails? We'll be stuck with an even more broken justice system than we started with. We're not modifying a few holidays or something here. We are attempting to change something that is rooted in both our constitution and our statutory law, and thus any bill that effectively changes our justice system is going to have to touch both.

Furthermore, in the act amending the Constitution it removes the section on appeals -- but instead adds in prohibition onto the Speaker, Chairperson, and Monarch from serving on Panels in the Fundamental Laws while codifying the appeals into Statutory Law. Therefore, if the mechanism for appeals changes then the restrictions on serving within the Fundamental Laws becomes confused and an artifact of history that only adds complexity into the laws and requires additional explanation. While I do not, fundamentally, object to the moving of the Appeals away from the Fundamental Laws and into Statutory Law, I do object to enshrining restrictions into the Fundamental Laws for reasons supplied in Statutory Law that may amended easily and may quickly become outdated.

This is the one part I will agree with you on, and I will look at modifying this bill to fix that. Thank you for pointing that out.

Finally, there is the fact that this merely makes our justice system generic and like every other system in existence throughout NS. While this is not, necessarily a bad thing, it fails to bring any particular innovation or change, or take advantage of the unique Wintrean System of Justice that we have -- namely that we have no standing Court. While this is not necessarily bad, I do believe that the typical NS system of courts and justice can be improved greatly and we should avoid implementing what is generally not the most effective system.

We've had seven years to come up with some sort of "unique Wintrean System of Justice"... I feel like, at this point, it is worth settling for something that may be a little generic.

First off, it entirely and completely conflates a Constitutional Amendment and a Statutory Law Amendment which is something that I have considered to be entirely bad form for years, and has been adopted by the Storting without issue as an exceptionally bad idea, and that the laws must be separated. Even our Omnibus Correction Acts have not mixed Statutory with Constitutional Law -- the only author who has ever done that and for some reason believes it to be a good idea is Dawsinian. The reason this is bad is because it then creates questions of IF certain parts of the law are then, entrenched into the Fundamental Laws and thus require constitutional Amendment to change. Furthermore, it leads to additional issues of where to look for such Amendments and changes to a specific law -- making access to law more complicated.

Next, the bill replaces the entire text of the Judicial Offices Act. I don't think I need to entirely state why this is a bad thing. If the entire text of an act is changed, then amending a prior statute is not the correct course of action, as it effectively makes it impossible to follow the changes (even somewhat) and just replaces the act outright, instead of a new act that repeals the prior one, thus making clear the legislative history and intent. No such amendments have taken place in Wintreath History, and for good reason, and again makes clear why this bill should not be adopted.

You are correct, this was done with the Speaker Selection Omnibus Amendment Act. It seems as though it was simply added to both the Constitutional Law and the Underhusen Procedure section, which seems reasonable as this bill would be applicable in both sections. Second, when you're dealing with something like reforming our ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM, it is unreasonable - in my opinion - to expect that you're going to be able to pass bill after bill just to accomplish the same goal as passing this one omnibus bill. Not to mention, what if we pass a constitutional amendment but then the bill to change the Judicial Offices Act fails? We'll be stuck with an even more broken justice system than we started with. We're not modifying a few holidays or something here. We are attempting to change something that is rooted in both our constitution and our statutory law, and thus any bill that effectively changes our justice system is going to have to touch both.

This is one point that I definitely do agree with Chanku on. Having a law that is both constitutional and statutory can be confusing to navigate, particularly for newcomers. This is especially true with the way our laws archive is set up.

You already have a provision in your proposed bill controlling when both sets of amendments come into effect. I see no reason why that couldn't be split into two separate laws with the same kind of provision in place.

As for Chanku's second concern, I think it would certainly be much cleaner for there to be a new bill passed which also repeals the old law, instead of an amendment.

I agree with Chanku and taulover on the use of omnibus legislation. It was accepted practice in early Wintreath, but fell out of favor around 2015 when we started running into questions on how to repeal it. The last omnibus legislation to pass was the Omnibus Constitutional Correction Amendment II in 2017, and I suspect that's because it amends the Royal Titles and Styles Act, which itself is omnibus legislation.

That being said, I am curious as to why the authority of the Monarchy in relation to judicial matters is diluted to include the Speaker of the Underhusen and the Chairperson of the Overhusen, for example in choosing justices at random and in initiating a recall of the case.

Besides that though, let me ask a broader question. As has been pointed out in this topic, in 7 years we've only had two court cases, one of which was a joke case. There's been a lot of talk about judicial system not working and reforming it over the years, but could it just be that we don't really need a judicial system? I'm not sure a reformed judicial system would get more use...it just seems to me that there isn't much demand for one, and perhaps that's what makes us unique as a region.