Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 21, 2015 11:10:48 GMT -6
So, as I prepare to clear the last clearly outstanding item on my Talossan worksheet (my needed activity in the Cort), I've been thinking about judicial reform. Here's three proposals from me:
1) The CpI is broken and ineffective. Making it a term-based job (perhaps from a wider panel of Magistrates) might solve it. There could be 3-6 Magistrates appointed at any one time, of whom (if there are 3 Magistrates) or 2 (in the case of 4-6) would be assigned as CpI Justices for a year at a time. At the end of that term, the Magistrate returns to their normal job and can become politically active again. The chief downside is that this obviously doesn't completely resolve the issue of political entanglements - but it's the best solution I can think of at the moment.
2) I'm uncomfortable as a Magistrate both assessing evidence necessary for a prosecution AND offering a final judgement on the matter. Though I like to think I separate the two issues sufficiently (essentially between probable cause and beyond reasonable doubt), I, at least, am paranoic about creating an unhealthy culture of judicial power. The two solutions I can envisage are jury trials (say, of 3 members; but personnel seems to me a crippling issue), or another Magistrate being involved in the indictment process.
3) The post of the Clerk of Courts needs defining or abolishing; case assignment, too, needs resolving in this connection. Does the Clerk actively assign cases? Apparently not. Who does? Is it first come first served? Does the Chief Magistrate assign Magistracy cases - traditionally, yes, but not always (as BenArd's action in the Thord case shows). The laws aren't clear.
I'd welcome any and all thoughts on these points =).
1) The CpI is broken and ineffective. Making it a term-based job (perhaps from a wider panel of Magistrates) might solve it. There could be 3-6 Magistrates appointed at any one time, of whom (if there are 3 Magistrates) or 2 (in the case of 4-6) would be assigned as CpI Justices for a year at a time. At the end of that term, the Magistrate returns to their normal job and can become politically active again. The chief downside is that this obviously doesn't completely resolve the issue of political entanglements - but it's the best solution I can think of at the moment.
2) I'm uncomfortable as a Magistrate both assessing evidence necessary for a prosecution AND offering a final judgement on the matter. Though I like to think I separate the two issues sufficiently (essentially between probable cause and beyond reasonable doubt), I, at least, am paranoic about creating an unhealthy culture of judicial power. The two solutions I can envisage are jury trials (say, of 3 members; but personnel seems to me a crippling issue), or another Magistrate being involved in the indictment process.
3) The post of the Clerk of Courts needs defining or abolishing; case assignment, too, needs resolving in this connection. Does the Clerk actively assign cases? Apparently not. Who does? Is it first come first served? Does the Chief Magistrate assign Magistracy cases - traditionally, yes, but not always (as BenArd's action in the Thord case shows). The laws aren't clear.
I'd welcome any and all thoughts on these points =).
