We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Judicial Courts and Appeals Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Federalist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 3682
Description[?]:
An act liberalising the courts. Redefines the right of Appeal in order that those who feel wronged may justly repeal to a court and not the head of State. Provides legal representation at state cost to those least able to afford private lawyers, and bans physical punishment. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to appeal against a judgement rendered by a court.
Old value:: Judgements may only be appealed against for grave procedural errors.
Current: Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court.
Proposed: Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the administration of law.
Old value:: There are no courts, the Head of State will determine what's right or wrong.
Current: There are regional courts that have jurisdiction over questions of regional law and national courts that have jurisdiction over questions of national law.
Proposed: There are regional courts, but decisions of regional courts may be appealed to national courts (if the right to appeal exists).
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government provision of legal aid to the accused.
Old value:: Legal representation is never paid for by the state.
Current: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state.
Proposed: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state for defendants with low incomes.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Legality of judicial physical punishment
Old value:: Judicial corporal punishment that causes permanent injury (eg. mutilation) is legal.
Current: All forms of physical punishment are illegal.
Proposed: All forms of physical punishment are illegal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 07:28:15, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, we appreciate your input and we are not uncooperative. We only wonder, how do you see the organisation of the Courts? Since the President speaks right under the current law, we do not need to think about a firm organisation. We only wonder how things are to be organised and how much it would cost. Ray Hoetgals Minister of Justice |
Date | 18:45:57, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Federalist Party | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker We see a system of local courts within each province, with each province having a regional supreme court, with the power of appeal, the appeals go to the national court(somewhat like the system of courts here in the US). We do not think that any raises in spending need occur, as this can be appropriated from the judicial budget already. |
Date | 18:49:49, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, this seems like a solid system. But how do we arrange the placement of judges. How many judges should there be, locally and nationally? We should really think this through... Ray Hoetgals Minister of Justice |
Date | 18:55:22, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, I am fine deciding what is right or wrong. We also don't care what the Federalists think. Their vote on a bill can't change its outcome unless one of the 3 main parties abstain. Any combination of 2 of the 3 main parties will result in a majority. The position of the Federalists is rather irrelevant. In the past, they have shown that they know nothing about the economy or Finance. They have now come to prove it again by insisting that our Justice Ministry budget can handle the change. Our Justice spending is ranked very lowly in the world, and is less than 32% of the world average. The Federalists should leave government to those who can govern. -- Benjamin Landau, Chairman of the GNRG, President of Lodamun |
Date | 19:17:54, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Federalist Party | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | I suggest we leave the the exact number of local judges to the different regions as those will only be local courts. As for the National Court, I am open to suggestions, but I think 7-9 is a good number. Judge Placement, I suggest for the local courts we leave it to the regions. For the national court Ruling government nominates with the advice and consent of the legislature. |
Date | 20:41:09, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Alliance Party | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, What exactly are the problems involving the current model? I see this as a slightly unnecessary over-justification and bureaucratic infringement onto society that is not needed. We don't need more public servants and public money spent on the Ministry of Justice if it i not desperately needed. Considering that this request did not come from the Ministry of Justice and therefore we can conclude is both not necessary and not needed, then we see no benefit in this policy change. Perhaps a report could be submitted by either the Ministry of Justice or an independent law firm contracted by the Federalist Party on the benefits of this policy change; which would bring us to more kindly view the proposal. - Larry Holdman Justice Critic for the CAP |
Date | 21:22:52, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, If the law gives power to courts, we can use this to determine the number of judges per state: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=388913 Anyway, the Supreme Court currently exists as a formality. It has no judicial power or authority. Instead, it is an advisory body to the President. It can be delegated to rule on a judicial matter, but the final decision rests with the President. It's really an informal court, made up of MPs. We share the sentiments of the CAP. -- Thomas Huddleson, GNRG Spokesman on Justice |
Date | 21:53:23, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Federalist Party | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | To Respond to CAP, The Current model does not give us the most essential thing for a democratic state...a free and independent judiciary and a country of laws not arbitrary decisions on a legal matters from any HOS. |
Date | 22:00:27, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, We believe that "the most essential thing for a democratic state" is having a system where the majority rules. Democracy means nothing else, but that. While a free and independent judiciary can exist in a democratic state, it isn't required for a state to be considered to be democratic, and it can only exist when there is a constitution that hinders democracy to favour liberal ideals. -- Thomas Huddleson, GNRG Spokesman on Justice |
Date | 23:25:24, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Alliance Party | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, We respect the concerns of the Federalist Party and acknowledge that they are simply trying to do what they believe is best. On the risk of this becoming a debate on democracy and not the policy change mentioned, we share the opinion well expressed by my colleague the GNRG Spokesman on Justice. In fact, we believe that an independent judiciary is far more authoritative than is reasonable and if it is without due oversight by the Presidium is strictly undemocratic. At the moment, the Supreme Court advises the President. That system identifies that (a) nobody voted for the judges who are therefore undemocratically appointed and inherently authoritarian, and (b) the final decision should rest with the ultimate representative of the people: the President. Having an independent judiciary eliminates both of those considerations and we make the case that it is thereby undemocratic. While we recognize the concerns of the Federalists that they worry about "arbitrary decisions on legal matters" by the President: but we point out that in that case that individual is accountable to the people and to elections, and therefore would not be making "arbitrary decisions." However, an independent judge? Any "arbitrary decision" made there would have no political accountability and would therefore be more undemocratic. That is the point of the view of the Conservative Alliance. We respect the Federalists for attempting to improve judicial matters, but we prefer the current system. - Larry Holdman Justice Critic for the CAP |
Date | 23:26:37, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Alliance Party | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | OOC: correction that the Supreme Court is informal and judges are MPs and are actually accountable, but the independent Supreme Court proposed would not be MPs. |
Date | 23:45:36, June 13, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Judicial Courts and Appeals Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker, We thank the CAP for their contribution to the debate, and we would like to add to one of their points. It is rare that a party in Lodamun gains a solid majority in the Presidium. Lodamun's President, unlike most foreign Presidents, is elected by the Presidium instead of being directly-elected. This means that a President can easily be replaced if a majority of the Presidium disapproves of him. What is more democratic than this? -- Thomas Huddleson, GNRG Spokesman on Justice |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes |
Total Seats: 455 | |||
no | Total Seats: 128 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 16 |
Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
Random quote: "How we can possibly be giving £1bn a month, when we're in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo Land is completely beyond me." - Godfrey Bloom |