[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":184872pz]First and foremost, it should be a system people will want to use, since it is entirely by choice that people will use it. There is very little that the CDS can do to force people to use a system they don't like. Even repossessing lands is a small threat, when RL monetary amounts are considered. Banning is probably the strongest threat, but contact with anyone is still possible elsewhere on the grid and by IM.[/quote:184872pz]
As I stated in a commission meeting in some length, and you seem to have ignored entirely, this superficially attractive goal is actually seriously flawed. If people are going to court, it means, unless they are lawyers, judges or court staff, that something has gone seriously wrong for them. They do not go to court because they like going to court: they go to court in an attempt to resolve a serious problem. Nobody is going to want to go to court because that will mean that something is wrong: anyone other than a lawyer who positiviely desires to go to court should be viewed with deep suspicion as overly litigious. Indeed, there are good reasons not to make courts too welcoming, since it is likely to encourage frivolous litigation. People should think of court as a plce to go when they have a serious problem that they cannot otherwise resolve, and think of court proceedings as a serious way of getting a fair resolution to that problem, not as an amusing distraction from cooking dinner. The priority on the courts is therefore on being fair and effective, not on being fun to use.
[quote:184872pz]It should be easy and fast enough to use that people can fit it around their real lives, especially for those who don't spend more than a few hours a week inworld.[/quote:184872pz]
My original code of procedure was designed to do just that: to minimise preliminary hearings, and have final hearings only resolving the specific disputes disclosed in writing in advance by the praties. The current rules mandate a lengthy "pre-trial" hearing in [i:184872pz]every single case[/i:184872pz] to work out the procedures, and do not require the parties to put in writing everything upon which they rely (which makes the writing part harder and longer, but the hearings reciprocally easier and shorter), so the current rules fall well short of this goal.
[quote:184872pz]It should be as international as possible. It should work well with people who aren't fluent in English legalspeak (and that included many English speakers!).[/quote:184872pz]
I do not know exactly what you mean by "international" as a goal; as to the second point, that is exactly why we need an easy guide to our procedures.
[quote:184872pz]It should be democratic and support the continued emergence of democratic government in SL.[/quote:184872pz]
It is unclear what you think that it means for a judicial system to be democratic. In my view, it is democratic enough if the courts are bound to follow the laws passed by the democratic legislature. Anything further dangerously undermines judicial independence and impartiality.
[quote:184872pz]It should be fair. Real appeal should be possible, and the people involved should be accountable to the public for their actions in the sense that they must observe high standards of behavior and avoid conflicts of interest.[/quote:184872pz]
Agreed. All this is either a current or a planned part of the existing judicial system.
[quote:184872pz]It should be scalable, including scaling down until we are large enough to sustain a larger judiciary.[/quote:184872pz]
Nobody is going to disagree that the judiciary should be the right size for what it seeks to do: the question is how exactly one calibrates that size. It may be worthy of note that I had designed the system originally to take no more than two people (one judge and one clerk), but other people have since insisted that we need more. That is not a problem, since we have a ready supply of skilled lawyers and potential judges.
[quote:184872pz]Its benefit to citizens should be equal to or greater than its drain on resources.[/quote:184872pz]
Agreed: the proposal for an unending series of committees will undoubtedly be a huge drain on resources wholly unjustified by any outcome. The scrutiny of the judiciary should therefore be left to the body designed for such a purpose: the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel. As far as judges' time is concerned, that is something that the community cannot redistribute to other areas, so it is effectively free. As far as litigants' time is concerned, the procedural rules that I had written were designed to minimise the time required for hearings; the present, dangeroulsy vague rules, imagine endless pre-trial hearings in every case to invent the procedures all over again.
[quote:184872pz]It should if possible be cool and impressive, to garner attention and draw in new citizens beyond those who want to work in it.[/quote:184872pz]
It has already done that: Ludo Merit is an example of a citizen who joined because she found our judicial system impressive - her goal certainly has not been to work in it. But why "beyond people who want to work in it"? We have built a thriving community of skilled lawyers, many of whom contribute substantially to the community in other ways, too. A very large number of people indeed, taken all together, a tenth of our population, are here because they have been attracted by our judicial system. In terms of attracting citizens, it is undoubtedly one of the most successful single projects in the history of the CDS, with the possible exception of Colonia Nova.
[quote:184872pz]Any other ideas for goals?[/quote:184872pz]
How about:
* It should be efficient, effective, and just
* It should prevent conflict in advance by the clarity of its rules, as well as resolving it as it arises
* It should be a strong reason for people to enfranchulate with us
* It should attract legal academics and journalists to write about us (whether or not they become citizens)
* It should inspire Linden Lab to make it easier for everyone to have a local government
* It should prove to its critics that it is a workable and fair system after all.