Judges

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Judges

Post by Beathan »

I would be willing to serve as a second judge if necessary. However, I would like to propose an alternative -- start with a single judge backed up by one or two people who could serve as "judge pro tempore" in the event that the sitting judge has a conflict, is invalidated through process, or is otherwise unable to hear a case.

Given our size, we should keep the number of offices, especially paid offices, to a minimum. RL court systems use judges pro tem to great effect -- and we would to well to replicate that.

Beathan

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Judges

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":2ltfx4gl]I would be willing to serve as a second judge if necessary. However, I would like to propose an alternative -- start with a single judge backed up by one or two people who could serve as "judge pro tempore" in the event that the sitting judge has a conflict, is invalidated through process, or is otherwise unable to hear a case.

Given our size, we should keep the number of offices, especially paid offices, to a minimum. RL court systems use judges pro tem to great effect -- and we would to well to replicate that.

Beathan[/quote:2ltfx4gl]

Any judge, in order to be a judge at all, and exercise any of the powers of a judge, would have to be qualified and appointed in accordance with the constitution. However, nothing in the Constitution prevents judges sitting part time and also practising, as recorders do in England, for instance.

I note that both you and Publius had suggested the idea of part-time judges, and it is a potentially good idea to have some judges also being practising lawyers in the jurisdiction, and only being judges part-time. There will, of course, have to be at least one full-time (in SecondLife terms, that is: we all have day jobs!) judge, and the Chief Judge should never also practise as a lawyer in the CDS. What you suggest is probably a sensible balance overall.

I am glad that you are willing to serve as a judge; once I finish the Code of Procedure and Code of Judicial Ethics, and have written the qualification criteria, I will post again on the application process to become qualified as a judge. I will, following this suggestion, include a question on the application form about whether any applicant wishes to sit part-time or full time (in SL terms). That will not affect the qualification process, but the Chair of the JC and the PSJP would work together to determine the optimal part time to full time balance.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Since we have no elected PJSP yet, we'll probably have to do the same as for the appointment of the first Judge — get the SC to review the application (we have another applicant, Blue McDonnough), and the RA to vote on it. The SC has been notified :)

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":27bf0gpp]Since we have no elected PJSP yet, we'll probably have to do the same as for the appointment of the first Judge — get the SC to review the application (we have another applicant, Blue McDonnough), and the RA to vote on it. The SC has been notified :)[/quote:27bf0gpp]

While I quite agree that this is the most sensible procedure, as you'll see elsewhere in the forums, the position of the self-appointed Chief Judge-for-life is that he is now the only one who can draft standards for appointment of judges and qualify prospective nominees to the RA, the SC having been divested of this power by the appointment of an initial judge.

I'll address this later today with a proposed resolution for the RA to consider at its next meeting.

PS: Please note that Beathan Vale has also indicated his willingness to serve as a judge.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Gwneth wrote [quote:1aini762]Since we have no elected PJSP yet, we'll probably have to do the same as for the appointment of the first Judge — get the SC to review the application (we have another applicant, Blue McDonnough), and the RA to vote on it. The SC has been notified. [/quote:1aini762]

Now that we seem settled on the idea that we should have a panel of three judges rather than a single judge backed up by volunteer pro tem judges when necessary, this issue of "chief judge" becomes more important. First, we need to determine whether we want our court to have a "chief judge" or "presiding judge" or "chief administrative judge" (all three have different implications). Second, we need to work out selection.

The position of "presiding judge" is typically a rotating position, which has the benefit of depoliticing the position but the draw-back of a sacrifice in consistency.

There are three different models fod selection of some species of "chief judge." First, like the U.S. Chief Justice, the office can be treated as a distinct office, and judges can be appointed by other arms of government directly into that position. Second, as is the case in some states, the Chief Justice can be a separate elected position. (This usually applies only in cases in which all judges are elected. In such case, "Position 1" is often also designated "Chief Judge" and whoever is elected to that position is chief judge by fiat.) Finally, most court systems (including all U.S. trial courts and most courts of appeals other than Supreme Courts and most State Supreme Courts) use a system of "collegiality" in which the judges choose one of their number for the position of chief judge.

My preference is for the collegial system for several reasons. First, panels of judges are often called upon to work together and there are benefits for the leader of such groups to be selected for the role by the group members (the members identify the person most likely to create a productice atmosphere; extraneous obligations which can present ethical problems are minimized; the person selected is selected based on their track record, which is most apparent to peers). Second, it streamlines the process by keeping it in committee form, rather than relying on complicated, multi-party procedures. Third, it allows selection to be based on factors and skills other than those involved directly in the office of judge. (The skills required a an administrative judge as administrator tend to be entirely different from the skill required of that administrative judge as judge. In my county, our adminstrative judge is far away the best administrator on the bench, but is not the best judge. Despite that, she is always chosen by her peers as administrative judge specifically because she has administrative skills the others lack -- and the others know it.)

Therefore, my preference would be to appoint a panel of judges, and have that panel work out administrative procedures as a committee, selecting a chief judge to essentially chair the committee.

Beathan

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":qw0aeyg8]Since we have no elected PJSP yet, we'll probably have to do the same as for the appointment of the first Judge — get the SC to review the application (we have another applicant, Blue McDonnough), and the RA to vote on it. The SC has been notified :)[/quote:qw0aeyg8]

As I have pointed out before, the SC only has the power to qualify judges when there are no Judges of Common Jurisdiction. There now is a judge, so the Board qualifies. The board consists of all Judges of Common Jurisdiction if there are 7 or fewer, or 7 elected from amongst the judges if there are more than 7.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":cfw7u3if]As I have pointed out before, the SC only has the power to qualify judges when there are no Judges of Common Jurisdiction. There now is a judge, so the Board qualifies. The board consists of all Judges of Common Jurisdiction if there are 7 or fewer, or 7 elected from amongst the judges if there are more than 7.[/quote:cfw7u3if]

Unless, of course, the RA amends to restore the SC power to qualify judges. :twisted:

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":3ls4znu0]Unless, of course, the RA amends to restore the SC power to qualify judges. :twisted:[/quote:3ls4znu0]

There would be no "restoration", since the Scientific Council never had the power to qualify judges when there are already sitting judges, and no such power was ever intended.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":2j5hqpvo]Now that we seem settled on the idea that we should have a panel of three judges rather than a single judge backed up by volunteer pro tem judges when necessary, this issue of "chief judge" becomes more important. First, we need to determine whether we want our court to have a "chief judge" or "presiding judge" or "chief administrative judge" (all three have different implications). Second, we need to work out selection.[/quote:2j5hqpvo]

I am afraid that this does not make any sense: we already [i:2j5hqpvo]have[/i:2j5hqpvo] decided both of those issues when we passed the Judiciary Act. There was much intense debate about both points, especially the latter, and what we have now is the result of a very careful compromise into which a huge amount of effort went on all sides. Merely because one or two people, coming into the debate late, now want to change what everyone spent a huge amount of time perfecting, negotiating, and, at great length, agreeing is not a reason why that monumental process should be reversed.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ashcroft wrote [quote:13acz834]I am afraid that this does not make any sense: we already have decided both of those issues when we passed the Judiciary Act. There was much intense debate about both points, especially the latter, and what we have now is the result of a very careful compromise into which a huge amount of effort went on all sides. Merely because one or two people, coming into the debate late, now want to change what everyone spent a huge amount of time perfecting, negotiating, and, at great length, agreeing is not a reason why that monumental process should be reversed.
[/quote:13acz834]

I understand Ashcroft's frustration at seeing an elaborate and detailed institution modified before it is even put in place and given a chance to work. However, the reality of a free-form democracy, such as we have here by default as a result of our smallness, is that any institution can be modified at any time for any reason provided the process is followed and the political will for modification exists.

Personally, I have nothing invested in this position either way. However, I think that we should get some system up and running soon. We can tinker with the system afterwards, but, in a democracy, it is never impermissible to tinker with an institution. Unwise, perhaps, but never forbidden.

Beathan

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":3bm04e64]I understand Ashcroft's frustration at seeing an elaborate and detailed institution modified before it is even put in place and given a chance to work. However, the reality of a free-form democracy, such as we have here by default as a result of our smallness, is that any institution can be modified at any time for any reason provided the process is followed and the political will for modification exists.[/quote:3bm04e64]

That it [i:3bm04e64]can[/i:3bm04e64], in theory, be done is undoubted: my point is merely that it would be wholly inappropraite to do so at this time. The judiciary that we have spent a vast amount of time designing and negotiating about should be given plenty of time to bed in before anybody thinks about making radical changes to its structure. The PJSP should have time to be convened and contemplate whether the system is working well, and, if not, how to resolve any problems.

[i:3bm04e64]Edit[/i:3bm04e64]: Note that it has not actually been modified thus far: it is just a proposal. Publius is not a member of the legislature...

[quote:3bm04e64]Personally, I have nothing invested in this position either way. However, I think that we should get some system up and running soon. We can tinker with the system afterwards, but, in a democracy, it is never impermissible to tinker with an institution. Unwise, perhaps, but never forbidden.[/quote:3bm04e64]

Just because we can do something does not mean that we should...

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”