Juries the next big problem.

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Samantha Fuller
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:56 pm

Juries the next big problem.

Post by Samantha Fuller »

With the pasage of the recent ledgislation the Sientific Council has the ball for wrighting procedures & selecting Judges (Profesors). I'm confident that they are up to the task. However there is one one task the SC [u:is3i881m]can not do, nor shoud they be asked to[/u:is3i881m]. Rounding up juries in SL is going to be problematic for a varaity of tecnical & social reasons unique to SL and the size of CDS. Perhaps the smart thing to do woud to dispense with juries for now, but a large fraction of the promenant citizens and the SC have a fetish for the UDHR, not to mention upholding the UDHR is a requirement of the constution :lol: . Since the UHDR specificly mentions a jury of ones peers as a requirment, we are just going to have to bite the bullet and empanel juries :) . Therefore if we want a judicial system that upholds the UDHR we need to be discusing ideas and crafting ledgislation that will allow the rounding up of juries. 8)

Here have some rope, its free! :)
Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

Actually I do not believe the UDHR says anything about juries.

Relevant articles of the UDHR:

[quote="Article 10":i4sgadz7]
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
[/quote:i4sgadz7]

[quote="Article 11":i4sgadz7]
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
[/quote:i4sgadz7]

Our constitution used to require a jury, but I believe the judiciary act (and its repeal) removed that part.

---
Edit:

I think you may have confused the UDHR with the US Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution), which *does* require a jury for all criminal prosecution.

Last edited by Flyingroc Chung on Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Samantha Fuller
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:56 pm

Post by Samantha Fuller »

Just to get the Jump on those who are going to say "But Ulrika diden't get a jurie". The Ulrika case diden't NEED a jurie for several reasons.

1 Ulrika was at one time a member of the SC so the SC itself was a "Jurie of peers" more a jurie of peers than a random selection of Neufreistadt citizens or even a random selection of SL resedents.

2 the nature of the "crimes" dident require it.

The first was a fourm adminastration case. Curently to the best of my knolage nobody nowhere gets a jury trial in a forum admin case and the SC was scruplulious in keeping it a fourm matter.

The second was about deleting the city wallswhich she diden't own. If you blow away the city walls (or reduce the prominant military fortificationsin the post gunpoder world) of any Politity it is considered an ACT OF WAR or in the modern venacular "Terrorisim" :lol: in such cases when it is clear who is responsible nobody expects a jurie trial. Ulrika got of easy! :P

Here have some rope, its free! :)
User avatar
Samantha Fuller
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:56 pm

Post by Samantha Fuller »

Flyingrock - my mistake I seem to got tangeled up in my own rope :oops: My only defense is that im a US citizen and specificaly Texan. We beleve in Human rights granted by God, reconized by our constution, and backed up by relovers :) not through the UDHR so that document its not to familar to us.

Here have some rope, its free! :)
Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

No biggie, Samantha :)

I think the US founding fathers and the UDHR express the same principle: that all human beings have certain fundamental, universal and inalienable rights, including the right to a fair trial.

User avatar
Samantha Fuller
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:56 pm

Post by Samantha Fuller »

[quote="Flyingrock":3pyfnzgm]
Actually I do not believe the UDHR says anything about juries.

Relevant articles of the UDHR:

[quote="Article 10":3pyfnzgm]

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.[/quote:3pyfnzgm]

[quote="Article 11":3pyfnzgm]

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.[/quote:3pyfnzgm]

Our constitution used to require a jury, but I believe the judiciary act (and its repeal) removed that part.

---
Edit:

I think you may have confused the UDHR with the US Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution), which *does* require a jury for all criminal prosecution.[/quote:3pyfnzgm]

I beleve your right. That gives us some wrigle room with the question of juries but there is still going to be a lot of people who expect juries and they arn't going be easy to do :!:

Here have some rope, its free! :)
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

FR --

There was an oversight in the repeal bill that passed, I think, and juries were included. I expect that the current RA, if it meets before the end of the month, will fix this. If not, I think the next RA will do so.

RA members -- am I right?

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

Should a majority decide to keep juries as an option we may want to consider two ideas to ease the burden on the ones nominated for jury service and contribute to facilitating the scheduling of cases:

1) Make jury service opt-in
2) Let jurors' presence during the case be optional and make it the only requirement for passing verdict in a case that they read the transcript of the proceedings

Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

[quote="Beathan":l5o3y3i0]
There was an oversight in the repeal bill that passed, I think, and juries were included. I expect that the current RA, if it meets before the end of the month, will fix this. If not, I think the next RA will do so.
[/quote:l5o3y3i0]

Actually, afaik: the pre-JA constitution says in Article III: "Hearings and trials not involving government officials will be overseen by a single Professor and judgment will be decided by a jury of peers."

the current constitution now says: "Hearings and trials not involving government officials will be overseen by a single Professor."

Hence a jury is now not required. Whether it is still desirable is another topic, of course.

Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

The initial bill as originally drafted included the restoration of pre-JA requirement of a jury, but as you'll see from [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 7:1nz9zj7u]this thread[/url:1nz9zj7u], was amended to not include the jury requirement. There was a little confusion because the notecard dispenser provided the copy of the bill as originally drafted (and in non-modify form), but the full text of [url=http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... 1:1nz9zj7u]Amendment 19 as passed[/url:1nz9zj7u]is available on the wiki.

Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

I was againat the Judicary Bill before and am still against it. There is just no need for the offending item. It is shown that there is no flock for independant sims to become part of the CDS.
The thought of juries is funny to me. What is the need for them? Who will be willing to serve on them? (not me).
The Science Council is the best path to follow. We need dedicated membersto render the best possible decision. Will it be as "good" as a real life court? Perhaps not but remember this is a hobby for most of us and I do not have the time or patience for a make believe court trial.
Got to run duty calls!

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”