[Last Call] Court Integrity Act

[Araraukar]

Concerned about the adverse effects of judges and public prosecutors being subject to recall without good reasons, incentivizing judges to make judgements favourable for those who have the power of recall instead of properly applying the law,

Concerned about the adverse effects of judges being subject to the whims of the public, destabilizing the trust in reliable application of law,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, do not stop at a member nation's borders,

OOC: I'm not Kenmoria, so I don't know his exact opposition reasons, but to me these preamble clauses make no sense whatsoever.

The first one, "subject to recall without good reasons" - in what universe? Certainly not the RL one that I live in, and equally certainly not in the IC one that Araraukar exists in.

The second one, exactly how the fuck do you think "whims of the public" have the faintest thing to do with legal judgements? What are you referring to? If you mean juries, do be aware that not only are layman juries not a thing everywhhere, but also that not all juries used actually have anything to do with the guilty/not guilty determination, but rather just the severity of the punishment. Or vice versa. Given the various applications even in Real Life, it'd be madness to expect anything less in NationStates IC multiverse.

And the third one, with the random mention of multinational corporations... for the third time, what does that have anything to do with anything? That's like saying "water is wet" and then using that as a justification for nationalizing water-related infrastructure.

[Old Hope]

Concerned about the adverse effects of judges and public prosecutors being subject to recall without good reasons, incentivizing judges to make judgements favourable for those who have the power of recall instead of properly applying the law,

Concerned about the adverse effects of judges being subject to the whims of the public, destabilizing the trust in reliable application of law,

Knowing that the effect of judgements, especially against multinational corporations, do not stop at a member nation's borders,

OOC: I'm not Kenmoria, so I don't know his exact opposition reasons, but to me these preamble clauses make no sense whatsoever.

The first one, "subject to recall without good reasons" - in what universe? Certainly not the RL one that I live in, and equally certainly not in the IC one that Araraukar exists in.

The second one, exactly how the fuck do you think "whims of the public" have the faintest thing to do with legal judgements? What are you referring to? If you mean juries, do be aware that not only are layman juries not a thing everywhhere, but also that not all juries used actually have anything to do with the guilty/not guilty determination, but rather just the severity of the punishment. Or vice versa. Given the various applications even in Real Life, it'd be madness to expect anything less in NationStates IC multiverse.

And the third one, with the random mention of multinational corporations... for the third time, what does that have anything to do with anything? That's like saying "water is wet" and then using that as a justification for nationalizing water-related infrastructure.

OOC: The first one, maybe not in your nation(neither RL nor IC). But it does happen. Even in RL.
The second one seems to have been poorly worded, apologies. I was refering to recall by the public, reelection by the public...
The third one merely clarifies why this is not a purely national issue.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The first one, maybe not in your nation(neither RL nor IC). But it does happen. Even in RL.

OOC: Then target those nations, not the entirety of the WA.

The third one merely clarifies why this is not a purely national issue.

And water is wet. Again, what does that have anything to do with anything? You don't refer to multinational or international anything in the mandates. The specification of corporations will actually work against you, given that people not willing to put the effort into finding the point of this all will either think that this is about multinational corporations (which many people have irrational hatred of) getting away from lawsuits and thus voting against, or that this only addresses what happens to multinational corporations and may vote against (because of the irrational hatred thing) just because they don't see the point.

If you're honestly concerned about the international aspect (which I doubt, but hey, maybe a blind chicken can find a gold nugget once in a million years), then look at resolutions that already exist, and which tackle trials and courts and such, and see if they bothered to make any clauses to justify themselves.

[Old Hope]

We improved this draft. Any further issues?

[Tinfect]

We improved this draft. Any further issues?

OOC:
One. You have not improved it.

[Merni]

OOC:

The World Assembly forbids removal or demotion of judges and public prosecutors in member nations for reasons other than:

"The World Assembly" would be better on a separate line (see other passed resolutions). Also, this lacks list tags for the list below and other relevant formatting.

3.Getting convicted of a criminal offense,

What about offences which are not technically under criminal law in that member nation's legal system, but still serious enough to warrant removal?

5.Continuous inability in performing their job for a time span in excess of one ninetieth of the average life span of a sapient being in the member nation,

Enough people have pointed out the obvious flaws here, I just want to add that in a multi-species nation this doesn't consider the lifespan of the relevant species, which may be vastly different from that of other species in that nation. Even were this to be fixed, using lifespan for this is still a terrible idea.

6.Continuous inability in performing their job for a time span in excess of one ninetieth of the median life span of a sapient being in all member nations,

First off, who collects this data? And again, how is the lifespan of any other species even slightly relevant? Imagine that somehow the vast majority of sentient beings in the multiverse are, say, sentient insects with tiny lifespans, and as a result the median is about two weeks. One ninetieth of that would be about three hours, and this would mean that a judge could be removed for simply sleeping. Considering the lifespans of other irrelevant species is absurd

8. Reaching the only retirement age applicable to judges and public prosecutors in the member nation, if this retirement age is the same for all judges and public prosecutors,

Why should the same retirement age apply for judges and public prosecutors, since they are usually completely separate jobs with one being part of the judiciary and the other being an employee of a government ministry or similar? The wording of this clause is also pretty awkward.

Allows member states, in addition to the exceptions above, to designate a uniform maximum timespan someone can serve as public prosecutor in that member nation,

Why is this needed when a retirement age also exists, and why only for prosecutors and not judges?

And clarifies that member state may not enforce any contract forcing or coercing a judge, or a public prosecutor, to resign or accept promotion, except for the reasons 1-8 of this resolution.

So demotion is fine?

[Old Hope]

OOC:

The World Assembly forbids removal or demotion of judges and public prosecutors in member nations for reasons other than:

"The World Assembly" would be better on a separate line (see other passed resolutions). Also, this lacks list tags for the list below and other relevant formatting.

3.Getting convicted of a criminal offense,

What about offences which are not technically under criminal law in that member nation's legal system, but still serious enough to warrant removal?

5.Continuous inability in performing their job for a time span in excess of one ninetieth of the average life span of a sapient being in the member nation,

Enough people have pointed out the obvious flaws here, I just want to add that in a multi-species nation this doesn't consider the lifespan of the relevant species, which may be vastly different from that of other species in that nation. Even were this to be fixed, using lifespan for this is still a terrible idea.

6.Continuous inability in performing their job for a time span in excess of one ninetieth of the median life span of a sapient being in all member nations,

First off, who collects this data? And again, how is the lifespan of any other species even slightly relevant? Imagine that somehow the vast majority of sentient beings in the multiverse are, say, sentient insects with tiny lifespans, and as a result the median is about two weeks. One ninetieth of that would be about three hours, and this would mean that a judge could be removed for simply sleeping. Considering the lifespans of other irrelevant species is absurd

8. Reaching the only retirement age applicable to judges and public prosecutors in the member nation, if this retirement age is the same for all judges and public prosecutors,

Why should the same retirement age apply for judges and public prosecutors, since they are usually completely separate jobs with one being part of the judiciary and the other being an employee of a government ministry or similar? The wording of this clause is also pretty awkward.

Allows member states, in addition to the exceptions above, to designate a uniform maximum timespan someone can serve as public prosecutor in that member nation,

Why is this needed when a retirement age also exists, and why only for prosecutors and not judges?

And clarifies that member state may not enforce any contract forcing or coercing a judge, or a public prosecutor, to resign or accept promotion, except for the reasons 1-8 of this resolution.

So demotion is fine?

ah, yes, we didn't fix that one with the median lifespan, apologies.
Demotion is forbidden without any of the 8 reasons applying, and one of the reasons is resignation. Consent to demotion is not mentioned as an exception.

[Old Hope]

Fixed medium lifespan thing into something that actually works.

[Separatist Peoples]

Fixed medium lifespan thing into something that actually works.

Ooc: not at all.

[Old Hope]

Except for Separatist Peoples(seemingly having no real arguments) not liking this proposal it seems like this is ready for submission. Please tell me in detail why not, if you disagree. Otherwise, this will be submitted.

[Separatist Peoples]

Except for Separatist Peoples(seemingly having no real arguments) not liking this proposal it seems like this is ready for submission. Please tell me in detail why not, if you disagree. Otherwise, this will be submitted.

Ooc: I didn't need to. You identified a problem and attempted a fix. Your solution has no discernable improvement. All prior arguments stand.

You certainly don't have to listen to me. I'm happy to see you submit and learn by doing. I like to watch a good torpedoing.

[Grays Harbor]

Removal due to continous inability because less than 90% of the people in that type of position, rounded down, are able to perform their job

This makes no sense. Incompetent judges can or cannot be removed based on how other judges perform? No logic.

[Old Hope]

Removal due to continous inability because less than 90% of the people in that type of position, rounded down, are able to perform their job

This makes no sense. Incompetent judges can or cannot be removed based on how other judges perform? No logic.

It does. If there are so many their presence is threatening the stability of the system.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Removal due to continous inability because less than 90% of the people in that type of position, rounded down, are able to perform their job

This makes no sense. Incompetent judges can or cannot be removed based on how other judges perform? No logic.

It does. If there are so many their presence is threatening the stability of the system.

Forgive us, "ambassador" though we use that term lightly, but why in the name of Iupiter Pater would we not want to remove magistrates before things deteriorated to that point? Ladies Hekate and Trivia preserve if you actually think it a good idea to wait until 90% of magistrates were incompetent before acting, and keep that type of idiocy far away from those of us who have not been imbibing too much of Lord Bacchus' fruits.

We have seen ideas from Communists and Monarchists that are better thought out and with fewer unfortunate implications.

[Separatist Peoples]

It does. If there are so many their presence is threatening the stability of the system.

Forgive us, "ambassador" though we use that term lightly, but why in the name of Iupiter Pater would we not want to remove magistrates before things deteriorated to that point? Ladies Hekate and Trivia preserve if you actually think it a good idea to wait until 90% of magistrates were incompetent before acting, and keep that type of idiocy far away from those of us who have not been imbibing too much of Lord Bacchus' fruits.

We have seen ideas from Communists and Monarchists that are better thought out and with fewer unfortunate implications.

"Somebody I spoke with earlier mentioned a concept, ambassador. Retrograde comprehension development. It seems apt."

[Grays Harbor]

Removal due to continous inability because less than 90% of the people in that type of position, rounded down, are able to perform their job

This makes no sense. Incompetent judges can or cannot be removed based on how other judges perform? No logic.

It does. If there are so many their presence is threatening the stability of the system.

This proposal, the way it is written, and with the illogical restrictions you have placed, virtually guarantees this is the outcome.

OOC: I really do not see this as being even close to significant strength.

[Old Hope]

It does. If there are so many their presence is threatening the stability of the system.

This proposal, the way it is written, and with the illogical restrictions you have placed, virtually guarantees this is the outcome.

OOC: I really do not see this as being even close to significant strength.

The restrictions are absolutely logical. Your executive just wants to fire judges at will to make them submissive to your political agenda.

OOC:How is this NOT significant strength? It places restrictions on the removal of judges and public prosecutors. No arbitrary recalls... Judges and public prosecutors are very important, so this should be significant.

[Tinfect]

"This legislation is unnecessary and littered with arbitrary provisions. Imperial Inquisitors are expected to meet very high standards, befitting their crucial and particular role in Imperial law; we see no reason to create a system of obligatory permanent appointment wherein none has existed prior, nor one so ludicrous as this."

[Separatist Peoples]

It does. If there are so many their presence is threatening the stability of the system.

This proposal, the way it is written, and with the illogical restrictions you have placed, virtually guarantees this is the outcome.

OOC: I really do not see this as being even close to significant strength.

Ooc: agreed on all points.

[Old Hope]

Might get submitted soon.

[Attempted Socialism]

What feedback made you think this is viable?

[Separatist Peoples]

What feedback made you think this is viable?

"Feedback rarely matters to the authoring delegation."

[Kenmoria]

“There are issues with the proposal, such that I do not recommend submission. For a start, clause 6 is still completely arbitrary. What if the percentage is only 89%?”

[Scalizagasti]

Continuous inability in performing their job for a time span in excess of one ninetieth of the average life span of a sapient being in the member nation,

"This seems arbitrary, and is also poorly defined. Consider a country populated by humans, but has a single member of a non-human sapient species with a lifespan of, say, a thousand years. Does than mean judges can be inactive for 11 years? Also, does life span refer to the entire species, or just the species in that particular country. A poorer country will have a lower life expectancy than a wealthier one. Finally, what is the reason for choosing one ninetieth?"

[Old Hope]

“There are issues with the proposal, such that I do not recommend submission. For a start, clause 6 is still completely arbitrary. What if the percentage is only 89%?”

Well, then it applies... There is no better solution there. With less than 90% disruption is very likely. A non-specific barrier would be abused. Sadly.