[Draft] Court-esy of the Police

[Marxist Germany]

Court-esy of the Police

Validity: No Judicial System, Dissent

---

Description: @@CAPITAL@@'s streets have been blocked for the past couple of days as protests against the police deciding criminal sentences.

Option 1: "I always knew that this would happen," says your Minister of Justice, "the judicial system was doing just fine, until you decided that the police can decide whatever sentence they like and as you can see... well... they're not doing quite well. I suggest we reinstate the judicial system for the justice of our citizens!"

Effect: the rights of each citizen of @@NAME@@ are more important than their responsibilities


Option 2: "Objection!!" snaps your Minister of Defence, "How could we even think of bringing back the inefficient and horrendous judicial system??? We must keep the current system, but instead of you going through each case carefully, we just sentence everyone who commits a crime to the death, sounds about right doesn't it?"

Effect: @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ who are caught speeding are sentenced to death


Option 3: "This is exactly why we need to keep the current system," replies your chief of police, "we must give the police more power to arrest and crack down on these rioters. A nation that let's its citizens riot never works as my grandma never said."

Effect: people who spread gossip about the police wake up in a prison cell the next day

Option 4: "I have a better idea," whispers an anonymous person, "how about you just give us your convicts, and we'll take care of them? We will make sure these criminals contribute to the society very efficiently and for no cost. This is what i call, a win-win situation," he suddenly disappears from the room.

Effect: @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ who park in the wrong place are often reported missing

[Marxist Germany]

I heard that an issue that reinstates the judicial system is a very high priority so i gave it a go

[Andrepoiy]

I heard that an issue that reinstates the judicial system is a very high priority so i gave it a go

LOL I dissolved my judiciary (and prisons) unintentionally (about like 6 months ago) and I have yet to have an issue that reinstates it.

[Kurnugia]

Option two's argument makes little sense. You don't need to have the people to say something in the justice system.

[Woods Is Back]

Option 3: "You know what would be cool?" snaps your Minister of Entertainment, "If we put criminals in a gladiator rink and let them fight to death!! Complete with animal fights, blood and even more blood!! We can even charge @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ money to watch these events and that should sort out the budget balance!!" He leaves the room whilst skipping excitedly.

Effect: citizens of @@NAME@@ tune in each week to watch their beloved ones fight to death

I don't think this would work, because this is how I lost my judiciary system. I don't know if that's a problem, but I thought I should bring it up.

[Marxist Germany]

Option two's argument makes little sense. You don't need to have the people to say something in the justice system.

What i meant is juries

[The Sherpa Empire]

I saw the title and I thought it was going to be about duties on imports.

Before you start going through option-by-option, I think you need to straighten out the main premise. It's too assumptive to have @@LEADER@@ ruling on every case. Not every nation that abolishes courts will use that as an alternative.

[Kurnugia]

Option two's argument makes little sense. You don't need to have the people to say something in the justice system.

What i meant is juries

From the writer's block:

No Courts - This policy indicates that lack of traditional courts, which basically means a judge, verbal arguments and evidence for prosecution and defence, and formal sentencing prior to punishment. There's actually reversals in the game but they're all a little unsatisfactory, as they reverse the policy as a side effect of mentioning a solution that involves courts. I'd rather flag these as options not valid if you don't have courts, but to do that... High priority: An issue that reinstates courts.

Juries aren't really what one must have to establish a good judiciary system. I would rather focus on what is written in bold.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This opening here...

Description: Ever since you've gotten rid of the judicial system, you've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals, your ministers have been summoned to try and solve this issue.

...is a textbook example of how NOT to do a reversal issue.

Let's first take off the redundant bit where we're told "and this is an issue."

Description: Ever since you've gotten rid of the judicial system, you've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals, your ministers have been summoned to try and solve this issue.

Now let's get rid of the bit where we just recap that you've made a decision.

Description: Ever since you've gotten rid of the judicial system,you've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals, your ministers have been summoned to try and solve this issue.

So what are we left with?

Description: You've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals

To which I'd say no I haven't, because I abolished my court system. There's no criminal cases to bombard me with, because there's no courts. There's no appeals, because there's no courts.



Instead when you talk about policy reversals, try to think about situations that could arise as a consequence of that decision. Weave a story around that consequence, and have the option to reverse that policy be just one option to deal with that consequence, rather than being the only question in play.

My own take on a reversal attempt was this: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=455754

Feel free to use that as an exemplem of a reversal issue, and to think what other consequences might come from abolishing the courts: we can definitely have more than one reversal for a policy.

[Marxist Germany]

This opening here...

Description: Ever since you've gotten rid of the judicial system, you've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals, your ministers have been summoned to try and solve this issue.

...is a textbook example of how NOT to do a reversal issue.

Let's first take off the redundant bit where we're told "and this is an issue."

Description: Ever since you've gotten rid of the judicial system, you've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals, your ministers have been summoned to try and solve this issue.

Now let's get rid of the bit where we just recap that you've made a decision.

Description: Ever since you've gotten rid of the judicial system,you've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals, your ministers have been summoned to try and solve this issue.

So what are we left with?

Description: You've been bombarded with criminal cases and appeals

To which I'd say no I haven't, because I abolished my court system. There's no criminal cases to bombard me with, because there's no courts. There's no appeals, because there's no courts.



Instead when you talk about policy reversals, try to think about situations that could arise as a consequence of that decision. Weave a story around that consequence, and have the option to reverse that policy be just one option to deal with that consequence, rather than being the only question in play.

My own take on a reversal attempt was this: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=455754

Feel free to use that as an exemplem of a reversal issue, and to think what other consequences might come from abolishing the courts: we can definitely have more than one reversal for a policy.

Feedback has been taken into consideration

[Australian rePublic]

I'm confused. Is this issue about determining who's guilty and who's innocent? Because the description seems to suggest that, whilst the options suggest that you already know that they're guilty


Aslo, description. Who said that you, @@LEADER@@, banned courts? Who said that it wasn't one of your predecessors?

[Marxist Germany]

Complete redraft of the issue.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Description: @@CAPITAL@@'s streets have been blocked for the past couple of days as protests against the police deciding criminal sentences.

Sorry, this isn't much better.

Two things here.

First, you're still essentially saying that a decision was made and that people are unhappy with it. That's not a consequence issue.
I'll point to some recent examples of consequence issues to show you what they should look like.
1185 is an autarky reversal, but there's a new situation presented: former trading partners are suffering because they were dependent on trade with us.
1180 is a sacrifice reversal, but it's centred on the fact that all that sacrificing is diminishing the labour pool.
1174 is a state news reversal, with the new situation being that a school newspaper is breaking the rules, and we have to ask if that is a problem.
1159 describes that the ban on adultery combined with approval of polygamy has people just marrying whoever they want to have an affair with.
So essentially, the story is not the question "Do you want to change your mind?"
The story is that at some stage you made a decision, and this is what happened next.

Secondly, the no-courts policy doesn't necessarily mean the police are doing the sentencing. It just means there's no formal judiciary with the elements of judge, defence, prosecution, evidence and verbal debate.
There's 8 ways to activate this policy in the game, and they replace the system with a variety of approaches from public votes, to trial by ordeal, to lex talionis. There's no policies tracking each alternative system, rather the policy is defined solely by the absence of due process.

[Marxist Germany]

Description: @@CAPITAL@@'s streets have been blocked for the past couple of days as protests against the police deciding criminal sentences.

Sorry, this isn't much better.

Two things here.

First, you're still essentially saying that a decision was made and that people are unhappy with it. That's not a consequence issue.
I'll point to some recent examples of consequence issues to show you what they should look like.
1185 is an autarky reversal, but there's a new situation presented: former trading partners are suffering because they were dependent on trade with us.
1180 is a sacrifice reversal, but it's centred on the fact that all that sacrificing is diminishing the labour pool.
1174 is a state news reversal, with the new situation being that a school newspaper is breaking the rules, and we have to ask if that is a problem.
1159 describes that the ban on adultery combined with approval of polygamy has people just marrying whoever they want to have an affair with.
So essentially, the story is not the question "Do you want to change your mind?"
The story is that at some stage you made a decision, and this is what happened next.

Secondly, the no-courts policy doesn't necessarily mean the police are doing the sentencing. It just means there's no formal judiciary with the elements of judge, defence, prosecution, evidence and verbal debate.
There's 8 ways to activate this policy in the game, and they replace the system with a variety of approaches from public votes, to trial by ordeal, to lex talionis. There's no policies tracking each alternative system, rather the policy is defined solely by the absence of due process.

I'll try to improve on it

[Australian rePublic]

Option 1, wouldn't've your minister of justice advised to cut the courts?