courts and judges

DeathByTheSword · August 23, 2002, 13:50

i allready had a thread of this SOME where but with some recent discussions i think we could just start an new one. DO we need an imparcial court with imparcial judges to handle empeachments and wrongdoings in our demogame????

there was first the idea to have two directors and ten citizen that wanted to impeach someone. with this someone everybody was thinking of the commissioner but also a director can be empeached and i dont think that it is fair that an other director has to start the empeachment progress. first i was against a court because i dont think we can get enough people for everthing. but I would like to know what you all think. and not only for empeachment but also for other matters

Juliennew · August 23, 2002, 16:12

Do we really need a court and judges ?
But if we really need to create an impeachment procedure, anyone could make a poll for an impeachment but 66% of the total number of citizens must vote "YES" to take effect. With this, we will ensure that political parties won't have too much power to take profit of this procedure. But I don't think we should create courts and judges, our administration is already big. And look : The elections are very soon while we already don't know the exact portfolios of the Directors and the constitution isn't finalized yet.

DeathByTheSword · August 23, 2002, 16:20

yes ofcourse will everthing take awhile. but i dont like the idea of every starting the empeachement progress like that....look that director made a joke about me lets empeach him! NOT funny so i think there is something about it all. i could always be put in the constitution later on. but i would like to start discussion about. I am not saying I am agianst it or for it. because yes we have a big administration but we need a FAIR system here....

Juliennew · August 23, 2002, 16:29

Quote:

look that director made a joke about me lets empeach him!

I don't think we are silly people to make that.
And the 66% absolute majority is here to make it harder.

DeathByTheSword · August 23, 2002, 16:37

ofcourse i agree upon the 66% but an independent body to start an empeachment an looks at complains from anyone is handy

Epistax · August 23, 2002, 21:52

In the c3dg we had a provision for impeaching long before a court. I don't remember the % required, but I believe anyone could bring the poll.

But you really should wait on making a court unless you have an influx of people with too much free time.

Darkness' Edge · August 23, 2002, 23:55

i think you're probably right, epistax...

DeathByTheSword · August 24, 2002, 02:55

agreeing here

Pandemoniak · August 24, 2002, 08:58

I keep thinking we need a court, because if anyone can start a poll for empeachment without arguments, it can be passed even with the %age needed. For example : according to the votes for First Commissioner where Crisler has been elected, it would be very easy to impeach him, since he actually got about 35-40% votes. But there's no real reasons to start an impeachment, just political moves. An impartial Court would start an impeachment procedure, by itslef or by request from citizens, when he thinks its appropriated. The only role of that court would be to decide if the impeachment can be legally decided, but only a large majority of citizens can allow this impeachment.

And we actually only need ONE person for that court.

Method · August 24, 2002, 11:25

hmm, that makes sense pandemoniak. small court just to thwart unnecessary empeachments?

Darkness' Edge · August 24, 2002, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
I keep thinking we need a court, because if anyone can start a poll for empeachment without arguments, it can be passed even with the %age needed. For example : according to the votes for First Commissioner where Crisler has been elected, it would be very easy to impeach him, since he actually got about 35-40% votes. But there's no real reasons to start an impeachment, just political moves. An impartial Court would start an impeachment procedure, by itslef or by request from citizens, when he thinks its appropriated. The only role of that court would be to decide if the impeachment can be legally decided, but only a large majority of citizens can allow this impeachment.

And we actually only need ONE person for that court.

I disagree on both points here.

So, 60% of the people at the elections voted for either DBTS or myself. It's very, very unlikely that they would all hate Crisler (or any future Commissioner with only 40% of the total vote) so much they would vote to impeach him. Hell, I'd definitely vote against impeachment under those circumstances - and I was his opponent.

Secondly, I think that if we do need a court (which I'm not convinced of), then we should go the whole hog, and appoint 3-5 justices. One is open to abuses of power, and bias.

Pandemoniak · August 25, 2002, 07:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
So, 60% of the people at the elections voted for either DBTS or myself. It's very, very unlikely that they would all hate Crisler (or any future Commissioner with only 40% of the total vote) so much they would vote to impeach him. Hell, I'd definitely vote against impeachment under those circumstances - and I was his opponent.

Darkness, that was just an example. My point was just to say that we can start an impeachment for just *any* reason, it must have constitutional reasons, and the court is there to judge if it s constitutional or not, because we cant just keep posting and polling to say if something is constitutional or not, I think its far better to have someone who is appointed for that.

Quote:

Secondly, I think that if we do need a court (which I'm not convinced of), then we should go the whole hog, and appoint 3-5 justices. One is open to abuses of power, and bias.

Maybe 3-5 persons is better than having just one judge, but this judge could also be our moderator for the SMAC-DG, so we dont need 3-5 persons, and we cant fing 3-5 persons, and we cant give moderator powers to 3-5 persons.
And remember : the Court is independant of parties, powers, etc...

Anodyne · August 25, 2002, 08:36

Now, what would then be the actual consequences of a succesful impeachment vote?
Forced resignation would be the first to come to my mind.

Pandemoniak · August 25, 2002, 09:09

Well, yeah... Forced resignation, new elections, possible penal sentences (temporary ban from the DG) or maybe we could make a democracy trial ? THAT would be very funny... But very difficult to handle...

Anodyne · August 25, 2002, 09:32

I'm not sure how easy would bans from the DG be to handle... but stains on one's reputations also work as a "penalty"

DeathByTheSword · August 25, 2002, 13:04

yes resignation is enough but the idea of a court seems fun and democratic and if someone can get it of the ground i am all for it. but right now.....

Anodyne · August 25, 2002, 13:08

I don't see court as necessary. In fact, I'd say it might even be unfavourable. (referring to the points posted before)