[Proposal] Court Reform Amendment (June 2020)

[Domais]

Court Reform Amendment (June 2020)
 
Proposed by: @Domais

Section 1. Amendment of the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus

(1) The relevant section of Article V. of the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus as currently written, reads:

[Table][cell]

(8) Should the Court confirm by two-thirds vote that the person has committed a criminal offence after a Criminal Review, they may compel the Delegate to impose upon the person a punishment permitted by law, including revocation of citizenship, restriction of ability to vote and/or hold office, ejection and/or banishment from Lazarus and other measures. The Assembly may overturn or reduce such punishments by three-quarters vote.

[/cell][/table]

(2) The amended section of Article V. of the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus shall read:

[Table][cell]

(8) Should the Court confirm by two-thirds vote that the person has committed a criminal offence after a Criminal Review, they may compel the Delegate to impose upon the person a punishment permitted by law, including revocation of citizenship, restriction of ability to vote and/or hold office, ejection and/or banishment from Lazarus and other measures. The Assembly may overturn or reduce such punishments by three-quarters vote and no vote cast by a current member of the court nor a vote cast by a person who was a member of the court at any time during the course of the relevant Criminal Review shall be counted.

[/cell][/table]

[Killer Kitty]

Makes sense to me. The Court makes the sentencing, it's up to the Assembly to make the decision if they want to reduce the punishment. Seems fair and removes accusations of conflicts of interest.

Support.

[McChimp]

Opposed to for the same reasons I expressed before.

Whereas a motion to remove a Justice is an appraisal of the Justice themself, a motion to reduce or remove a sentence is an appraisal of the sentence and the sentence alone. There is therefore no conflict of interest that justifies stripping the Justices of voting rights in this manner.

Even if there were a conflict of interest, Lazarus is typically lax with those who retain their voting rights. Our Speaker, for example, retains his right to vote-thereby being partial-because he is trusted to count the votes impartially. If citizens cannot extend that trust to our Justices then in order to be consistent other offices will no doubt find themselves losing these rights.

[Domais]

So does the Speaking in TNP, there is an obvious conflict of interest when you can vote on a scrutiny of your own judgement.

[Wymondham]

My sole question is, will Domais attempt to bring another motion to reduce Vedan's punishment if this passes?

[Domais]

Maybe in a few months.

[Domais]

I motion to vote

[Debussy]

Can you change the title to something like "Court Reform Amendment (June 2020)".

[Domais]

Done

[Killer Kitty]

I second the motion.