Posts: 261
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2018
My full support. We have been struggling to find active judges for ages since time immemorial (meaning as long as I can remember). I think this would certainly help.
Posts: 454
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2018
Seems fair enough.
Are you going to format it like other amendments?
Posts: 192
Threads: 31
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation:
0
The way TSP does it is that the Chief Justice is firewalled, but the other justices aren't. I feel like that'd be a model that could work well here, though I'd be supportive of this change as-is as well.
The Principality of Demonos stands AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons;
1) Serving in a dual capacity as a Justice and any other appointed or executive position allows for a conflict of interest between the Executive and Judiciary powers of Lazarus. This would give the holder of the double office greater power and influence over decisions that single holder officers would not have. The very concept that an officer of LazCorp can serve in such a dual role ideally and unethically doubles their power. Abuse of power will not be a question of 'what if' ,but, a 'when will it' undoubtedly occur.
2) The idea of an independent judiciary would be lost with this move. Separation between the interests of the executive and/or legislative powers from the judiciary is a core value of any social contract. Should the separation of the judiciary from other mechanisms of Lazarus government be lost than so will the concept of an unbiased and objective judiciary.
3) A precedent would be established to further abolish one-person-one-office policies. This move to abridge the mandate would only serve as reason for future moves to abolish such single holder policies for other positions should active participation from shareholders come at lows.
4) This move signals to shareholders that the judiciary is to be held by the executive and any suits brought before the court would be subject to executive favor. How could any rendered judgement be seen as fair when the interests of the executive or legislative power of Lazarus taints the judgement? Most shareholders than would believe that the decision was made because "thats what the board wants..." or "its because they're juiced in with the board...". That is the very definition of corruption.
Our recommendation is to appoint some damn Justices already instead of coveting that power for yourselves!
Posts: 261
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2018
Demonos;10034 Wrote:Our recommendation is to appoint some damn Justices already instead of coveting that power for yourselves!
That’s the exact problem. We don’t have many people. Our departments already struggle with finding enough recruits as it is. Currently, no one holding office in a government branch can serve as judge, but should this bill pass, it would open up the ability to be a judge while serving in a minor office. Big things, such as Prime Minister, Delegate and Speaker, are still excluded from this.
@JoWhatup
With all due respect, you can not fix a problem by creating another problem in its wake. Even KK admits that there would be a conflict of interest by stating, "...while still minimizing [emphasis added] the risk of a conflict of interest." Minimizing the risk is not an elimination of it. This is a corrupt proposal prima facie.
You fail to convince us that this proposal;
a) maintains the concept of an independent, unbiased, objective judiciary.
b) wouldn't act as a precedent for further double office changes to the mandate
c) is ethical
It is unfortunate, but you must appoint other people to the judiciary that do not hold office in either the Assembly, the Cabinet, or the Council of Lazarene Security. Recruiting from those branches further gives privileged information to a Justice that she/he would not be privy to should they have been separate from that branch. The threat of having privileged information may aid or hinder prosecution or defense leading to an unfair, unethical, and unjust trial. At that point, why have a judiciary? The problem isn't that you can't find anyone. The problem is that you can not find anyone that you trust aligns completely with all of your beliefs. Do not use the excuse of "qualifications" either. A Justice should sit en banc during trial anyway, three heads are better than one and way better qualified than how the courts have been currently running i.e. outside mandated judicial procedure. (No offense to Wymondham whose opinions I highly respect and who has labored greatly in the name of justice). It isn't like the assembly can't remove them anyway should their performance be counter to justice.
