A Tribunal Alternative - Trial by Jury

**Gaius Baltar** · July 22, 2007, 04:08 PM

Before possibly moving this proposal into the Prothalamus, I wanted to get some reactions and feedback.

In general, the idea will replace the current Tribunal System with a Trial by Jury system. This would involve presentation of the case to the recruited Jury of 5 Civitates, overseen by the Tribunal Judge.

The Jury would determine guilt or innocence, and suggest a penalty, the choices of which would be given to them by the Tribunal Judge.

Feedback???

**imb39** · July 22, 2007, 04:10 PM

No. Quite simply, no. I wouldn't even try to pursue it, it will only get vetoed.

**Ragabash** · July 22, 2007, 08:17 PM

imb39.

It's still worth of a discussion, don't eliminate the idea before points from both side are made.

**Fabolous** · July 22, 2007, 08:40 PM

Ugh no. This proposal is not one I would ever support. Its aims are not ones I could possibly agree with, and there is no way I could support moderation actions being thrown to the unprepared Citizen's like that.

**Simetrical** · July 22, 2007, 08:45 PM

Do feel free to discuss this and present a Curial Decision if you're so inclined. It will, however, absolutely and without question be vetoed if you propose it as an amendment, and not implemented if you propose it as a decision. So you may want to spend your time elsewhere.

**Garbarsardar** · July 23, 2007, 01:57 AM

I will comment on this proposal if some proper reasoning is presented together with a workable system. Presently it is at the stage of "let's paint everything yellow for no particular reason"....

**sapi** · July 23, 2007, 03:47 AM

Absolutely not.

Unless, of course, you want to see impartiality and objectivity walk right out the door with the current batch of judges...

**Tacticalwithdrawal** · July 23, 2007, 04:08 AM

The reason I'd opposethis is that a jury system would result in huge dramas, favouritism and judgements being applied because of who the individual is rather than the merits of the case. I know this would happen as it is exactly what happens when ostrakons take place, emotion gets involved and high profile 'popular' individuals get away with things that they really shouldn't.

In addition, it would mean that the whole process would take longer, not just the cases themselves but the whole circus of electing juries etc.

So, if you want the Tribunal to go back to being an 'event', entertainment even, then this is the route to take (and, that may actually be what people want). But in the past the Tribunal being seen as entertainment has caused a lot of annoyance and disquiet.

So, for me personally, I'd rather keep it the way it is.

**Shaun** · July 23, 2007, 05:42 AM

THe jury bit I can understand, but not sentancing. We have set penalties in place, and when the new ToS comes into play, the penalties will be dead clear.
As Garb says, there is no reasoning presented for this idea. Why do you want it, Gauis? Just for the sake of democracy? TWC is not a democracy, imb is kind enough as it is to allow for a Tribunal.

**Hotspur** · July 24, 2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tacticalwithdrawal

The reason I'd opposethis is that a jury system would result in huge dramas, favouritism and judgements being applied because of who the individual is rather than the merits of the case. I know this would happen as it is exactly what happens when ostrakons take place, emotion gets involved and high profile 'popular' individuals get away with things that they really shouldn't.

In addition, it would mean that the whole process would take longer, not just the cases themselves but the whole circus of electing juries etc.

So, if you want the Tribunal to go back to being an 'event', entertainment even, then this is the route to take (and, that may actually be what people want). But in the past the Tribunal being seen as entertainment has caused a lot of annoyance and disquiet.

So, for me personally, I'd rather keep it the way it is.

What he said.

**the Black Prince** · July 24, 2007, 04:27 PM

oh my gods no

what tac said

**Scorch** · July 25, 2007, 01:02 AM

Why on earth would a jury of several randomly picked members suggest a penalty? That would require them to review every case. That's insane.

**Jubal_Barca** · July 25, 2007, 05:39 AM

This has some merits, a halfway house might be better, with 5 tribunal judges chosen by the current systme, two of whom must be senatorii or wahtever like it is at the moment and three of whom may be chosen by the other two form the wider curia?

I don't really agree with this, but I do think that having a few normal civs doing the trib might be an idea...

**Scorch** · July 25, 2007, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Jubal_Barca

This has some merits, a halfway house might be better, with 5 tribunal judges chosen by the current systme, two of whom must be senatorii or wahtever like it is at the moment and three of whom may be chosen by the other two form the wider curia?

I don't really agree with this, but I do think that having a few normal civs doing the trib might be an idea...

Possibly, but really, moderating experience is a must. It helps in creating valid interpretations of the ToS.