Osiris Fraternal Order

This discussion revolves around the Pschent, their responsibilities, and their procedures. Currently, we only have one Elder. Below is the State Code section on the Pschent as well as links below to acts involving procedures. We also need to remember that the Scribe of Justice plays a role in judicial as well.

I understand that this topic doesn't have too much focus, so I first want to hear what we have to say about the current situation and then go off of that.

Should Elders be elected?
Should Elders be given more consistent responsibility?
How can the Scribe of Justice be better utilized?
Does the current structure need to be changed?

[Section 4: Pschent of Osiris]⁶

1. The Pschent will be the judicial council of Osiris, comprised of three Elders of the Pschent appointed by the Pharaoh with the approval of the Deshret. Elders of the Pschent will not serve as Pharaoh, Vizier, or Keeper of the Deshret for the duration of their service on the Pschent.

[(a) Only citizens of Osiris may be appointed to the Pschent.

(b) Elders may maintain active involvement in Priesthoods of the Hedjet and may serve as Councilors of the Deshret while serving as Elders.]¹

(c) Provision for temporary appointments may be made by law for absences of Elders, vacancies in the Pschent, or conflicts of interest.

2. The Pschent will have the power to make and revise its own procedural rules. This power may be exercised by any two Elders, if there are fewer than two Elders this power may be exercised by a single Elder.

3. The Pschent will have the power to nullify any law or portion of law that contradicts this Code, and to order the cessation of any government action that violates this Code or the laws of Osiris. The Pschent may only exercise this power if petitioned to do so by an affected citizen of Osiris.

4. The Pschent will have the power to hear prosecution of alleged criminal offenses by the Scribe of Justice or their deputy, to decide guilt or the lack of it, and to determine penalties for guilty parties according to the standards established by law.

5. Decisions by the Pschent amount to interpretation of the law, and those decisions and interpretation are binding on the Pschent and all government bodies and officials.

6. Decisions of the Pschent shall be made in accordance with this Code, other laws and the rules of the Pschent.

Elder Datford said:

The Deshret has provided for the sentences to be determined by the Pschent and has given the Scribe of Seshat, or Priests of Seshat acting for the Scribe, authority to recommend sentences in respect of particular cases. Despite this, however, I have considered that it may be in the interest of the Deshret to produce some sort of guidelines or standards for sentencing or to create some mechanism to do so (it is perhaps the case that the Scribe and Priests of Seshat could do so autonomously and informally, and use them to help determine the sentences they recommend, in the event that the Deshret does not think it appropriate to do so itself). I should say, if this idea is pursued, I will likely avoid giving opinion as to what I think is a correct sentence in any given scenario, so as to avoid the risk of prejudicing future cases (though I do think such risk minor).

Links to acts involving the Pschent
Pschent Reform Act
Criminal Codex of the Osiris Fraternal Order Act

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmShould Elders be elected?

I don't think this would resolve many of the problems we've had, but it would likely create some new problems, including politicization of the judiciary. We did have elected judges during the Kemetic Republic of Osiris, and some of the former judges have openly admitted they pre-decided verdicts before charges were even filed because the verdicts were "common sense" -- which, to me, means the verdicts were popular and what those judges believed were best for the community regardless of what the law said, not necessarily that they were correct from a legal perspective.

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmShould Elders be given more consistent responsibility?

I'm not sure they should be given additional responsibilities, but if this question is in reference to sentencing guidelines, I do think that would be a good idea provided we allow enough flexibility that they remain guidelines and not the mandatory minimum sentencing we had before that we voted to eliminate.

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmHow can the Scribe of Justice be better utilized?

Well, I think there are a few things we should change about the Scribe of Justice to ensure greater independence from the executive. The close association with the executive hasn't been a problem yet, but it's a problem waiting to happen if we end up with a corrupt executive that's bending or breaking the laws. My suggested reforms are as follows:

1. We should rename the position and make it its own office. I would suggest "Advocate of the Deshret."
2. The office should still be appointed by the Pharaoh, like Elders, with Deshret confirmation.
3. The office should be excluded from holding other offices, again, like Elders.
4. The office should be subject to re-appointment and re-confirmation every six months.
5. The office should only be subject to recall by the Deshret, not removal by the Pharaoh.
6. The office should be included in the State Code section on the judiciary, not the executive section.

An alternative to this is not having a permanent Advocate, and instead having the Advocate only appointed when a case is accepted by the Pschent and dismissed as soon as the case concludes. The obvious drawbacks to this is that the Pharaoh could politicize the appointment of an Advocate based on the nature and subject of a particular case, and judicial action would be delayed while a nomination is made, considered, and voted on. This is not my preferred system for those reasons, but it is an option.

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmDoes the current structure need to be changed?

We've persistently had some difficulty filling the three positions on the Pschent, so I do think it's worth considering a change. The change I would suggest is to only have the Chief Elder serve permanently and initially decide cases. We could maintain a pool of citizens nominated by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret who could serve as stand-by Elders who would be eligible to hear appeals, but who would only serve in the event that the Chief Elder's ruling is appealed. They would only be Elders for the duration of an appeal and would not be excluded from holding other offices. The pool from which we draw Elders would be larger than the number of Elders needed to hear an appeal, so that if one person has a conflict of interest in any given case we can move on to the next person in the pool.

Admittedly, this system is derived from the system in the South Pacific, and some will probably balk at adopting any system used in the South Pacific. I would argue that it is not so much the system that was problematic in TSP as it was the person serving as their Permanent Justice. I think this system would work quite well with, for example, Datford serving as the Chief Elder.

Another reform I would suggest in tandem with this one is making both the Chief Elder and the pool of stand-by Elders subject to re-appointment and re-confirmation every six months, as I've suggested for the Advocate.

I would be willing to write all of this up into an amendment draft if we find these reforms agreeable. I don't have much interest in drafting the sentencing guidelines, though, so if someone else would like to tackle that, that would be great.

We've operated with Datford being the only Elder on the Court before, and we had no issues. The Court just isn't used as much, as stacking with three people who can't hold any office for an unknown duration of time just isn't appealing to most recruitable people.

I was also thinking that creating a Public Advocate type position that is elected at large to serve as a Public Defender/Community watch dog would do us some good.

I agree with Cormac regarding, somewhat, an elected Judiciary and greater responsibility to the Elders. And I support Cormac's ideas on the SoJ and Chief Elder, especially the safe-guards. Good touch.

Also, just to put it out there: while its good to be cautious and careful, who actually thinks that should we have an elected judiciary, or any other opening, there will be politicization and manipulation?

Andrew wrote:Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:05 amI agree with Cormac regarding, somewhat, an elected Judiciary and greater responsibility to the Elders. And I support Cormac's ideas on the SoJ and Chief Elder, especially the safe-guards. Good touch.

Also, just to put it out there: while its good to be cautious and careful, who actually thinks that should we have an elected judiciary, or any other opening, there will be politicization and manipulation?

I'm not sure that there would be, and I would like to believe it wouldn't happen. But my approach to legislating -- particularly in Osiris, but to some degree anywhere that I've been involved in legislating -- has always been to look for exploitable weaknesses in the law and eliminate those wherever possible, without being so cautious that it hinders activity and growth. There does have to be a balance, because you don't want to play it so safe that regional government is no longer interesting.

In the case of the judiciary, it's so rarely used in Osiris that I don't think there would be all that much interest in running for the office if it were an elected office anyway, so I think going the cautious route in this case doesn't hinder activity or growth. I'm open to hearing points to the contrary though.

Should Elders be elected?

I agree with Cormac's statement regarding making the Pschent an elective office. I am more inclined to maintain the traditional set up of having the Pharaoh appoint members to the Court, subject to the confirmation of the Pschent.

Does the current structure need to be changed?

I am in support of having a separate office responsible for the prosecution of cases before the Court, which would be independent of the Pharaoh and the Pschent. Making it an elective one is sensible.

Does the current structure need to be changed?

The system does need tweaking, and the fact that we are now left with an incomplete court behooves us to address the situation at the soonest possible time.

The State Code allows us to remedy this situation:

"(c) Provision for temporary appointments may be made by law for absences of Elders, vacancies in the Pschent, or conflicts of interest."

Unfortunately however, the Deshret has not enacted any law governing temporary vacancies in the Court.

Which leaves us with two options, in my view. Either:

1.) Maintain the current system, and fill the court to the constitutionally prescribed number of 3 members. Then let us enact a law that will govern vacancies

2.) Change the Code to accommodate whatever we should decide eventually on the new structure (for example Cormac's suggestion.)

Personally I favor option number 2, as ultimately a change in the structure will necessitate amending the Code. But in so far as the set up is concerned, I prefer maintaining what we have at the moment, 3 Elder, although with fixed terms, say 3 or 4 months.

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmShould Elders be elected?

I suppose it's some sort of curse, every time I set foot in Osiris, this question comes up. Absolutely not. Politicizing the judiciary is never a good idea, and if we make it an elected office, prospective Elders will have to campaign. If they have to campaign, they have to promise things, and people will expect them to deliver on it. But they should decide every case on its merits and its merits alone, not following some sort of agenda. And they shouldn't have to worry about how a decision might affect their chances for reelection.

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmShould Elders be given more consistent responsibility?

I'm not sure they should be given additional responsibilities, but if this question is in reference to sentencing guidelines, I do think that would be a good idea provided we allow enough flexibility that they remain guidelines and not the mandatory minimum sentencing we had before that we voted to eliminate.

If it's in reference to sentencing guidelines, I'm against that, too. Either it's guidelines, then we might as well not set any, because the Elders have every freedom to simply ignore them. Or we'll make it a mandatory thing, then it's not a "guideline". That doesn't even work in RL (e.g. United States v. Booker, SC said sentencing guidelines are ew and the only standard that's really applicable is reasonableness). If we really want to regulate it, the only practical way is to set minimum and maximum sentences for every single offense, like we did in You-know-where. I've drafted that particular Criminal Code, it's not fun, the result is somewhat inflexible, and if no regulations at all works here - which seems to be the case - I'd just leave things as they are.

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmHow can the Scribe of Justice be better utilized?

Well, I think there are a few things we should change about the Scribe of Justice to ensure greater independence from the executive. The close association with the executive hasn't been a problem yet, but it's a problem waiting to happen if we end up with a corrupt executive that's bending or breaking the laws. My suggested reforms are as follows:

1. We should rename the position and make it its own office. I would suggest "Advocate of the Deshret."
2. The office should still be appointed by the Pharaoh, like Elders, with Deshret confirmation.
3. The office should be excluded from holding other offices, again, like Elders.
4. The office should be subject to re-appointment and re-confirmation every six months.
5. The office should only be subject to recall by the Deshret, not removal by the Pharaoh.
6. The office should be included in the State Code section on the judiciary, not the executive section.

An alternative to this is not having a permanent Advocate, and instead having the Advocate only appointed when a case is accepted by the Pschent and dismissed as soon as the case concludes. The obvious drawbacks to this is that the Pharaoh could politicize the appointment of an Advocate based on the nature and subject of a particular case, and judicial action would be delayed while a nomination is made, considered, and voted on. This is not my preferred system for those reasons, but it is an option.

Frankly, I dislike almost all of those suggestions, it's unnecessary tampering with the State Code. If it ain't broke... and if we have a corrupt executive, the Scribe of Seshat would be the least of our concerns. Also, it doesn't go to utilization, which was the question. I'd like to have more to do, but if the judiciary isn't too busy, neither is the Scribe of Seshat. The only fix I can see would be additional duties unconnected to the justice system - but I don't have any ideas on that, or I'd already have tried to usurp them. But structurally, we already have the best possible option. Also, what I said about Elders applies to the Scribe of Seshat as well. That office is supposed to be neutral and professional and therefore unelected.

Jakker wrote:Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:13 pmDoes the current structure need to be changed?

We've persistently had some difficulty filling the three positions on the Pschent, so I do think it's worth considering a change. The change I would suggest is to only have the Chief Elder serve permanently and initially decide cases. We could maintain a pool of citizens nominated by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret who could serve as stand-by Elders who would be eligible to hear appeals, but who would only serve in the event that the Chief Elder's ruling is appealed. They would only be Elders for the duration of an appeal and would not be excluded from holding other offices. The pool from which we draw Elders would be larger than the number of Elders needed to hear an appeal, so that if one person has a conflict of interest in any given case we can move on to the next person in the pool.

I'm foreseeing a ton of conflicts of interest, and TSP is hardly a reference for a proper judiciary. But I think it might work here, and I'd vote to give it a try if an amendment to that effect was proposed.

tl;dr
Strongly opposed to elected Elders
Opposed to sentencing guidelines
Strongly opposed to structural changes regarding the Scribe of Seshat
Moderately in favor of a judiciary reform to switch to a stand-by-Elder system

Rogamark wrote:Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:00 pmI suppose it's some sort of curse, every time I set foot in Osiris, this question comes up. Absolutely not. Politicizing the judiciary is never a good idea, and if we make it an elected office, prospective Elders will have to campaign. If they have to campaign, they have to promise things, and people will expect them to deliver on it. But they should decide every case on its merits and its merits alone, not following some sort of agenda. And they shouldn't have to worry about how a decision might affect their chances for reelection.

All of this is on point.

Rogamark wrote:Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:00 pmIf it's in reference to sentencing guidelines, I'm against that, too. Either it's guidelines, then we might as well not set any, because the Elders have every freedom to simply ignore them. Or we'll make it a mandatory thing, then it's not a "guideline". That doesn't even work in RL (e.g. United States v. Booker, SC said sentencing guidelines are ew and the only standard that's really applicable is reasonableness). If we really want to regulate it, the only practical way is to set minimum and maximum sentences for every single offense, like we did in You-know-where. I've drafted that particular Criminal Code, it's not fun, the result is somewhat inflexible, and if no regulations at all works here - which seems to be the case - I'd just leave things as they are.

For what it's worth, I basically agree with this. I would rather have the Pschent deciding on a case by case basis, because every case is different and what seems appropriate for one case may not seem appropriate for another, even if it's the same basic crime committed. We've usually had a good group of smart and fair people on the Pschent, whom I trust to make sound decisions. The only problem has been keeping them on the proverbial bench!

The reason this has come up, though, is because Elder Datford noted that sentencing guidelines would be helpful to the Pschent, so I would like to hear from him.

Rogamark wrote:Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:00 pmFrankly, I dislike almost all of those suggestions, it's unnecessary tampering with the State Code. If it ain't broke... and if we have a corrupt executive, the Scribe of Seshat would be the least of our concerns. Also, it doesn't go to utilization, which was the question. I'd like to have more to do, but if the judiciary isn't too busy, neither is the Scribe of Seshat. The only fix I can see would be additional duties unconnected to the justice system - but I don't have any ideas on that, or I'd already have tried to usurp them. But structurally, we already have the best possible option. Also, what I said about Elders applies to the Scribe of Seshat as well. That office is supposed to be neutral and professional and therefore unelected.

Other than the system not being broken (yet), which I don't think is really the greatest argument not to reform it, could you explain why you're against the reforms I've suggested? A persuasive case against them might sway me, but just saying that the system isn't broken isn't going to have much impact on my view. I agree that it isn't broken yet, but I don't believe in waiting for problems to happen when we can foresee them and fix them in advance, so for me personally I really need to hear why these changes would be a bad idea.

I'm not sure why you've brought up election, unless you've misread my proposal. I'm advocating Pharaoh nomination with Deshret confirmation, which is also how Elders are currently appointed, and then removal only by the Deshret, which is also the only way Elders can be removed. This is designed to make the office more neutral and professional, as it would be less attached to the Pharaoh -- like Elders.

Rogamark wrote:Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:00 pmI'm foreseeing a ton of conflicts of interest, and TSP is hardly a reference for a proper judiciary. But I think it might work here, and I'd vote to give it a try if an amendment to that effect was proposed.

Huzzah, agreement!

Should Elders be elected?

\
No, i don't see our current system of appointing Elders as in need of remodeling and this could potentially open up room for new problems.

Should Elders be given more consistent responsibility?

I'm in agreement with Rogamark on this one, so no.

How can the Scribe of Justice be better utilized?

I'm also in agreement with Rogamark here, i don't see any new way which could improve the way we utilize the Scribe of Justice. I'll keep this in mind, though. Perhaps i'm able to find something.

Does the current structure need to be changed?

I'm open to new ideas but generally see no need for significant changes in that area.

I think, and I have in the past suggested, that the Pschent ought to be reformed (indeed, one of the reforms I pushed was its wholesale abolition).

Answering the questions put by the Keeper; I would say that the Pschent ought not be an elected organ for the reasons that have been given by others; I would say that while in terms of drawing prospective Elders, granting greater and more consistent responsibility may be helpful, I struggle to think of what such responsibility could be, without extending the role of the Pschent in a manner that, I suspect, most Councillors would regard as contrary to the conventional place of the judiciary; with respect to the Scribe of Seshat, I agree with the present such Scribe that said office tends to suffer inactivity in the same way that the Pschent does and that the solution would extend its role beyond the scope of a conventional justice portfolio (though I think that there is perhaps wider scope for the office to be utilised than there is for the Pschent, in offering advisory opinions for example, where the Pschent requires standing for questions to be brought, however, they largely depend on there being wider public interest in the laws than there presently is, or, I imagine, is likely to be, unfortunately); with respect to the structure I do think, as aforementioned, that it is probably the case that a change is for the best, if only to endeavour towards the Pschent being more consistently a fully populated body.

I would not be opposed to the idea of separating the Scribe of Seshat more effectively from the rest of the executive in the manner outlined by Guardian Cormac.

On the matter of guidelines, which was my original suggestion in respect of this, I do feel that it is appropriate for the Deshret to seek to have an amount of say over what sentences are given by the Pschent. I think any guidelines given ought to be broad and should address whether there are any particular factors that the Deshret feels should impact sentences and in what general way the Deshret feels they should impact them; whether the Deshret wishes for guilty pleas to generally mitigate sentences, for instance, or whether the nature or scale of a given instance of off-site property destruction would be relevant in one direction or another. This could be done, perhaps, by including a brief list of mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in sentencing, or it could be done by requiring the Scribe of Seshat to produce and use some guidelines in recommending a sentence to the Pschent.

Part of the reasoning as to why I brought the suggestion to the Deshret is because I think it may be the case in some areas that what the Pschent thinks to be a proper factor and how a factor ought to impact sentence (in terms of extent, moreso than direction) may not accord with what the Deshret thinks and that sentencing should be able to reflect the community's values and that guidelines would assist such reflection. I do not think that they are inherently improper (perhaps because I am from a country that does use them RL) and I do not think they need necessarily be rigid. However, if the Deshret chooses not to take action in this area it is, of course, free to so choose and that will be just as proper.