Ed Murphy wrote: >So long as appeals are handled by sets of three, they're going to be >sui generis no matter what you call them.
What is sui generis (that I'm talking about) in your system and in the pre-reform system is the framework governing appeals. Under the current system, judicial panels can in principle be used for other types of case as well. All it requires is a statement in the Power=1.7 rule that defines the case type, as R911 does in its third paragraph. All the mechanics of panels are located in a single rule which is not specific to a case type. Panels plug into the mechanics of the rest of the judicial system (assignment, recusal, judge's obligations) without making any exception to the Power=2 framework. It's modular, and that makes the system more understandable and maintainable even if the module is only invoked in one place. >already pointed out how the old system (under which the individual >significance of an individual action could be determined immediately) >is simpler than the new (in which it cannot be determined until the >panel acts); That's a design change to require panels to decide collectively rather than voting. It's only an issue to you because you insist on tracking the panel's internal deliberations, in a holdover from the prior vote-based system. You're only having difficulty with it because you're expecting it to work exactly the same as the old system. If you want to go back to panel members submitting individual opinions and voting, that's a legitimate subject for legislation. You can do it all within rule 2157, without affecting the way panels interact with the rest of the system. See, modularity. I'd vote against, though, because I prefer the collective decision-making model. Maybe it wants tweaking, but I'd like to keep it collective. >the concept of partial continuity (deliberately choosing a panel with >some members in common with the previous one). That's a policy that you've followed but generally I didn't, and I see no reason to legislate it. (I may have appeared to work that way, but that was because in several cases there were only four eligible panel members.) Nor do I see any reason to represent the CotC's internal deliberation in the case file. >existing concept of panels existing independently of cases is confusing. Say what? People exist independently of cases, and we don't get confused about them being assigned (or not) as judges. >Redeveloping the database is not in the cards. In that case you shouldn't be relying on it to generate accurate reports. It's patently unfit for purpose. And it's not like you *need* a structured database: I did the job for, what, five months?, using no technology more complicated than flat ASCII text files. > I may also switch to a policy of either supporting >majority opinions pre-emptively, I would consider that a bad use of the CotC's power. > or assigning completely new panels when >the members of the old panel fail to request such support. I'm neutral on this. -zefram
