NationStates Jolt Archive

I have an idea for an issue and I'd like comments and refinement suggestions so it will get accepted - I submitted it once before but it was apparently rejected - I think the idea is sound and would make a good issue though so Mods, players, issue editors, etc. - help me write this the correct way so it gets in. Here goes.
********************************************
Should The Jury System Be Reformed?

After a much publicized trial in which a man who claimed to have seen two toddlers on their tricycles collide with each other was awarded ten million @@currency@@ for his "near accident stress syndrome," a debate has arisen in @@name@@ over the composition of juries and how they award damages.

1. "Look," says Mega-Claim Insurance Company Underwriter, @@randomname@@, "a jury is a 12 headed schizophrenic animal made up of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. If they're not smart enough to get out of jury duty, they're not smart enough to be on a jury. Only people with a college education should serve on a jury. That'll take care of stupid claims like this."

2. "I almost agree" says famed history professor, @@randomname@@. "However, historically, juries were only made up of land owning, college educated, males. I suggest we return to these basics. Then we'll get some real justice."

3. "I can't believe what I'm hearing." says famous trial lawyer, @@randomname@@, of the Dewey, Cheatum and Howe law firm. "The idea of a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of our society. To diminish that right in any way is to cheat truth and justice. In fact, the right should be expanded to include even trivial pursuits. Sure it will cost a little more, but what is money compared to justice?

4. "The problem" says noted defense attorney, Howardly Billings, of Rippem, Hoff & Quick, "is the psycho-babble people can sue for. How can we expect people to 'just get over it' if they know they can get money if they don't? I say we just ban all claims for so-called psychological damages.”

5. "Pssst" says your sister's veterinarian's uncle's wife's best friend, @@randomname@@ "why do we need juries at all? Just appoint judges that will rule in whatever way you tell them is right. You know what's fair. That will save everyone time and @@currency@@."

How would nations' factors be affected by each choice? And cousin-in-law is a little unoriginal....how bout something more extreme, like "your neighbour's dog's veterinarian's secretary's pen-pal's teacher's daughter..."

Option three seems like it would have the same net effect of dismissing the issue, and probably should be edited or deated. You could give juries replace judges entirely or something like that if you're trying to give them more influence :)

How would nations' factors be affected by each choice? And cousin-in-law is a little unoriginal....how bout something more extreme, like "your neighbour's dog's veterinarian's secretary's pen-pal's teacher's daughter..."

Changed.

As to choices affects on factors:
1. decrease civil rights
2. decrease civil rights and political freedoms
3. Increase civil rights and taxes
4. decrecrease civil rights and taxes
5. decrecease civil rights, political freedoms and taxes

Option three seems like it would have the same net effect of dismissing the issue, and probably should be edited or deated. You could give juries replace judges entirely or something like that if you're trying to give them more influence :)

You're right and I've changed it.