User:Mozart/Miscellaneous policy amendments

Codification
Insert the following into the policies:


 * Codify all federal legislation into an administrative code, civil code, commercial code, criminal code and revenue code, and any specialist codes as necessary.

Rationale

The vast majority of the world has all of its laws in a handful of 'codes'. In the United States, all federal laws are contained in the United States Code, which lists provisions under subject-specific sections. The process of shifting toward such a system is called 'codification'. This approach is favoured across the world, from Continental Europe to Latin America, Asia to Africa.

The advantages of codification are transparency and accessibility: no more consulting thirty different pieces of legislation to work out what is an isn't illegal. As someone with a background in law, this is a nightmare even for those who have studied it. One example of this being done well is the Australian Consumer Law (formerly the Trade Practices Act), but perhaps the best is the corporations legislation which is now essentially just two pieces of legislation. A similar example is the Australian Criminal Code, which contains most — but for some reason, not all — federal crimes.

Separating laws into a limited number of categories allows them to be organised rationally within those categories, and for duplicated, superseded, contradictory and irrelevant laws to be removed. It follows that codification will greatly assist in leading toward a body of law that is simple, accessible, consistent, modern and certain.

Most countries divide their codes into major areas of law, typically criminal and civil, but specific codes are often used. Latin America in particular has a tendency to move from decodification to recodification: specialist legislation appears and is then eventually integrated into the existing codes. Examples include codes related to employment, intellectual property and consumer protection.

Abortion
Amend the Bill of Rights policy to read:


 * The right to control your body and health, including the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Rationale

Our policies imply this in a few places, namely the Bill of Rights policy and the health policy, but it's not stated stated anywhere explicitly. This is conceivably (no pun intended) a problem for us, as without clear mention of a key civil liberties (if not human rights) issue missing from our policies.

Abolition of juries
Juries have a very great responsibility in the Australian legal system. While the prosecution and defence argue their cases and the judge decides matters of law, it is up to the jury to determine which facts presented are true and ultimately whether a defendant is guilty. Despite having this enormous power over whether a person is convicted or acquitted, juries are neither transparent nor accountable.

Unlike judges, juries are not required to state their reasons. It is impossible to examine the deliberative processes which lead to a conviction or acquittal. In any given case it cannot be known what factors influenced the jury, whether their decision was based on some misapprehension, or even whether the decision was within the confines of the rules relating to juries.

Instances of juror misbehaviour are many, but cannot be quantified with certainty. [Add information]

The current practice of appointing judicial officers would be inappropriate if juries were abolished. Despite the doctrine of separation of powers, it is the Attorney-General who makes judicial appointments to Australia's federal courts (the Federal Court, Federal Circuit Court and Family Court) and appointments to the High Court are effectively made on the advice of the Attorney-General (who consults with state Attorneys-General).

Judges are appointed by the Executive Government to form the judiciary — what should be an abhorrent breach of the separation of powers. In addition, they are routinely appointed from experienced, senior lawyers, and, unsurprisingly, former Attorneys-General are prime candidates. A system in which one arm of government appoints members of another, supposed independent, arm of government is not ideal. It is also strange that experienced lawyers are appointed to judge cases presented by other lawyers, and that members of former executive governments can be appointed to the judiciary.

The solution is not novel, and is widely practiced in most European, Latin American, African and Asian legal systems. Australia should replace juries with a genuinely professional, independent judiciary.