FionaK |
|
| Thanks for those thoughts, Vninect. Couple of questions:
1. You don't have juries in your criminal justice system? I was completely unware of that and I would very much like to hear more about how it works. Is it an inquisitorial system? That is probably for another thread though: perhaps we can make one to discuss criminal justice because although I think it is an important issue for this thread the composition of the system probably needs quite a lot of explanation first.
2. If you believe skills are required then what are they? Do you mean that under any new system skills should be required. And again, if you do, what are they?
3. I don't understand what you mean about buying members of parliament? Obvioiusly in a random selection system it could not happen before the appointment. So you must mean after? From my point of view such a system is at least less vulnerable to that than what we currently have: because the politicians only serve one term there is little time to "build a relationship" in the subtle ways that such corruption would normally require: there is little certainty that the person approached would not immediately shout it from the rooftops and name names: the certainty that the person would return to their old life after their term is up makes some safeguard too: though I recognise that it is practically difficult to enforce that I don't think it is impossible. So what is the danger you see here?
4. I have not given your final proposal much thought: but my first reaction is unease. The allocation of resources is in some ways necessarily competitive. It might be very beneficial for each "faction" to fight exclusively for their own sphere of interest, but in the end rationing has to occur and so I think it important that there is some way of gettng an overview. Secondly I think there is more scope for corruption in this system for there are fewer to target in each interest. Not saying it does not have advantages and they might outweigh the downside: just haven't though of this before. ]
I don't think there is a reason it should be limited to the national level: but as I said, I am trying to start from where we are now. But I do think it very strongly has to be across all aspects and groups in society. That is what it means to have equal influence: we can't exclude anybody at all. Though that might not be what you mean?
|
| | |
