mjec

… I want a systematic way of handling discipline. I don’t think we require - or can manage - the independent judiciary with formal representation of a national legal system, but I would like:

• well-defined rules - written if possible, including defences
• limits on executive power - immediate responses (or those without hearing) must be limited only to those necessary to maintain “peace, order and good governance” (or the like) and must not be punitive
• defined jurisdiction - it applies to everyone in the house, and to the immediate family when outside the house
• a judicial process - following at least some of the principles of natural justice including: impartiality of the presiding officer (so far as possible); the opportunity to confront an accuser; the opportunity to make pleas in mitigation; reasons for decisions; rules of evidence (e.g. at least hearsay, tendency and relevance) and requiring the discussion to be rationally focused at a time after the event in question
• fairness in punishment - whenever someone else within the jurisdiction (e.g. me) does something wrong, they are also punished
• public and private applications - any person can commence an action alleging a contravention of the rules by any other party; and any time I (or another person empowered to act in a judicial capacity, after training and affirming their allegiance to the rules) am aware of a breach of the rules I am required to initiate a hearing
• an appeals process - in particular a way to appeal against executive action as too harsh (with appropriate punishments), to appeal against convictions (where there is new evidence) and to appeal against punishments
• a training process - as children age, they can undertake the role of a judicial officer in disputes (where they are impartial), provided they have sufficient demonstrated understanding of how to do that