The purposes of the investigative process are to:

1. Identify any necessary steps to protect the parties and community,
2. Find out what took place,
3. Determine the harm that resulted,
4. Find out who was involved,
5. Characterize what took place, [see my question, below]
6. Secure the presence of the accused, and
7. Determine the willingness of the parties to cooperate in a deliberative process.

The investigative process is organized to ensure that the investigation is not conducted from an adversarial posture (e.g., when the purpose of the investigation is to collect enough evidence to charge a suspect). Instead, its purpose is to identify the affected parties, the harm that resulted and the steps to be taken to address that harm. This means that the investigation is more inquisitorial like the inquisitorial process used in some European countries and in coroners’ or legislative inquiries.

A highly significant structural difference in RJ City is that the judiciary rather than prosecutors directs those who conduct the investigation. Those responsible for the overall investigation are called magistrates. There is one chief magistrate for each police district. The chief magistrate supervises the magistrates in the district as well as the investigating officers. There is no limit on the number of magistrates that there may be; this is based on need.

The judiciary oversees investigations for the sake of neutrality; it does not serve the objectives of the prosecution in traditional adversary proceedings. The magistrates overseeing the investigation are charged with ensuring that procedures are fair.

Most cases are investigated by investigating officers under guidelines established by the chief magistrate and with only general oversight of a magistrate. For serious or complicated cases, magistrates will exercise more direct oversight and involvement in the investigation. If a suspect or a victim wishes to hire an attorney to participate in the investigation, they may do so. All evidence that these attorneys uncover is to be presented to the magistrate, together with their arguments about the significance of the evidence. This applies as well to private investigators, psychologists, physicians and other experts that suspects or victims choose to hire.

When the case has been fully investigated, the magistrate is responsible for issuing a written report on what took place, who was involved, whether it was a crime, the harm that has resulted, and proposed steps that might be taken to address that harm. They also secure the presence of the accused and take any further steps necessary to protect the parties and the community.

The parties who were identified by the magistrate as victims or suspects have 30 days in which to decide whether to accept or object to the proposed steps. If the victims object, the chief magistrate reviews the case (or another magistrate if the chief magistrate conducted the original investigation). This person may investigate further, change all or portions of the determination, or agree with the previous determination. If the victim is still dissatisfied with the outcome, their recourse is to civil courts for a lawsuit against the accused offender. The victim has no further avenue for appealing the magistrate’s determination. If suspects object to the determination, the case is sent to the adjudicative process. If neither party objects, the case is sent to the cooperative process.