+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: [Proposal] Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) (/showthread.php?tid=223)
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - McChimp - 08-30-2018
Cormac;2993 Wrote:I misread and didn't realize this doesn't amend Article II, Section 6 of Mandate 12, so my apologies for that. I don't understand the point of this amendment though -- why would the Delegate ever want to use this process instead of the simpler process in Section 6, and why would we ever want the Delegate to use this process when the simpler and less drama-filled process could be used? I don't understand why there is interest in a criminal code or criminal court at all.
It is my opinion that the CLS ought to be confined as much as possible to matters regarding the mechanical security of the region. It's significance ought to be its ability to respond legally and rapidly to threats to the twelfth mandate.
On the other hand, there are less critical offences that it would be nice to see handled in a more democratic institution should the delegate decide on a case by case basis that that is an appropriate route to take.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - Sheepshape - 09-04-2018
McChimp;3002 Wrote:Cormac;2993 Wrote:I misread and didn't realize this doesn't amend Article II, Section 6 of Mandate 12, so my apologies for that. I don't understand the point of this amendment though -- why would the Delegate ever want to use this process instead of the simpler process in Section 6, and why would we ever want the Delegate to use this process when the simpler and less drama-filled process could be used? I don't understand why there is interest in a criminal code or criminal court at all.
It is my opinion that the CLS ought to be confined as much as possible to matters regarding the mechanical security of the region. It's significance ought to be its ability to respond legally and rapidly to threats to the twelfth mandate.
On the other hand, there are less critical offences that it would be nice to see handled in a more democratic institution should the delegate decide on a case by case basis that that is an appropriate route to take.
Yes, I think I agree with this take. When the only use of the delegate's power to remove someone is defined as "regional security", you end up with an incentive to craft ridiculous justifications in order to meet that standard... or you ignore it and ban people just because you think they deserve it. I think someone can both not pose a threat to regional security and yet still deserve to be banned (or some lesser punishment).
And I think the court is generally the right body to make a determination of (il)legality - its whole purpose is to understand and interpret the law as best it can. Especially since justices serve life terms rather than being elected every few months, I think the court is probably better positioned to consider a matter impartially.
I would suggest rephrasing in the following way:
Quote:(8) The Delegate may impose a punishment on a person if the Court confirms by majority vote that that person has committed a criminal offense. Punishments should be proportionate to the crime that was committed, and may include, but are not limited to, revocation of citizenship, ejection and/or banishment from the region or forum of Lazarus, and restrictions on the person's ability to vote or hold office. The Assembly may overturn or reduce such punishments by three-quarters vote. The accused individual must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. Specific procedures for initiating a Court review will be defined by law.
I changed some of the wording around a bit for increased clarity, and added in a note about proportionality. I also gave the Assembly the power to reduce rather than simply overturn punishments; if the delegate imposes a ban of 12 months and the Assembly thinks 6 months is more appropriate, I don't want it to only be able to overturn the punishment in whole - that would probably prevent a number of people from voting in favor, since they wouldn't want to see the person not be punished at all.
I also took out the requirement that the Court present a report - I think what the court has to do is better determined by law, not by mandate, since it's more subject to change as we explore this approach. And I also clarified that regular law will address how one of these gets started, since we might want only the delegate to be able to initiate it, or we might want any citizen to be able to do so.
Also I think we will need to amend the section that deals with the Court itself, since right now that power of review is not granted to it. I suggest this:
Quote:(7) The Court may conduct Criminal Reviews to determine if an individual has broken any laws in Lazarus.
I do have some other changes in the pipeline for the court section; we're not quite ready to roll them out (want to get everything that needs done written first, and presented as a package). But I think this addition would suffice for now.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - Cormac - 09-04-2018
I'm not fond of the idea of the Court conducting criminal reviews without a petitioner. That would allow the Court to investigate someone for criminal wrongdoing on a whim, which just increases the likelihood of corruption and abuse of power down the road.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - Sheepshape - 09-05-2018
Cormac;3152 Wrote:I'm not fond of the idea of the Court conducting criminal reviews without a petitioner. That would allow the Court to investigate someone for criminal wrongdoing on a whim, which just increases the likelihood of corruption and abuse of power down the road.
I agree, and I'm envisioning that being described in regular law rather than mandatical amendment.
One of the parts of my planned court amendment involves actually explicitly prohibiting the court from exercising any of its powers without someone first bringing a case to it, which I think will take care of that. The specifics of who can bring what kind of case can then be handled with a regular law.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-05-2018
The proposed changes, additions and clarifications have been included. Hopefully I have managed to maintain the mandate's format, too.
If the court intends to legislate regarding who can levy which charges, I do not intend to impede them by contradicting them within the mandate. The mandate would now make clear that they can establish their criminal procedures through law.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - TempestShadow - 09-05-2018
If I'm reading correctly, the given list of punishments is assumed to be non-exhaustive, and can be presumed to be listing general [i]maximum[i] punishments, yes?
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-05-2018
TempestShadow;3170 Wrote:If I'm reading correctly, the given list of punishments is assumed to be non-exhaustive, and can be presumed to be listing general maximum punishments, yes?
The purpose of the given list of punishments is to confirm explicitly that such extreme lengths are available. It follows approximately the same format as the existing subsection Cormac thought I was changing. In reality, the harshness of punishments is specified by a criminal code like the one that's also on the table at the moment.
I cannot imagine any IC offence so great that those given would prove insufficient.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - TempestShadow - 09-05-2018
McChimp;3172 Wrote:TempestShadow;3170 Wrote:If I'm reading correctly, the given list of punishments is assumed to be non-exhaustive, and can be presumed to be listing general maximum punishments, yes?
The purpose of the given list of punishments is to confirm explicitly that such extreme lengths are available. It follows approximately the same format as the existing subsection Cormac thought I was changing. In reality, the harshness of punishments is specified by a criminal code like the one that's also on the table at the moment.
I cannot imagine any IC offence so great that those given would prove insufficient.
I wasn't suggesting that we have greater punishments, I just wanted to be sure that was the intention (what you basically said) of the stuff as written.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-05-2018
TempestShadow;3173 Wrote:I wasn't suggesting that we have greater punishments, I just wanted to be sure that was the intention (what you basically said) of the stuff as written.
Basically, yes.
RE: Criminal Powers Amendment (September 2018) - McChimp - 09-08-2018
Alright, I think this has probably had long enough now and people don't seem to be discussing it much anymore.
I motion to vote.