Northeast Assembly Thread

[Username MechaRFK]

Nay

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, I honestly don't know what to say my friend. I am rather honored that you hold me in such high esteem, although I do not think I am deserving. You are indeed a class act, never change.

[Free Palestine]

Nay

[tpfkaw]

Nay

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one, nays are five, and non-voting members one. abstentions are zero, and non-voting members: one.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Miscarraige of Justice Prevention Act

1. Jury instructions

Jury instructions in criminal cases with not-guilty pleas from this point on must include the following phrasing:

"Your job, as jurors, is to decide whether the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  This does not mean that you should always convict if you believe the defendant is probably guilty; it means that you should convict only if there is no reasonable possibility that the subject is innocent.  The legal system in the Northeast Region presumes that all defendants are innocent.  You must presume that the defendant in this case is innocent, and ascertain whether the evidence in this case proves the defendant guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt."

2. Conviction percentage as grounds for reward

The Attorney General's office, and the District Attorney's offices, may not use percentage of cases resulting in convictions as a criterion for either promotion or reward.  Violation of this law shall be considered a felony punishable by not less than 5 years in prison and/or a fine of not less than $500,000.

3. Police and government official testimony

Judges must instruct jurors that testimony from police officers or other government officials cannot be considered any more credible than testimony from any other person, as needed.

4. Lineup procedures

a. An officer administering a photo or live lineup array must not know which individual in the lineup is the suspect.

b. All individuals in a lineup must resemble the eyewitness's initial description of the perpetrator, including race, hair color, eye color, facial hair, etc.  The suspect should not be the only individual in the lineup with a certain obvious feature unless unavoidable (for example, a distinctive tattoo or scar).

c. Eyewitnesses may not be shown multiple lineups with the same suspect.

d. The person viewing a lineup must be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup and that the investigation will continue regardless of the lineup result. They must also be told not to look to the administrator for guidance.

e. Immediately following the lineup procedure, the eyewitness must provide a statement, in his or her own words, articulating his or her level of confidence in the identification.

f. All lineup procedures must be videotaped.

g. Lineups must be performed sequentially (the eyewitness views each individual one by one) rather than simultaneously (the eyewitness views all individuals in the lineup at once).

h. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to lineup procedures which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

5. Discredited forms of evidence

a. Discredited and pseudoscientific forms of evidence collection, including hair and fiber analysis, bite mark analysis, firearm mark analysis, shoe print comparison, polygraph examinations, and testimony obtained under hypnosis shall be considered inadmissable as evidence in a court of law.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to the discredited forms of evidence listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

6. Serology

a. Before expert testimony regarding serology (blood type analysis), the presiding Judge must instruct the jurors that the victim's and perpetrator's blood may have mixed, possibly yielding a false result as to the perpetrator's blood type, and that millions of different people in the Northeast Region share any given blood type.

b. Experts presenting serology may not provide the jury with statistics about percentages of the population which have certain blood types, given that this testimony has been frequently shown to be inaccurate and there are wide fluctuations in the prevalence of certain blood types between different races, ethnicities, and regions of the country.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to expert testimony involving serology which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

7. Interrogations

a. All interrogations of suspects must be videotaped.

b. Judges must instruct the jury in cases of juveniles or mentally retarded individuals that juveniles and mentally retarded individuals often do not understand their situation and are particularly likely to give false confessions.

c. Suspects who were convicted or pled guilty in substantial part due to interrogations which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

8. Informant testimony

a. Whenever testimony from a prison informant is used, the presiding Judge must instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges.

b. Prosecutors must reveal any incentive the informant receives, and all communication between prosecutors and informants must be videotaped.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to informant testimony which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

9. New use of DNA evidence

a. All persons convicted in cases where DNA evidence remains but was not presented in the original trial or an appeal are entitled to have DNA testing performed on said evidence.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part in a case where possible DNA evidence existed shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

c. Possible DNA evidence may not be destroyed.  Violation of this law shall be a misdemeanor punishable by not more than 1 year in prison and/or a fine of not more than $25,000.

10. Double jeopardy

a. A suspect must be charged with all charges relating to a specific offense at his or her original trial.  Suspects may not be brought up on new charges relating to the same defense unless prosecutors can reasonably show that they have found new evidence relating to these new charges since the initial trial.

b. Suspects may not be named in both a criminal and a civil suit relating to the same offense.

c. Suspects may not be charged with regional charges relating to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the Federal level.

d. Suspects may not be remanded into Federal custody to be charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.  Regional authorities may not assist Federal authorities in investigating or apprehending suspects already charged at the regional level.  Suspects must be placed into anonymous protective custody provided by the region at their request, if they reasonably believe they will be Federally charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.

[Napoleon]

Awesome.

[tpfkaw]

Thank you, speaker.

There have recently been a great deal of cases of people proven to be wrongfully convicted, thanks to the work of The Innocence Project and similar organizations.  Many of these convictions were based on discredited or faulty forms of evidence such as improperly-conducted lineup procedures, improperly obtained or biased testimony, or forms of forensic evidence portrayed in court as infallible but which are in fact extremely inaccurate.  This bill attempts to ban these poor practices from a court of law, in order so that juries can receive only credible witness and expert testimony.

There have also been attempts to undo certain foundational concepts of our legal system, particularly the banning of putting a suspect on trial twice for the same crime (double jeopardy).  If a man were accused of punching a police officer of a different ethnicity or gender, for example, he could be charged with assault, then assault as a hate crime, then assault of a police officer, then assault of a police officer as a hate crime, then resisting arrest, then breach of the peace, etc. etc. etc. until a charge sticks.  This, and other related practices such as pressing the same charges against a defendant in both regional and federal court, or both criminal and civil court, violate this fundamental civil liberty constitutionally guaranteed in the justice system.  This bill bans all of the double jeopardy practices under regional jurisdiction, and attempts to obstruct attempts by the Federal government to subject Northeast citizens to double jeopardy.

Many of the abuses mentioned above stem from one especially broken part of the justice system - the practive of determining the skill of a prosecutor by what percentage of cases he or she achieves convictions on.  This is, to use somewhat vulgar terminology, ass backwards.  A prosecutor's worth ought to be determined by what percentage of cases were correctly decided, not how many resulted in convictions.  The practice of determining a prosecutor's worth by how often they convict has caused unethical behavior to run rampant in the AG's and DAs' offices, and The Innocence Project among others often finds their cases obstructed by prosecutors even after obtaining incontrovertible DNA evidence exonerating their suspects, simply because the prosecutors do not want their conviction percentages to be reduced.  This is outrageous and must be stopped.  It is not the job of the prosecutor to obtain a conviction, but rather to impartially present the region's case to the jury, along with any evidence the region has collected, whether it helps or hinder's the region's case.  The prosecutor exists to help the court to find the correct verdict, not to bamboozle it into a potentially-inappropriate guilty one.  This bill bans the inappropriate practice of rewarding prosecutors based on how often they convict, and also requires jury instructions to include a clear explanation of the concept of presumption of innocence.

Awesome.

Thanks!

[Lambsbread]

Support!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I support this legislation, and I would like to offer two amendments.

Assuming these aren't illegal, already...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tpfkaw]

I'll accept those as friendly, though they would presumably already be law.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The amendments are adopted.

[Cincinnatus]

Excellent bill wormy, I really wish you would introduce these more often.  I particularly like Section 2, and Section 7a.  This bill has my support, and if I can think of anything to add, I'll let you know.

I'll accept those as friendly, though they would presumably already be law.

Entrapment and bribery, yes.  Though, if Scott wants it in, it won't really have much consequence either way I would imagine.

 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I thank the assemblyman from Massachusetts for the most detailed piece of legislation that's come to my attention in my term. This will definitely be signed on my desk.

[Free Palestine]

I support this bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Miscarraige of Justice Prevention Act

1. Jury instructions

Jury instructions in criminal cases with not-guilty pleas from this point on must include the following phrasing:

"Your job, as jurors, is to decide whether the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  This does not mean that you should always convict if you believe the defendant is probably guilty; it means that you should convict only if there is no reasonable possibility that the subject is innocent.  The legal system in the Northeast Region presumes that all defendants are innocent.  You must presume that the defendant in this case is innocent, and ascertain whether the evidence in this case proves the defendant guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt."

2. Conviction percentage as grounds for reward

The Attorney General's office, and the District Attorney's offices, may not use percentage of cases resulting in convictions as a criterion for either promotion or reward.  Violation of this law shall be considered a felony punishable by not less than 5 years in prison and/or a fine of not less than $500,000.

3. Police and government official testimony

Judges must instruct jurors that testimony from police officers or other government officials cannot be considered any more credible than testimony from any other person, as needed.

4. Lineup procedures

a. An officer administering a photo or live lineup array must not know which individual in the lineup is the suspect.

b. All individuals in a lineup must resemble the eyewitness's initial description of the perpetrator, including race, hair color, eye color, facial hair, etc.  The suspect should not be the only individual in the lineup with a certain obvious feature unless unavoidable (for example, a distinctive tattoo or scar).

c. Eyewitnesses may not be shown multiple lineups with the same suspect.

d. The person viewing a lineup must be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup and that the investigation will continue regardless of the lineup result. They must also be told not to look to the administrator for guidance.

e. Immediately following the lineup procedure, the eyewitness must provide a statement, in his or her own words, articulating his or her level of confidence in the identification.

f. All lineup procedures must be videotaped.

g. Lineups must be performed sequentially (the eyewitness views each individual one by one) rather than simultaneously (the eyewitness views all individuals in the lineup at once).

h. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to lineup procedures which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

5. Discredited forms of evidence

a. Discredited and pseudoscientific forms of evidence collection, including hair and fiber analysis, bite mark analysis, firearm mark analysis, shoe print comparison, polygraph examinations, and testimony obtained under hypnosis shall be considered inadmissable as evidence in a court of law.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to the discredited forms of evidence listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

6. Serology

a. Before expert testimony regarding serology (blood type analysis), the presiding Judge must instruct the jurors that the victim's and perpetrator's blood may have mixed, possibly yielding a false result as to the perpetrator's blood type, and that millions of different people in the Northeast Region share any given blood type.

b. Experts presenting serology may not provide the jury with statistics about percentages of the population which have certain blood types, given that this testimony has been frequently shown to be inaccurate and there are wide fluctuations in the prevalence of certain blood types between different races, ethnicities, and regions of the country.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to expert testimony involving serology which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

7. Interrogations

a. All interrogations of suspects must be videotaped.

b. Judges must instruct the jury in cases of juveniles or mentally retarded individuals that juveniles and mentally retarded individuals often do not understand their situation and are particularly likely to give false confessions.

c. Suspects who were convicted or pled guilty in substantial part due to interrogations which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

8. Informant testimony

a. Whenever testimony from a prison informant is used, the presiding Judge must instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges.

b. Prosecutors must reveal any incentive the informant receives, and all communication between prosecutors and informants must be videotaped.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to informant testimony which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

9. New use of DNA evidence

a. All persons convicted in cases where DNA evidence remains but was not presented in the original trial or an appeal are entitled to have DNA testing performed on said evidence.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part in a case where possible DNA evidence existed shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

c. Possible DNA evidence may not be destroyed.  Violation of this law shall be a misdemeanor punishable by not more than 1 year in prison and/or a fine of not more than $25,000.

10. Double jeopardy

a. A suspect must be charged with all charges relating to a specific offense at his or her original trial.  Suspects may not be brought up on new charges relating to the same defense unless prosecutors can reasonably show that they have found new evidence relating to these new charges since the initial trial.

b. Suspects may not be named in both a criminal and a civil suit relating to the same offense.

c. Suspects may not be charged with regional charges relating to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the Federal level.

d. Suspects may not be remanded into Federal custody to be charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.  Regional authorities may not assist Federal authorities in investigating or apprehending suspects already charged at the regional level.  Suspects must be placed into anonymous protective custody provided by the region at their request, if they reasonably believe they will be Federally charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.

11. Entrapment

a. Public officials may not coerce a person to commit a crime that they would have otherwise been unlikely to admit.

b. Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution will be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that he was entrapped as an affirmative defense.

12. Bribery

a. Gifts may not be bestowed to police officers or government officials to influence their charge in the act of a public or legal duty.  Gifts include money, goods, property, objects of value, advantages, or privileges.

b. Public officials may not request or solicit for bribes in legal cases.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[tpfkaw]

Aye.

[Lambsbread]

I guess I'm still a member until January

Aye.

[Cincinnatus]

I guess I'm still a member until January

Until after this weeks election.

Aye.

[Free Palestine]

AYE

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[Username MechaRFK]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Voting time has expired.  The ayes are seven and nays are zero.  The bill is passed.

Shall I bring up another bill, or is this it until next session?

[Cincinnatus]

You should be able to bring up one more if you do it right about now.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by myself.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Mountaintop Removal Ban Act

A BILL to preserve the environment and public health by banning the removal of summits or summit ridges of mountains

1. The Northeast Assembly hereby acknowledges:

• That mountaintop removal is considered an 'extreme form' of mining
• That mountaintop removal hurts biodiversity
• That mountaintop removal reduces workers
• That mountaintop removal is a threat to the public health

2. The Northeast government shall not distribute any permits to coal-mining industries that desire to mine through the means of mountaintop removal.

3. Mining industries that partake in this practice will be fined at a maximum of $250,000.  The final amount shall be determined in a court of law.