IDS 1: Sentancing Reform Act of 2014 (Signed)

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Maxwell

[Maxwell]

I am against Tough on Crime measures, and this bill repeals that old statute.

[Oak Hills]

Here is the measure we are talking about repealing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it passed and was signed into law, why is it still referred to as a "bill"?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Then-Emperor PiT and the Legislature worked pretty hard to get a decent bill on this passed.  I'm going to need some persuading on why it shouldn't remain law.

[Maxwell]

I think things that deserve life in prison should get life in prison, not the third felony. I looked at the thread and it seemed like a decent negotiation but I feel like we shouldn't move backwards in reforming our justice system.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think things that deserve life in prison should get life in prison, not the third felony. I looked at the thread and it seemed like a decent negotiation but I feel like we shouldn't move backwards in reforming our justice system.

     The point that I was making was that some folks will keep committing the same crimes given the opportunity, and we should do something to clamp down on recidivism. I suppose there are other, less aggressive ways to do that, such as scaling up sentences for prior felonies.

[Dereich]

Is it? Sure, the common usage where there is a mandatory sentence after the third strike is atrocious, but I don't see why giving courts more discretion to give higher sentences on the third strike on a case-by-case basis is a bad thing unless you think that imprisoning people in general is a bad thing and something we should avoid.

[Maxwell]

I think the crime is the crime, and jumping to life for a violent crime, even if the person in question has committed two previous crimes is wrong unless that crime deserved a life sentence.

PiT said something I think may be a compromise - allowing the option for higher sentences in those cases instead of life

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This might be a good chance to ask what you guys think of Norway's sentencing laws.  It's quite different from our system in that it sets 21 years for the maximum penalty with renewal every 5 years.  People who absolutely cannot be reformed would effectively serve for life, but absent cases of domestic terrorism, that would be uncommon.  It would obviously be difficult to predict the effectiveness of a law like that in our region, because Norway is quite different from the IDS in many ways, but it's something that should be on the table.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Bump...

[Maxwell]

I'll make updates on this bill tomorrow in the form of some amendments.

[Maxwell]

I amend to replace the current text with this new text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

In addition, I will go through the IDS crime legislation and seeing what else we can change/do differently.

[Maxwell]

What does this body think about limiting the number of crimes that judges are allowed to give Life in Prison to?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What crimes that are eligible for life imprisonment do you feel should not be?

[Maxwell]

Basically anything but Murder, but I'd be willing to negotiate the rest of you.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically anything but Murder, but I'd be willing to negotiate the rest of you.

You don't think that rape or continued child molestation warrant life?  I'm pretty sure those two and murder are the only things that can get you life, the latter only being so if it's persistent - which is a stretch.

[Maxwell]

There are definitely more in US law, but I am going to go through and check federal law to be sure.

And I'd be willing to say murder could be life without parole, and the other two could be up to life with parole under extreme circumstances.

[Maxwell]

I looked into it, and the Prison Reform Act did not go into life sentence stuff. As a result, going by the U.S. standard, and basically murder, rape, child abuse, espionage, treason, vandalism, extreme fraud, and robbery resulting in death.

[Dereich]

I'm thinking there should be another bill on crime and punishment later in the session; I want to introduce a day fine plan and we could discuss this more then.

[Donerail]

I like Norway's system - if we truly aim for our prisons to be rehabilitative, we should aim to release prisoners whenever we judge them to be rehabilitated after they've done whatever punishment is just for their crimes. I'd support moving us to that system.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Maxwell, would you support an amendment I'd propose to repeal the Three Strikes Bill and implement a Norwegian-style sentencing law?

[Maxwell]

I'd be open to that, cause it sounds interesting, provided that there are limits to how long one can be sentenced under the system. There is a line between rehabilitation and punishment we must follow.

[Donerail]

I'd be open to that, cause it sounds interesting, provided that there are limits to how long one can be sentenced under the system. There is a line between rehabilitation and punishment we must follow.

I believe the way the system works is having a maximum prison term of 20 years, which can be extended indefinitely in 5-year increments so long as the offender is determined to still be a threat to society.

[Maxwell]

I'd be open to that, cause it sounds interesting, provided that there are limits to how long one can be sentenced under the system. There is a line between rehabilitation and punishment we must follow.

I believe the way the system works is having a maximum prison term of 20 years, which can be extended indefinitely in 5-year increments so long as the offender is determined to still be a threat to society.

Okay, well, then I support that. I was wondering about crimes that are less than the worst crimes, if there is still an increment system (like someone getting five years for robbery or something).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'd be open to that, cause it sounds interesting, provided that there are limits to how long one can be sentenced under the system. There is a line between rehabilitation and punishment we must follow.

I believe the way the system works is having a maximum prison term of 20 years, which can be extended indefinitely in 5-year increments so long as the offender is determined to still be a threat to society.

21 years.  But yes, that's how it works.  However, I'm not sure whether this should be the rule in all cases.  People like Anders Breivik, for example, are unlikely to ever get out of prison due to the magnitude of their crimes but there is still a window of possibility.  On the other hand, there will be errors in this new system just as there are in all others, but I do not want any changes to our law to serve as a signal for criminals or would-be criminals that we're taking a more lenient approach to crime.  I also believe that acts of domestic terrorism should be subject to far higher penalties than those of murder or rape by default.

Then again, the United States traditionally prosecutes those accused of domestic terrorism in federal court regardless of where they're committed; such is why the perpetrator of the Boston Bombings is eligible for the death penalty even though the state of Massachusetts outlawed it.  So, if the crime is severe enough, Atlasia's AG could offer to take the case to federal court.

I'm kind of just thinking out loud here.  I'll propose the amendment this evening if no one has any other thoughts.