Criminal Justice (Reform) Act

[Oakvale]

Can I just point out that with the existence of pardon power lifetime bans are merely an expression of severe legal condemnation - a President will sooner or later pardon someone granted such a ban.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In terms of the repeated mention of "It already being done in current law", would no this "compilation" of existing law with noted revisions, be a perfect time to address problems with current law?

The entire purpose of this bill is to address problems in existing criminal law. The principle problem is that it is a procedural disaster. The process of existing criminal law is so bad that it needs to be entirely replaced: and that is what this bill does. It replaces a confused mess that, with respect, is so confused that even most members of this august body are clearly unfamiliar with its workings, with something that is simple, straightforward and clear. Defendants will know their rights (which would be greatly enhanced!), Prosecutors will know when not to bother, and Judges will have workable guidelines. Everyone would benefit.

Other matters - the exact length of sentences and so on - are less important and I have no particular objection to the Senate making changes on such matters as seem appropriate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your meaning here is obscure. On first glance it appears to be an argument in favour of institutional inertia, but I don't think that's what you mean? Clarification please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean intentionally disruptive behavior that does not involve posting pornographic material (which is already banned). ToS by the back door, essentially. But, again, this is a minor matter for me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This is criminal law and not tort. Not that that wouldn't be an interesting project for the future...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well if you don't have a maximum sentence then the maximum sentence by default is always life.

My belief is that, if left to their own devices, the Judiciary will design their own detailed sentencing guidelines and that as these would be informal they could be a good deal more sensitive to what is appropriate than can be put into law (i.e. in practice they could have minimum sentences, something that the Constitution prohibits being written into statute). Which means that all that needs to be done in terms of statue is lay down the absolute maximum.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can I just point out that with the existence of pardon power lifetime bans are merely an expression of severe legal condemnation - a President will sooner or later pardon someone granted such a ban.

This is correct.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The other issue with acts of treason is that it's completely arbitrary as to whether they're real or not. We've had plenty of fake revolutions and insurrections over the years, but no one was tried for treason afaik until last year when Cranberry decided to make their actions real as SoIA. We need to tread carefully with things like that.

An excellent point, but unfortunately there's no way of incorporating it into the law.

[Lief 🗽]

I commend the Attorney General for the work he's put into this, and I agree with him that the current system is a "procedural disaster", as he aptly put it. I agree with some of my fellows Senators as well that some of the punishments (even if they are merely restatements of the current law) are much too severe and lengthy; hopefully we can do something about that before this bill is signed into law.

I also don't see the need for an obscenity law. That can be enforced by moderators of the website, but I don't know why we need to devote the resources of the Atlasian federal legal system to putting away people who post naughty pictures. I offer an amendment to strike Section 2(A)(5).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The other issue with acts of treason is that it's completely arbitrary as to whether they're real or not. We've had plenty of fake revolutions and insurrections over the years, but no one was tried for treason afaik until last year when Cranberry decided to make their actions real as SoIA. We need to tread carefully with things like that.

I think 2 years is generally a good maximum sentence for these things however.

I would prefer a differential between treason and the other offenses. So maybe 2 years for treason and 1 year for everything else?

[bore]

Again, it's important that we remember that maximum sentences should be for the very very worst conceivable crimes, and I think it's not at all stretching the imagination to think of crimes that are worthy of more than 1 and 2 years respectively.

[Talleyrand]

Well, I do concede that point, but 5 years is pretty much a lifetime sentence in a game like this, and I think it should be alright if we can cap it at that.

Again, I'm always wary of the whole treason thing. Obviously we cannot make it legal, but the issue arises that what constitutes treason is simply just how one or two people choose to interpret actions which the posters themselves consider jokes. Al has stated there's no way of incorporating this in the law, which might very well be the case, but I don't support lifetime sentences for every person who posts "omg rebellion" and makes a couple of joke posts about shooting people (which in essence is all that Snowstalker and whoever else was involved in our 'civil war' last year did). If every GM had treated those posts seriously, countless respected individuals in Atlasia would have gone on trial for treason.

Is there any way we can make a bill that defines what constitutes treason in terms of gameplay? It should be things that tangibly damage the game I think.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Introduced by Al

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Senator Cris]

Why removing point 5?

[Lief 🗽]

I don't see the need for the federal government of Atlasia to go around prosecuting people for posting naughty pictures.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Posting naughty pictures is also a violation of the TOS. Unless it material affects the gameplay (sock to vote in an election), then there isn't much reason to duplicate the TOS.

Again, it's important that we remember that maximum sentences should be for the very very worst conceivable crimes, and I think it's not at all stretching the imagination to think of crimes that are worthy of more than 1 and 2 years respectively.

What crime in a game is worty of being banned from said game for longer than two years?

[Senator Cris]

I object to the amendment.

[bore]

Posting naughty pictures is also a violation of the TOS. Unless it material affects the gameplay (sock to vote in an election), then there isn't much reason to duplicate the TOS.

Again, it's important that we remember that maximum sentences should be for the very very worst conceivable crimes, and I think it's not at all stretching the imagination to think of crimes that are worthy of more than 1 and 2 years respectively.

What crime in a game is worty of being banned from said game for longer than two years?

A sirnick style deleting everything, vandalising all the important wiki pages, persistent electoral fraud, an especially egregious smearing campaign....

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This thread has been daunting me for a while. I know sitting here and hashing everything out is probably a two hour job, so I'll try and do it in the coming days. I'll go through on my own and record my thoughts point by point, then I'll try and jump in the debate once I have a better understanding.

Apologies, but this is a big one! And I'd rather jump in once I've given it the time rather than just half ass it. Al put in too much work for me to disrespect the process like that.

[Lief 🗽]

Posting naughty pictures is also a violation of the TOS. Unless it material affects the gameplay (sock to vote in an election), then there isn't much reason to duplicate the TOS.

Yes, this as well. Ultimately I believe it makes more sense for the forum administration to deal with these sorts of things. The other crimes in this list materially affect the process of the game; posting a naughty picture does not.

[Talleyrand]

For the rebellion clause, can we clarify that the individual in question must be in some position of power? It's one thing if a governor orders the national guard to take up arms against the feds, and a totally different thing if some person posts a joke thread about "muh rebellion".

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but I feel pretty strongly about it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Posting naughty pictures is also a violation of the TOS. Unless it material affects the gameplay (sock to vote in an election), then there isn't much reason to duplicate the TOS.

Again, it's important that we remember that maximum sentences should be for the very very worst conceivable crimes, and I think it's not at all stretching the imagination to think of crimes that are worthy of more than 1 and 2 years respectively.

What crime in a game is worty of being banned from said game for longer than two years?

A sirnick style deleting everything, vandalising all the important wiki pages, persistent electoral fraud, an especially egregious smearing campaign....

What sentence would you assign to Sirnick?

He could be sentenced up to the maximum for each crime committed if multiple, remember. Is smeering illegal in this game?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am far more a historian than an attorney. Therefore some of the finer aspects are beyond my knowledge, but I can lay out a general guidepost to approaching something based off what I would consider a suitable understanding of relevant philosophical notions and the legal approaches that best implement them. Attornies by nature revel in ambiguity, it is better for the business model.

My priority when approaching this is 1) Avoidance of arbitrary law as much as possible, 2) that the penalties should not exceed the crime and 3) the best way practical to obtain those two goals.

If you assign a maximum that is high, you are by necessary increasing the range of options by which a judge and jury can punish a crime. That then entails some form of criteria to determine what and who deserves each incremental layer of punishment. I do have faith in the system, but I am also a realist and prejudice does exist in mutltiple facets, even here in this game. There should be a range to in fact ensure the punishment fits the crime, but the range should not be excessive lest it form an invitation to differential justice.

Of course in real life we have seen mandatory minimums produce disapproportionate rulings against minorities. However, if you go back before mandatory minimums, you run into a similar result occuring as a result of the lattitude given to courts and juries.

Setting a minimum is a bad idea, but also setting an excessive maximum can produce the same through a different way. Everyone hates sirnick, his crimes were excessive. However at some time punishment fitting the crime stops and inequal justice by way of retributive justice commences.

[bore]

I would say, for something as disruptive as deleting months and months of a legislatures work the sentence should be 5 years to life. No one has a right to play atlasia and we're not committing any great sin by depriving them of it. There are plenty of other government and election sims on the internet.

Besides, the president's pardon power means that if someone committing a sirnick crime was to come back and be genuinely repentant and try and undo the damage they did they'd eventually get pardoned.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would say, for something as disruptive as deleting months and months of a legislatures work the sentence should be 5 years to life. No one has a right to play atlasia and we're not committing any great sin by depriving them of it. There are plenty of other government and election sims on the internet.

Besides, the president's pardon power means that if someone committing a sirnick crime was to come back and be genuinely repentant and try and undo the damage they did they'd eventually get pardoned.

I agree, that we should not let stuff be brushed aside, but on the other hand it is still a game at the end of the day and at some point the years get excesive. If you want a lifetime ban, why not just explicitly include such?

As for the pardon power, it serves a critical role but I am leary of using it as a key failsafe against excessive penalties.

[bore]

When it comes to sentences, hard as it may be to see from this thread, I'm pretty liberally minded. Most of the time we should punish crimes fairly leniently and in the vast majority of cases the sentence should be under a year or at most 2. That said, I think it's important to have a much longer sentence in our arsenal for the rare cases which merit it.

[TNF]

Given that an objection has been offered to the above amendment, a vote is now open on it. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Lief 🗽]

AYE