Criminal Justice (Reform) Act

[TNF]

Aye

[Blair]

ayee

[Boston Bread]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

AYE (4) - Lief, Cris, Yankee, TNF
NAY (1) - Talleyrand
VOTED AYE, BUT TOO LATE (2) - New Canadaland, Blair
Not Voting (3)- Polnut, Turkisblau, Hagrid

Yankee's amendment has passed.


Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment I sponsored on Bore's behalf.

[Talleyrand]

Bore's amendment has been adopted.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My apologies all for missing the vote - I more than likely would have abstained on it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn, Hey, I tried to get on last night, twice. On my old machine which proceeded to jam and on my newer one, which for some reason wouldn't load past the icons on the top of the screen.


Not sure if I would have objected or not, but I am not fully satisfied on this section yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Talleyrand]

Senators have 24 hours to object to Yankee's amendment.

[bore]

The Supremacy article of the constitution is as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On every issue the Constitution delegates to the federal government federal law is supreme, and on every issue not specifically given to the federal government the federal government can not make laws. There is no third category of law that the fededral government can pass but which the regions don't have to accept. Which is why I hope someone objects to the amendment.

[Talleyrand]

I'll object to it then.

[Talleyrand]

Senators, a vote on this amendment is now open. It will last 72 hours or until a majority exists to pass/kill the amendment.


Nay

[Boston Bread]

Abstain

[TNF]

Nay

[Blair]

nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYe


There is a third category. It is called implied powers and that necessarily varies based on what the court says and thus it is constantly subject to being altered by the majority on the court. Regions should be able to test these powers on a regular basis without it having be deemed treasonous and thus provide the impetus not only for court cases, but also for the reassement of previous rulings.

If a court rules that a certain power is implied to that of the Federal Gov't and the Federal Gov't makes a law, that law is supreme. Regions should follow that law as long as it is on the books unless they have grounds for it being reasonably considered to be based on a faulty ruling. Granted that would make for confusing law codes, hence why I would air on the side of the check existing as opposed to not.

[Senator Cris]

Abstain

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

[Talleyrand]

The amendment has failed.


AYE (1) - Yankee
NAY (4) - Talleyrand, TNF, Blair, Lief
ABSTAIN (2) - New Canadaland, Cris
Not Voting (3) - Polnut, Hagrid, Turkisblau

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, I cannot say that I am surprised.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If I am not mistaken, we are still left to deal with the issue of the excessively long maximum sentences that this bill includes. I don't remember them being amended as of yet, but I made have missed something in all of this. Anyway, assuming they have not been amended downward, it would be my goal to reduce them to two years as a new maximum sentence for the reasons that I previously stated, though in brief I would state that a sentence potentially as long as five years would detach someone for so long during their primest years of participation and their return is most unlikely in that case. It is therefore a death sentence in all but name.

[Blair]

If I am not mistaken, we are still left to deal with the issue of the excessively long maximum sentences that this bill includes. I don't remember them being amended as of yet, but I made have missed something in all of this. Anyway, assuming they have not been amended downward, it would be my goal to reduce them to two years as a new maximum sentence for the reasons that I previously stated, though in brief I would state that a sentence potentially as long as five years would detach someone for so long during their primest years of participation and their return is most unlikely in that case. It is therefore a death sentence in all but name.

So if there was a two year ban for example, what other options would we have to stop someone? I mean could someone like Sirnick come back in two years without penalty

[Senator Cris]

Personally, I'd like 2 years for all the Crimes against Atlasia and 3 years for the Acts of Treason. But first to present an amendment, I'd like to hear the opinion of the Senators.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If I am not mistaken, we are still left to deal with the issue of the excessively long maximum sentences that this bill includes. I don't remember them being amended as of yet, but I made have missed something in all of this. Anyway, assuming they have not been amended downward, it would be my goal to reduce them to two years as a new maximum sentence for the reasons that I previously stated, though in brief I would state that a sentence potentially as long as five years would detach someone for so long during their primest years of participation and their return is most unlikely in that case. It is therefore a death sentence in all but name.

So if there was a two year ban for example, what other options would we have to stop someone? I mean could someone like Sirnick come back in two years without penalty

If you want a death penalty, then state outright in the text the purpose and intent of a permenant ban on participation, as opposed to having these excessive maxmiums as a death penalty by the back door.

[bore]

As the AG has pointed out the sentences in this bill are the same or less than the sentences at the moment, and given the changes in the trial structure they actually represent a liberalisation. For the reasons given earlier I don't really favour reducing the absolute maximum provided but given that the sentences are the same as at the moment I'd hope they don't, by themselves, provide  reason to vote against this.

Anyway this bill has been before the senate for quite a while now so, if this is something that the senate wants I think we should get the amendment out of the way so we can resolve any last disputes and move to a final vote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is also worth pointing out that this bill is designed to be easy to modify after passage: a frequent problem with Atlas criminal law in the past has been that modification has too often led to the law degenerating into an impenetrable and often contradictory morass. This bill has been specifically designed to avoid that.

But I would urge all Senators to read the law as it currently stands and to consider its weaknesses and its many and dangerous loopholes. This is really not a case of if it ain't broke don't fix it... unless, of course, you think that defendants having less rights than in Putin's Russia is an acceptable state of affairs.