Criminal Justice (Reform) Act

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have to admit, I do not understand much of legal language, less even when such is in English, but all this looks quite good and fine for me, and I intend to support this reform.

Not to criticize you or anything, but I would tend to view this approach as somewhat distrurbing. Someone plunks down a new rule book in front of you, and your default position is Aye until convinced otherwise?

I can assure you my vote starts off as nay until every concern is addressed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is this not an open invitation for abuse?

What is this "peace established in the constitution"? Absent treason, there is no other standards laid out thaT I can see. It is horribly vague and could be abused to silence political opponents ala Alien and Sedition/Espionage Acts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do we need this standard below melicious editing? And why does it require a two year ban from the game as a reasonable punishment?

And speaking of punishments, as Talleyrand said, what is the purpose behind such excessive punishments? At that level, your are talking complete seperation from the game. Practically a death sentence, for after five years the chances of return are slim to none, and even two years the chances are less likely.

The treason section re-states existing law in a more coherent manner. Due to the technical nature of this enterprise I have tended to avoid serious innovation unless a glaring omission exists. But neither the current law nor this would criminalises the expression of any opinion: the Court tends to rule conservatively, and when the criteria for 'aiding a rebellion' is restricted to the intentional direction of funds, military aid or strategic advice, we can be fairly sure that an expression of support would not be included. My opinion (and certainly intent!) would be that it wouldn't even ban membership of a political party in favour of a rebellion.

The Court tends to rule conservatively now, but there is no such guarrantee of such down the road.  "Fairly sure" and "my opinion" also seem rather weak for a basis to presume how a future court's response might differ from the Court's prior history.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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? Thus it is hardly a justification on its own for anything regarding this bill, since such is open to being altered, using this as a vehicle.

Could you site some examples of "trollish behavior" that is disturbing of the peace?

Then the question becomes would such justify sentences "potentially" () as long as this bill includes be they retained or new inclusions?

I did quickly pass over the latter sections when I posted that, but I would say, that relying on tougher evidentiary and prosecutorial procedure to weed out frivolous lawsuits fails to account for the frivolity of the charge itself, not to mention the disruptive effects that such have on a player, which whilst not as great as in real life (ie, legal costs), but certainly are critical just the same (time being number one expended resource)?


Yes, there should be tough sentences for crimes, but in my mind at least, the presence of a maximum sentence opens the door for such to be used and whilst I appreciate the need for flexibility, I also appropriate the dual concerns of the punishment fitting the crime and equality before the law, which dictate both reduced sentences and by extension less of an opening for arbitrary or at the very least inconsistent law enforcement.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I apologize for my late response, I had a computer virus scare on Saturday and had to work Sunday.

1. Addition of the word intentional in front of "omission". People forget past laws like crazy around here. It is not uncommon for such to create instances where Federal law is omitted and turning that into a crime would cripple regional governance.

2. The rest of the amendment limits the text to applying to just matters where Federal power is "enumerated". The reason for is to fold. 1. Federal Gov't is not supreme in all matters, otherwise the regions would be functionally impotent (first bolded line). 2. The implied powers of the Federal Gov't are the product of the Court and or its rulings, therefore challenging such in court is completely appropriate in my view and I worry this text would impede the ability to seek the court's input and therefore it is aimed at protecting that (last bolded line)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about this?

As I said here and also in this thread, a federal law about an issue not mentioned under the rights of the senate is unconstitutional, so the first bit is tautological.

Without a doubt, but this is once again in my view, a broad sweeping text illegalizing the challenging of the government's authority. It is fine to rest on precedent and such, reasonable heads prevailing, but history is full of instances where the worst case occurs. My priority in that case is to air on the side of caution and to place crystal clear constraints.

The mere presence of such phrasing could discourage people and regions from exercising their rights for fear that a rogue justice department (of course that would never happen, ever ) would bring them before the court. One must also consider that this is an elections game, and the mere presence of a trial (where yes the standard of proof and all of that would protect them, weeks or even months later) could impact an election. Granted that should not be a consideration in most criminal proceedings, but when it comes to issue of proper authority, I think it should factor into the equation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's also the case that a criminal standard of proof would mean that a criminally liable omission would have to be an intentional one.

Then why not air on the side of caution and include the word "intentional"?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No one is denying the need for this reform in general. However, it does provide an opportunity both now and in the future to address these things as you state, but it is before us now and therefore it would be a mistake to waste this opportunity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Minimum sentences are unconstitutional.

I actually screwed up the first strike through by reading that is maximum instead of minimum.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there anyway to cancel the vote, as I would like to withdraw this version and offer a corrected one if possible?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The thing I object to is the low maximum for treason and electoral intimidation.

Three and two is low?

Would you return after a two year ban? Put percantages on the chances of you returning and not losing interest.