Criminal Justice (Reform) Act

[Adam Griffin]

There are several clauses of very loose-ended stuff added to this (perhaps purposefully) that could be taken to the extreme, depending on both the tone of the Justice Department and the Supreme Court at a given point in the future, as well as their opinions of the person in question.

Since I seemingly have a reverse Midas Touch effect with regards to legislation such as this, I will refrain for the time-being from giving specific examples for others to knee-jerk against, but the Senator from North Carolina is on the right track. 

[Adam Griffin]

Supposedly the entirety of the original bill introduced is sourced from existing statute, and it's just being compiled here. We need to see the relevant and applicable links to make sure there is nothing being added to this that would otherwise not pass if it wasn't already statute; otherwise, Laborites need to lock down against its passage - we all know how unfriendly and biased the justice system has been to us. Then, some of these vague and all-encompassing pieces of statute need to be repealed.

Also, maximum sentences are a good idea - there is historically an inconsistency in how people are sentence for various crimes.

[Adam Griffin]

Supposedly the entirety of the original bill introduced is sourced from existing statute, and it's just being compiled here.

Who supposes this? Most of this bill is new as most of it is concerned with procedure: existing procedure is awful and needs to be replaced. I have already explained this point but am more than happy to do so again on request. What is largely not new is the list of offences and the general structure of sentencing. What I have done there is to try to a) plug loopholes and to improve precision while b) allowing for greater flexibility on behalf of the judicial apparatus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All existing Atlasian law is on the wiki, to which I have linked multiple times in this thread. I should point out here that your members would almost certainly have had an easier time were this law in force: there is no way that Mr Fitzgerald could have been convicted under the new standards of proof, for instance. You might be spectacularly uninterested in procedure (understandable: it is objectively tedious), but it is procedure that has repeatedly had your party by the short and curlies.

Well, that was my initial opinion when I looked over the initial bill and made my first comments some time ago, but a certain Senator informed me yesterday that this was actually an attempt to bring all of the existing statutes under one bill for easier organization.

Such is why I expressed a different opinion yesterday and referenced the need to see the links to the bills, because I was also told that the links to existing statute had not been produced. I suppose I will now need to read this entire debate, instead of assuming a knowledgeable Senator had told me the truth or knew what was going on since its introduction...