Pacific Legislature Official Thread

[The Duke]

I wish to open debate on my proposed three strikes law.  Here is the bill's text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is essentially the California Three Strikes Law, the nation's toughest.

It differs in the following ways:
1. References to the state of California have been replaced by references to the pacific Region.
2. Refernces to chaapter and section of the California Penal Code are removed, because we use the Arizona Penal Code as a basis for our criminal laws.
3. A section that excludes meth dealers from recieving a strike has been removed, toughening Regional drug laws.

If anyone thinks I've made errors editing the bill's text so it is adapted to the Region, some kind of technical error, don't be afraid to point it out.

Probably the best way to gather info about the bill, though, is not to read the text but to read material on the effect of the CA Three Strikes Law passed in 1994 by referendum and reaffirmed in 2004 by referendum.

Debate is open.

[Platypus]

re:three strikes. I support it, if those strikes are for serious crimes. My suggestion is a "50 point system", with crimes like speeding 5mph over the speed limit worth 1-2 points, and murder 50+, etc. Once at 50 points, they must be imprisoned for life (or a very long period); at 10 they can be for a short period, 20 for a medium length period, 30 for a meduium sentence and must be inprisoned, 40 for a long sentence and must be imprisoned. Points 'expire' after a set period, say 10 years, so that if an 80 year old has accumulated 50 speeding tickets he isn't put away for the rest of his life.

[Gabu]

re:three strikes. I support it, if those strikes are for serious crimes. My suggestion is a "50 point system", with crimes like speeding 5mph over the speed limit worth 1-2 points, and murder 50+, etc. Once at 50 points, they must be imprisoned for life (or a very long period); at 10 they can be for a short period, 20 for a medium length period, 30 for a meduium sentence and must be inprisoned, 40 for a long sentence and must be imprisoned. Points 'expire' after a set period, say 10 years, so that if an 80 year old has accumulated 50 speeding tickets he isn't put away for the rest of his life.

This actually sounds like a pretty good idea at face value, though I haven't examined it thoroughly yet.

[The Duke]

re:three strikes. I support it, if those strikes are for serious crimes. My suggestion is a "50 point system", with crimes like speeding 5mph over the speed limit worth 1-2 points, and murder 50+, etc. Once at 50 points, they must be imprisoned for life (or a very long period); at 10 they can be for a short period, 20 for a medium length period, 30 for a meduium sentence and must be inprisoned, 40 for a long sentence and must be imprisoned. Points 'expire' after a set period, say 10 years, so that if an 80 year old has accumulated 50 speeding tickets he isn't put away for the rest of his life.

If you want to write up a competing bill, you're welcome to.  That goes in a very different direction than I was planning to go.  From the day I announced my plan to do this after the story came out that crime was up, I intended to re-introduce the California 3 strikes law, so that's why I did it this way even though you had made that suggestion.  I think that idea is sufficiently divergent from this proposal that it would make more sense to write your bill from the ground up rather than try to amend the current initative.

[The Duke]

Does anyone else have anything to say about this proposal?  And does Hugh intend to write up a competing bill?

[Platypus]

I will do so shortly. Give me a ouple of days.

[Platypus]

50-point Lawbreakers' Bill

1. In all instances in which the law of the Pacific region is broken, the lawbreaker shall receive a demerit point, or multiple points, dependent on the severity of their crime.

2. The Court shall have the ability to determine both point levels attached to crimes and sentence length, but the latter shall have the following guidelines:

--------I. Imprisonment shall not be an option until an individual has reached 10 points. At such time, they become eligible for a term of up to two months.
--------II. At 11 points, the maximum length increases by a month, and this process continues until 20 points, at which time the sentence may reach 1 year.
--------III. At 30 points, incarceration is not optional, and must last for over one year, but no greater a length of time then three years.
--------IV. At 32, 34, 36 and 38 point levels, both the minimum and maximum sentence lengths increase by six months.
--------V. At 40 points, incarceration is not optional and must last a minimum of 8 years, and a maximum of 20.
--------VI. Each point over 40 adds six months to both the minimum and maximum sentence lengths.
--------VII. At 50 points, incarceration for life is a mandated sentence.
--------VIII. If 50 or more points are assigned for a single crime, the death penalty shall become an option.

3. Appeals based on a perception that the points assinged were too high shall be heard by the same courts as those that attend to length of sentence appeals.

4. Points may be granted a 'sunset clause' by the Court. It may be determined that points shall no longer count after a certain period of time. This is specifically important for lower-level crimes. No sunset clause can be any earlier then 2 years after a crime in committed, however.

Needs a little bit of work tidying up, but that's the general idea.

[The Duke]

Eh, I don't know about letting the court choose how many points a convict gets.

[The Duke]

Anyone else have comments?

[Platypus]

Eh, I don't know about letting the court choose how many points a convict gets.

So you'd support legislative mandatory sentencing?

[The Duke]

Eh, I don't know about letting the court choose how many points a convict gets.

So you'd support legislative mandatory sentencing?

The law ought to specify some kind of parameters for what the sentence ought to be.  This is an interesting idea, but I think it needs to be polished up.

[The Duke]

Let me provide an example of what I mean now that I have some time, let's say I break a law somewhere.  The law would say you can get 8-10 years for that crime or something.  There are parameters so that if I get a really zealous jury, I get 10 years but not 25 years.  If I get a less zealous jury I get 8 instead of say, 2.  This way, if a jury is involved in an emotional case, like say a kid gets sexually assaulted, they don't impose a penalty driven by emotion of the case they have to work within the confines of the law that's broken.  This is why I say there should be some kind of guidelines in the law as to what penalties should be.

[The Duke]

Does anyone else have anything to say?

[Platypus]

Let me provide an example of what I mean now that I have some time, let's say I break a law somewhere.  The law would say you can get 8-10 years for that crime or something.  There are parameters so that if I get a really zealous jury, I get 10 years but not 25 years.  If I get a less zealous jury I get 8 instead of say, 2.  This way, if a jury is involved in an emotional case, like say a kid gets sexually assaulted, they don't impose a penalty driven by emotion of the case they have to work within the confines of the law that's broken.  This is why I say there should be some kind of guidelines in the law as to what penalties should be.

Let's just not haqve the juries determining the sentence then

[The Duke]

Its been quite a long while, so I'm going to open a vbote on my Three Strikes Law proposal.

If Hughento wants to continue pursuing his point system, I'd certainly urge him to refine the law and present it to the people for their signatures.  Its a innovative idea that deeserves a fair public hearing in the future.

Voting open now.

[Gabu]

Aye, I suppose.

[WMS]

Oh, OK. Aye.

[The Duke]

Three Strikes has passed.

I'm going to post our budget tonight, and we can debate it.

[Kevin]

So what are we discussing if you don't mind me asking?

[The Duke]

We're about to start debating my 2006 budget plan, as soon as I post it.

[The Duke]

Proposed FY2006 Budget!

Here is the basic outline budget, same format as the last one we passed.

-$265.0 billion in expenditures
-Department of Education - $104.6 billion
-Department of Health - $68.7 billion
-Department of University $34.0 billion
-Department of Corrections - $24.2 billion
-Department of Transportation - $12.0 billion
-Department of Resources - $3.7 billion
-Department of Housing - $1.0 billion
-Administrative Costs - $16.8 billion

I am also proposing two changes to the tax rates.  I am proposing cutting the top tax rate from 15% to 14% and the second highest rate from 12% to 11%.

I hereby open debate and open the floor to suggested changes.

[Gabu]

-Department of Corrections - $24.2

$24.2?  That might buy lunch for a row of prisoners.

[The Duke]

-Department of Corrections - $24.2

$24.2?  That might buy lunch for a row of prisoners.

I'm sorry, tere should be a "billion" at the end of all these numbers obviously.  I'll add that.

[Kevin]

      Your plan look's pretty good but here is what I would do I would cut some spending from the Department of U to around 33 Billion and I would also try to use some of that money to add more spending to the the Departments of Health and Education.   

[Gabu]

Out of curiosity, what is "Department of University", anyway, and how are its functions not covered by the Department of Education?