OPINION: Parole Board Made the Wrong Choice on Milograd
Written by HEM Tiberius
Host of the Journal Tonight

The Story of Milograd

I had no idea what was in store for me when I won the Minister of Justice job in a close April 2013 election against St.Georgie. It was a fairly close election period, with three positions -- including the Delegacy -- being won by only razor thin margins. I have eked out my race, Topid won a close race for Regional Affairs over Awesomiasa and Milograd won an extremely close race for the big seat against Hileville.

I was looking forward to my role after being burnt out as Minister of Regional Affairs during the last few months -- but ironically -- my work actually was to draft legislation dissolving my position, and ushering in the new position of Chief Justice of the South Pacific.

In the waning days of my commission as Minister of Justice, an event occurred that would forever changed the South Pacific and the world. On April 20th, Delegate Milograd overthrew the Coalition of the South Pacific and instituted his own government that amounted to a creatively colored dictatorship. He spoke eloquently about the need for "minnows" to have influence in the government, and unilaterally condemned the institutions he had faithfully served for years.

His betrayal was a shock to everyone.

The Milograd who had been a fun roleplayer, a devoted public servant, and a good friend, was suddenly on the Nationstates forum calling his old friends pillars of a "spineless institution that stands for nothing but continuing its existence". I won't pretend to have been friends with Milograd before the coup, but it absolutely never crossed my mind that this South Pacifican patriot would even consider such an act of malice.

The practical matter of reclaiming our region was underway by the everyone.

The matter of trying Milograd for his crimes was underway by me.

The situation was very complicated, as charges were filed in the very last days of the Minister of Justice position and the old system of jurors. My title on the forum had changed to "Chief Justice" but the trial I presided over would be conducted under the previous system. A system that had never before been fully used.

So launched The Coalition v. Milograd. The trial was a zoo, with prosecutors scrambling between their responsibilities in the "war efforts" and assembling the documentation needed to legally "lock Milograd up". It is extremely notable that amidst all the chaos and confusion caused by Milograd, it was still a core value of this region to provide him a fair trial. The entire debacle took weeks, but the case was administered in a way that gave the accused every opportunity to represent and defend himself. The accused did not take advantage of this opportunity, rather using the court as a fora to spew his hatred of the region and advertise what a ruse his concern and dedication to the South Pacific was.

But I was patient. I knew if this trial was seen as a sham, the entire legitimacy of the democracy that we were fighting for was at risk. Milograd desperately wanted us to act in haste, to ban him unilaterally, so such action could be used as evidence of the "oligarchy's power". He teased and attacked us, presenting quotes from ancient monarchs rather than a defense during his time on the court floor.

But he failed. The judicial system worked exactly as it intended, and a fair, open, process found Milograd guilty by a jury of his peers.

I resigned as Chief Justice immediately at the conclusion of the trial. Milograd pitifully attempted to goad me by calling me weak. I came back at him, saying that perhaps I was personally weak, but, "[...] This region is strong. A damn lot stronger than you."

Milograd's response?

"I'm quoting this part of your post for posterity so I can re-read it later and laugh."

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the man who we have just welcomed back to our forum.

The Story of the Parole

Upon the conclusion of The Coalition v. Milograd the region exhaled a collective sigh of relief. A randomly selected jury of South Pacifican citizens had found Milograd guilty of treason, and sentenced him to a lifelong ban from the region. For most of us, it seemed like this lifelong bad was...well...lifelong.

But not quite.

The two separate ideas of Milograd returning to the region and the formation of a parole board seemed to be arise concurrently in the region. Either by design, or by fate, this proved to be the perfect storm to open the doors of The South Pacific back up for Milograd.

Why was the Parole Board's choice wrong?

Milograd isn't dangerous just because of what he did, but because of how he did it. He managed to convince this entire region that he cared genuinely for us. He used a charade of smoke and mirrors to convince the entire region that he would never betray us. That's why his statements of remorse have no value to me, because Milograd operates by a code of deception and betrayal. Allow yourself to be deceived, and you will be betrayed.

The Parole Board is made up of admirable South Pacific citizens who want to do their best by this region. However, if it is enough to merely "not coup" another region and contribute abroad to demonstrate reformation and restitution, it seems that almost any criminal well...ever could be allowed back onto the forum. This rule sets a ridiculously low standard by which almost any offender could reclaim their status as a resident of the South Pacific. The idea of Parole should be to open a door to a select few who are worthy, not hand out a free pass to every traitor who has ever harmed our region.

Part of this is a problem with how the statute is written. As I expressed during Assembly debates, the composition of the Parole Board is basically nonsensical. It is a hodgepodge of people who may or may not have any judicial experience or practical knowledge about the past of the region. Also, it seems fundamentally bizarre to have the Chief Justice of the Court that issues sentences to be apart of a board considering paroles of those sentences.

The statute also only permits the Parole Board to consider two things when deciding on an application for Parole (1) The security threat the individual may pose to the region (2) genuine willingness of the convict to reform. While I firmly believe the Parole Board erroneously considered these two factors when considering Milograd's application for Parole, it also seems foolish to prohibit the board from considering the scope of the crime. What occurs in the past is important, and has enormous bearing on the future.

Ultimately, Milograd was required to not lift one finger for the region before he was allowed back in the region. Members of the Parole Board and their supporters will insist that it is "impossible" for him to serve the region until he was let back in; then what, exactly, does one have to demonstrate before they come back? That they've been productive citizens elsewhere? That they've managed to abstain from destroying friendships and assaulting regions from the very core? I see very little evidence of true restitution or efforts to "give back" to the region.

In the first parole hearing ever, the Parole Board set dangerous precedents. They set the bar so low for parole that they have neutered the criminal justice system of the South Pacific. Essentially any citizen of this region now knows that they can betray the region, and be permitted back within 18 months. Probably less. The court's rulings are almost unimportant when, essentially, every "lifelong ban" (issued by the democratically elected Court of the South Pacific for the expressed purposes of judicial powers) is only 1 year long. Because what do you have to do to prove a willingness to reform? Basically just chill for 12 months in some other region.

However, even if Milograd spent countless hours in the service of the region, I doubt that I would be convinced he should return. It goes back to the crux of the issue: Milograd is a manipulative, cunning, politico who managed to convince an entire region of his devotion in the past. He will say, do, or pretend anything to regain our trust. It is a security threat to let him anywhere near our border, much less inside of it.

If you need anymore evidence, I'll conclude this article by just leaving this here...