3. Those subject to s.2 who admit guilt to all three of the above crimes shall be granted a plea deal which in turn constitutes a reduction of one year in sentencing, allowing them to immediately apply for parole subject to the discretion of the parole board and the conventional parole process notwithstanding s.3.1 of the Code of Laws.

That "plea deal" is just as bad as being convicted. Actually, it's nearly the same punishment just rephrased.

If you're not going to walk into these "Truth and Reconciliation" talks with honest intentions, Unibot, then don't be here.

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 11:36 PM by Wolf.)

Reply

I'm not opposed to this, I have to say. It would allow them to begin rehabilitation immediately. Is that your idea, Unibot?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

That "plea deal" is just as bad as being convicted. Actually, it's nearly the same punishment just rephrased.

That's not true at all.

If let's say someone was convicted of treason but otherwise conducted themselves with good behavior: they would have to serve one year away from the region, then six months as a resident, and then six months as a citizen without the opportunity to serve in public office. Altogether, a couper without this plea deal could not serve in public office in the South Pacific until Feb 2018, whereas with this plea deal, they could serve in public office by Feb 2017 and be a voting member of TSP by Sept 2016 (in time for the next elections).

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 11:43 PM by Unibot.)

Reply

I'm not opposed to this, I have to say. It would allow them to begin rehabilitation immediately. Is that your idea, Unibot?

Yes, they would go through the conventional parole process beginning immediately after claiming guilt:

• 6 months as a resident.
  
• Then, if a review goes well, 6 months as a citizen without the ability of serving in public office.
  
• Then, if another review goes well, full citizenship. 
  

Reply

That's assuming that they are even granted parole, Kris. And that's a big assumption. This "plea deal" allows for the Parole Board to reject their applications and thus, more or less, permanently ban all those who take the "deal" without the benefit of a trial.

That doesn't sound like Reconciliation, that sounds like Revenge.

Reply

Unibot, do you have any idea how many people your parole idea would see stripped of citizenship for (at least) six months? That wouldn't be at all beneficial to TSP. It would leave the forum community -- particularly the Assembly -- a virtual ghost town.

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 11:45 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

That's assuming that they are even granted parole, Kris. And that's a big assumption. This "plea deal" allows for the Parole Board to reject their applications and thus, more or less, permanently ban all those who take the "deal" without the benefit of a trial.

That doesn't sound like Reconciliation, that sounds like Revenge.

The parole review would only require the support of two of three of the parole board's members. The conditions are already laid out in the Code of Laws: "this decision should consider the security of the region and the genuine willingness of the convict to reform their behavior."

Reply

Unibot, do you have any idea how many people your parole idea would see stripped of citizenship for (at least) six months? That wouldn't be at all beneficial to TSP. It would leave the forum community -- particularly the Assembly -- a virtual ghost town.

The Assembly really should not base its decision here on the potential for inactivity. Besides I don't think, given the upcoming constitutional reform, the Assembly is going to have any problems finding activity among its "remaining" members.

Reply

That's assuming that they are even granted parole, Kris. And that's a big assumption. This "plea deal" allows for the Parole Board to reject their applications and thus, more or less, permanently ban all those who take the "deal" without the benefit of a trial.

That doesn't sound like Reconciliation, that sounds like Revenge.

The parole review would only require the support of two of three of the parole board's members. The conditions are already laid out in the Code of Laws: "this decision should consider the security of the region and the genuine willingness of the convict to reform their behavior."

Regardless, this is wide open for abuse, and without guarantees that it won't be abused, the accused might as well just go to trial. At least then they actually have the opportunity to be heard in a public court.

Reply

It also means that instead of trying to reintegrate the community, and get everyone to sign up to a process of reform and democratic renewal, everyone on the other side of this thing is locked out of the process for six months; no voting rights, no participation in the great council, no part in the community.

Remember when I talked about people wanting to use this as an opportunity to lock their political opponents out and consolidate power? That's what Unibot is proposing.

This is the worst possible way to approach things.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply