| [PASSED] Amendment to Article 1 of the Criminal Code (Extortion) |
|
Aye, I can attest to that. It is the reason we reformed the Criminal Code a few years back, since Little Toaster was technically legal (no offense, Belschaft). I may have my memory faulty, but that is how I remember it.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) (11-07-2018, 04:37 PM)Ryccia Wrote: Aye, I can attest to that. It is the reason we reformed the Criminal Code a few years back, since Little Toaster was technically legal (no offense, Belschaft). I may have my memory faulty, but that is how I remember it. If that's the case then I have no issue with stipulating it in the law. Sidetrack: What was the Little Toaster?
A conspiracy by Belschaft (no offense, again) to engage in voter fraud a few years back, if I recall. Weirdly, it could've been legal, so we reformed the code. I remember it devoid of offences before that.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
Not could've - was.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
In short, we need to fix up a few loopholes here and there. A basic addition from @Nakari's draft:
Quote:Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue support by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter. In the case that the party that had given the bribe is prosecuted, the recipient of the bribe shall be prosecuted as well. The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest
Sorry for the double post, but I feel that an edit wouldn't be enough. I guess instead of adding my edit from there, we can simply amend Section 2 Article 3:
Quote:(3) If found guilty of any other crime listed above, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. The sentence must be proportionate to the offense., and all guilty parties involved will be sentenced. Still not that okay with it but I can't really think of anything better. Oh, and @Ryccia's draft goes along with this as well. The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe. Complete Conflict of Interest
Hmm. Your current draft seems to prosecute the person being bribed whether they actually accept an offer or not. I'll suggest:
Quote:Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue support by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter. An individual who accepts such a bribe is to be considered complicit in bribery.
Would like to get the courts opinion here...
If we're going to require that both/all parties involved in the bribery be charged, would it be easier or more difficult to try them all together?
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
(11-08-2018, 04:17 AM)Amerion Wrote: Sidetrack: What was the Little Toaster? This and this might help. 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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |