(11-19-2014, 03:55 AM)TAC Wrote: Not political benefit, but personal. That is what this train wreck is all about.
Also, yes, the second Milo's parole ruling came out, HEM started his smear article, SB pulled out some poor excuses to try and overturn the PB. Yet, not a single one of them has provided any substantial proof. They are trying to manipulate the system.

You don't need to explain that Aram. I don't need to be a victim of a coup to know how it feels to be betrayed. I know that feeling all too well, but the difference is knowing when to let go. If you're unwilling to let go, how can you move forward? As long as such hatred continues, they will forever be a prisoner to it.

I'm honestly really tired of the accusation of manipulation and all the snark coming from your posts.  HEM and myself are simply stating our opinion, which happens to be a stance other members of the community agree with.  Everything I have mentioned about the parole system and Milograd has been out in the open, the very antithesis of manipulation.  HEM's article contains no factually unture things about Milograd, and his posts are very relevant considering half of the criteria of the parole board that the person is genuinely sorry.  His article points out Milograd's long history of not being genuine, which I think is a great point, and one I doubt the parole board even debated.

I don't hate Milograd, but I do believe that people's actions have consequences.  Milograd's consequence for actually manipulating this region,  violating our entire charter, ejecting as many people as he could, and mocking the ones he couldn't eject is that he is no longer a member of the this community.  If the Parole system is part of our justice system now, we have to think about the goal of our justice system.  According to how the parole board functioned, it seems like there is a single focus of our entire justice system is rehabilitation of a criminal.  I think there should be an element of that, but I do not think that is the only element of it.

And if you are curious about my vision of the future of the region, I direct you to my campaign thread.

(11-19-2014, 04:20 AM)TAC Wrote: My support of the PB is because I believe in true justice for all and that people can change, but only if they're willing to do so.
As I have to say this again, everyone has only addressed his actions in the past tense. They don't care that he has changed. They're so conceded in their anger that they blind themselves. They walk backwards, keeping a watchful eye over their personal satisfaction with their backs to the future.

Again -- I asked why we think he changed and have been met with radio silence. The most extensive argument we have are that he didn't coup Laz (which, again, I think is silly to believe since Laz is a completely different place than TSP).

Kris's link to Milo's apology is a lot more convincing. Still not sure I agree with parole, but we do need to have a discussion on the criteria on which this decision was made.

Simply believing "in true justice for all and that people can change" doesn't help. Milo got justice. The region isn't.

(11-19-2014, 09:29 AM)southern bellz Wrote:

(11-19-2014, 03:55 AM)TAC Wrote: Not political benefit, but personal. That is what this train wreck is all about.
Also, yes, the second Milo's parole ruling came out, HEM started his smear article, SB pulled out some poor excuses to try and overturn the PB. Yet, not a single one of them has provided any substantial proof. They are trying to manipulate the system.

You don't need to explain that Aram. I don't need to be a victim of a coup to know how it feels to be betrayed. I know that feeling all too well, but the difference is knowing when to let go. If you're unwilling to let go, how can you move forward? As long as such hatred continues, they will forever be a prisoner to it.

I'm honestly really tired of the accusation of manipulation and all the snark coming from your posts.  HEM and myself are simply stating our opinion, which happens to be a stance other members of the community agree with.  Everything I have mentioned about the parole system and Milograd has been out in the open, the very antithesis of manipulation.  HEM's article contains no factually unture things about Milograd, and his posts are very relevant considering half of the criteria of the parole board that the person is genuinely sorry.  His article points out Milograd's long history of not being genuine, which I think is a great point, and one I doubt the parole board even debated.

I don't hate Milograd, but I do believe that people's actions have consequences.  Milograd's consequence for actually manipulating this region,  violating our entire charter, ejecting as many people as he could, and mocking the ones he couldn't eject is that he is no longer a member of the this community.  If the Parole system is part of our justice system now, we have to think about the goal of our justice system.  According to how the parole board functioned, it seems like there is a single focus of our entire justice system is rehabilitation of a criminal.  I think there should be an element of that, but I do not think that is the only element of it.

And if you are curious about my vision of the future of the region, I direct you to my campaign thread.

Hear Hear!

And also snaps to Tsu, some great points being made.

Reiterating the want and need for information regarding a decision that effects the ENTIRE region is not unreasonable. There is a difference between "Letting it go" and realizing that the safety of your home is at risk and there is nothing you can do about it.

There was damage done. I for one want to know the details of how this went down. How long it took them to make this decision. What information they based this decision on. WHY they made this decision. WANTING this information, Expecting this information is not an abuse of the system. It is an Exercise of our rights in this region. It is an Example of The Assembly holding a Board we created to the standards that have set in place.

Now. If we can just get those things can be talked about.

(11-19-2014, 11:03 AM)Penguin Wrote: Reiterating the want and need for information regarding a decision that effects the ENTIRE region is not unreasonable. There is a difference between "Letting it go" and realizing that the safety of your home is at risk and there is nothing you can do about it.

There was damage done. I for one want to know the details of how this went down. How long it took them to make this decision. What information they based this decision on. WHY they made this decision. WANTING this information, Expecting this information is not an abuse of the system. It is an Exercise of our rights in this region. It is an Example of The Assembly holding a Board we created to the standards that have set in place.

Now. If we can just get those things can be talked about.

Well said and i would like to say it's unfortunate that we have to this point heard squat from the members of the PB with regards to these legitimate concerns many of us have. 

Indeed. Personally I don't have an issue with the concept of parole personally, but there are several issues to consider here;

1. The nature of Milograds crimes
2. The damage he caused to to the region
3. The complete lack of transparency in regards to how this was handled
4. The overall interests of the region and community, especially in regards to the wishes of the existing members, and whether or not Milograds presence would be damaging to cohesion

Frankly, we should just get rid of it, because it's very clear that many (probably a majority) of this region doesn't believe that people can be reformed. I predict every decision to grant parole will be met the same kind of reaction that Milograd's parole has gotten. People will get emotional, go right back into the mind-state they were in when the crime first happened, and that will be that.

If Milograd getting parole is unacceptable, and the parole system needs to be reformed to prevent it, then there's just no point to having one at all. We haven't banned anybody in over a year. Milograd was our last criminal court case, and likely will be for the foreseeable future. If we can't agree that he should be a genuine candidate for parole, then seriously, what the hell is the point?

Quote:Kris's link to Milo's apology is a lot more convincing. Still not sure I agree with parole, but we do need to have a discussion on the criteria on which this decision was made.

I think it should be said that Milo's public apology (on several occasions) was something that the Parole Board was keeping in mind; there's some sort of myth that there was a "private apology", there was no "private apology" -- the Parole Board made its decision on publicly available information: his record in Lazarus and his public apologies. I've said that once and I think it needs to be said again.

Now, I'd love if it we could reign in this discussion with some actual, specific proposals to reform the Parole Board. But it needs to be a text based discussion - we're not just going to argue for another ten pages - nobody here was trying to "undermine the democratic institutions" of the region or such. Some have a deep committed belief to reformative justice and the question that we have to ask ourselves is how to reconcile reformative justice with other members' heated concerns? Bridging the lack of legitimacy of the decision in a way that respects the convict's rights to parole (not a mob lynching) and on the other hand, the region's stake on the matter.

The major concerns here appear to be:

- The transparency of the process.
- The extent of Milograd's transgressions.

I think it's difficult to reconcile the latter concern with a reform of the Parole Board, because it appears to be an Anti-Reformative argument altogether (i.e., "Milograd can never be reformed and will never be trusted). It'll be two years since his crimes before Milograd interacts again in TSP as a citizen if he continues his parole on good behavior. Will The South Pacific even come to accept Milograd again? I don't know, I'm not sure I care.

Here's where I will argue that there are still mechanisms in place to give the Assembly a role in protecting what it perceives to be the region's interests: The Vice Delegate can still deny the citizenship of a convict under parole just like they can deny the citizenship of any one. Likewise, the Cabinet can do the same if they perceive there to be a security threat. These are mechanisms in place with The Charter.

I think it'd be consistent with The Charter to allow the Assembly with a 75% majority to deny citizenship if they deem it in the interests of the region. However, like other denials, this should be tempered with a sunset mechanism: it only applies for a year before it has to be renewed again by the Assembly.

On the subject of transparency, I don't see why we can't hold a public hearing where the subject is interviewed by the Parole Board and the findings published in public. That's an easy amendment to make to the Parole Board law and I don't see why that can't be done.

Proposal 1

Quote:Section 1 - Assembly and Powers of the Assembly
1. The Assembly is comprised of all Citizens of The Coalition.
2. The Assembly shall constitute the sole legislative body in The Coalition.
3. The Assembly is responsible for the drafting and discussion of General Laws, and Amendments to the Charter and Code of Laws.
4. The Assembly may pass and amend a Law with a vote resulting in 50% + 1 in favor.
5. The Assembly may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
6. The Assembly has the sole power to declare a state of war exists with another region or organization.
7. The Assembly has the sole power to pass a treaty with another region or organization.
8. The Assembly may override the denial or Cabinet removal of citizenship upon the affected nation appealing and a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
9. The Assembly may ban a resident from citizenship or appeal an earlier ban with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor. Any ban must be renewed after a period of one year with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor or else the ban shall be voided.
10. Declarations of War and Treaties require a 60% majority in favor to be enacted or repealed.
11. Proposed legislation may be moved to a vote by the Chair of the Assembly after a Motion and a Second to vote is lodged.
12. The voting period will last three days for all General Laws and five days for Amendments to the Charter.

Proposal 2

Quote:Article 7: Parole

1. After serving at least one year of a ban from the region and/or the regional forum, convicts may apply for parole to a special parole board.
2. Said special parole board shall consist of the Chair of the CSS, Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chair of the Assembly.
3. The special parole board shall hold a public hearing to interview the applicant and their applicability for parole.
4. The special parole board may decide to grant parole to convicts, provided a majority of its members support this motion; this decision should consider the security of the region and the genuine willingness of the convict to reform their behavior.
5. If parole is granted, the regional and/or forum ban shall be revoked and the individual shall be allowed to reside in The South Pacific.
6. After six months of residency, the individual may apply for citizenship, albeit with a prohibition on holding office.
7. While on parole, the special parole board can decide at any time, by majority vote, to revoke an individual’s parole; this decision should consider the security of the region and the contributions of the individual to the region.
8. After six months of citizenship, the individual may apply to the special parole board for the prohibition on holding office to be lifted. The special parole board can grant this motion, provided a majority of the board supports – and in doing so, the individual will no longer be held under any conditions of parole.

Opening up the parole hearings to the general public will just invite 10 pages of people arguing about the fact that somebody is up for parole is an insult to the region, crazy, unthinkable, etc. Why do you think nobody has ever started a thread in the Assembly about allowing Milograd back in?

I'm also 100% against the Assembly being able to ban anybody from having citizenship.

I think that that kind of reaction is a natural part of reformative justice and venting and anger is common. Reformative justice doesn't go without anger as a response in Real Life. I think a public hearing could be a crucial part of the process of reformation which we are missing. It lets people feel involved with the decision, even if they can't ultimately be the arbiters involved in the case.

As for banning citizenships - I proposed it because I wanted to see how people reacted to the suggestion and whether it perhaps made some look at this debate differently. We've previously always found that the Assembly shouldn't be the one handling criminal justice matters and that the Assembly doesn't have a role in banning particular individuals from membership. Yet, some here have found that the Assembly should step in to "block" Milograd's participation in the region - is this not a divergence from how we've always conceived the role of the Assembly and its limitations?