Tsu, the Assembly was never going to be any part of the loop. That's how the law was written, and it's the only way parole even makes sense.

(11-25-2014, 10:49 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Tsu, the Assembly was never going to be any part of the loop. That's how the law was written, and it's the only way parole even makes sense.

Yes -- and clearly after a 16-page discussion, I think we can all agree that was an oversight.

Not to compare to IRL, but generally victims and victims' families are allowed to address parole boards. I don't see why that isn't a fair middle ground here.

(11-25-2014, 10:41 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: I think we need to allow briefs to be submitted. I don't agree with completely neutering the Parole Board, but I do think we should give the Assembly *some* input.

Honestly, while I've been flippant before, I think it looks bad that we created something and abolished it directly after the one person was paroled. It looks shady no matter how you slice that. If there was a real need for it a month ago, then there's a real need for it now.

And again -- lets deal with the elephant in the room. If we get rid of the board, what do we do with Milograd, now?

I said a few posts back that I am fine with briefs. I am not against citizens contributing to the Parole Board, but I can't support giving the Assembly a formal vote on giving parole. There is a reason why we went with an independent Board in the first place. True, the Parole could have handled the matter in a more tactful and reflective way, but that doesn't mean the law itself is flawed.

But tsu, parole has outlived its purpose. There was a real use for it a month ago because there was someone who would potentially apply for it. If you consider that (a) nobody is left to apply for parole and (b) look at the reacting granting parole got from citizens, why would we want to keep the option of parole?

That is a good question, to which I don't have an answer, but we probably should answer if we want to consider abolishing parole (I hope we are). That doesn't mean my previous points don't apply, though. Like I said, while community input is good, leaving decisions like parole in the hands of the community is not.

OK. Then we're agreed that we want briefs, but not a formal vote. I think that's a really sensible solution. Can we get SB, GE or someone on that side of the debate to sound off on it?

The fact that Milo is still technically on parole is reason enough for me to keep it. He only has the most limited parole and could theoretically apply for fuller parole. Again, I think if we allow the Assembly to have a voice, I don't think we'll have anywhere near the outcry we had this round.

Let's remember -- this is all a learning process and so we're improving.

Only thing I would like to see and it's not a show stopper, the Parole Board needs a senior member of the region that has/knows the history necessary in events like this. Whe parole board wasn't here. The hietory is mostly "Some before I got here did something that legend says was bad" but if you follow the rules, parole should be granted.
Again, it's not a show stopper, but I feel, from the transcripts, the reasons for the penalty didn't come into play enough.

That's where briefs come into play.

(11-25-2014, 11:09 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: OK.  Then we're agreed that we want briefs, but not a formal vote. I think that's a really sensible solution. Can we get SB, GE or someone on that side of the debate to sound off on it?

The fact that Milo is still technically on parole is reason enough for me to keep it. He only has the most limited parole and could theoretically apply for fuller parole. Again, I think if we allow the Assembly to have a voice, I don't think we'll have anywhere near the outcry we had this round.

Let's remember -- this is all a learning process and so we're improving.

I'm open to ideas.  In my mind,the system was completely broken, and I don't think we are going to get a good compromise proposal on reform with someone who doesn't think anything was wrong with the process.  I think there was a lot wrong with the process, and I fundamentally disagree with the premise that the reaction to the parole board decision/process was unreasonable.  We have had a lot of unreasonable debates here over the years and I don't think this was one of them.

Because of that I think you should consider seconding it what I motioned to vote.


I think it's becoming more evident that this was all about Milograd getting back into the region and not about parole at all.  I mean we are discussing legitimate parole reform, from what should the criteria should be, to how much community involvement there is and the suggestion in return is that now that Milograd is back in we don't need parole anymore.

If a forum administrator reminds people that all forum users are subject to the rules against flaming and baiting, and the replies are "Milograd deserves no respect" and "we can't be help responsible for what happens" then yes, the debate is unreasonable, uncivil, and quite frankly unworthy of this region.

SB:

1. The community should have no involvement at all in the formal proceedings of parole. Tsu has proposed allowing citizens to submit briefs, and that is a good idea. Any move towards giving the Assembly a formal vote on the matter is a recipe for disaster, specially since the Assembly has no business dealing with the administration of justice (as I'm getting tired of repeating). Your proposal is a bad one because it gives the Assembly a vote, when it should have none.

2. If Milograd has been granted parole, and Milograd is the only convicted criminal, then objectively there is no need for the institution of parole. Not only that, but this whole situation shows us how terrible of an idea parole is, since any decision the community doesn't like, no matter how legal or appropriate it is, will be met with the same hostile response as now.

Yes, this was all about getting Milograd back, since he's so eager to apply for citizenship and running for office.

Kris Kringle Wrote:If Milograd has been granted parole, and Milograd is the only convicted criminal, then objectively there is no need for the institution of parole.

Well, since Milo was granted parole, what happens to the rest of the process and the original ruling if we just trash the parole system completely?

(11-26-2014, 02:01 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: If a forum administrator reminds people that all forum users are subject to the rules against flaming and baiting, and the replies are "Milograd deserves no respect" and "we can't be help responsible for what happens" then yes, the debate is unreasonable, uncivil, and quite frankly unworthy of this region.

SB:

1. The community should have no involvement at all in the formal proceedings of parole. Tsu has proposed allowing citizens to submit briefs, and that is a good idea. Any move towards giving the Assembly a formal vote on the matter is a recipe for disaster, specially since the Assembly has no business dealing with the administration of justice (as I'm getting tired of repeating). Your proposal is a bad one because it gives the Assembly a vote, when it should have none.

2. If Milograd has been granted parole, and Milograd is the only convicted criminal, then objectively there is no need for the institution of parole. Not only that, but this whole situation shows us how terrible of an idea parole is, since any decision the community doesn't like, no matter how legal or appropriate it is, will be met with the same hostile response as now.

Yes, this was all about getting Milograd back, since he's so eager to apply for citizenship and running for office.

I do want to be clear on the quote you selected of mine, I was not advocating trolling or flaming.  I meant the Milograd should not be a person we respect in the sense we look up to him.  I didn't want to be in a moderation debate, so I dropped it as soon as it was clear what was being talked about.  I can see how it was confusing.

I on the other hand firmly believe that our current system is a disaster that was being advocated for the sole purpose of letting Milograd back in, instead of having a functioning parole system.  What we learned is that parole being a rubber stamp system that takes place behind closed doors and thrustupon the community is a disaster.  I am also tired of repeating myself when I say that, Milograd already received justice from our courts.  Giving the assembly the ultimate power in deciding the up and down vote for parole is not mob justice, as much as people love using the term.  The assembly isn't sentencing, it is not determining guilt.  Parole is a judgement call, and a system of forgiveness and I think that not only is the assembly capable of making that judgement call, but it is the only way for parole to exist with any teeth.

And I do think there is ultimately a place for parole in our system, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time advocating for reform.