Democracy also involves discussion - there is no way for this law to not apply ex post facto. We have no bill of rights against ex post facto (like TNP) and we have no way for it to not be applied ex post facto without legislation stipulating otherwise.

The real death of democracy will come when we accept the idea of 'fundamental disagreements' which impede dialogue and compromise. Democracy is hard work. Get to it.

First question - if none of us want the law to be applied retroactively, why can't we just clarify in the text that changes to this section are not to apply retroactively?

Unibot Wrote:1.) What happens to Milograd if the proposal passes? Does it apply ex post facto?
2.) Can the Assembly reasonably discuss criminal justice issues?
3.) Should the Assembly have a say in regards to criminal justice?
4.) Does that not mix politics and criminal justice?
5.) Would we want to apply this resolution to every convict, or is this personal?
6.) Is this proposed system good in principle?
7.) Do we want to extrapolate this system to other convicts in the future?
8.) Do we want our Assembly tied up in these discussions?

I would actually like to have these questions taken seriously and not just conveniently passed off as insults and personal opinion SB.

I think it is a little silly that some arbitrary proposals must answer every conceivable question that the Chair can come up with, while others are proposed and voted on within 48 hours.

Nevertheless, I am eager to answer the Chair's questions. Give me 24 hours and I will address them all in the context of my proposal.

(12-02-2014, 10:35 PM)TAC Wrote:

Unibot Wrote:1.) What happens to Milograd if the proposal passes? Does it apply ex post facto?
2.) Can the Assembly reasonably discuss criminal justice issues?
3.) Should the Assembly have a say in regards to criminal justice?
4.) Does that not mix politics and criminal justice?
5.) Would we want to apply this resolution to every convict, or is this personal?
6.) Is this proposed system good in principle?
7.) Do we want to extrapolate this system to other convicts in the future?
8.) Do we want our Assembly tied up in these discussions?

I would actually like to have these questions taken seriously and not just conveniently passed off as insults and personal opinion SB.

My opinions on these - feel free to ignore/disagree, as I know these weren't directed at me. This is a place for discussion after all though and I think it is good to hear all sides of a discussion, not just one or two people's views.

1 - The first stage of parole wouldn't change for Milograd, but any future steps (citizenship etc) would follow the current law at the time.

2, 3 - I think so. I think the backlash to the previous decision would have been much less if people were kept informed as to what was being discussed - I may have missed it, but didn't even know Milograd had applied for parole until after it had been granted. I admit to being a bit upset about the original decision, mostly as it came out of the blue. Given the criteria, I can say yes, it was the correct decision. Need to communicate if you want a rational, not emotional response. As to should the Assembly have a say, this does give a check to the system, otherwise it is all up to 3 people (2 really, with a majority decision). Always good to have in place.

4 - As the three people currently deciding ARE elected positions,  I would say the current system mixes it more.

5, 7 - I think something should be in place for future. I don't see this proposal as being personal. But I didn't write it. Just like I didn't write the previous version. 

6 - I think it is better than the current system, which is basically a guaranteed tick off, yes.

8 - I think the Assembly should be discussing matters that impact on the region, so yes. Otherwise,  as mentioned, we are relying on a couple of people to decide these matters with no checks in place.

1-8

I still feel The Assembly has no place in the matter. Do we let The Assembly sentence defendants at trial? No, we don't, and there's a very good reason we don't. Allowing The Assembly to pass judgement on parolees is the same concept. It's impractical and unfair.

I still think that the residents/citizens of the region should at least have their voices heard, if not taken into consideration. ESPECIALLY if the criteria for qualifying for parole is a short 365 days.

I will say this again. I support Tsu's proposal to allow citizens to submit briefs, and having a public thread for community discussion, but the decision to grant or not parole should remain with the Parole Board.

Milograd's trial was also something that affected the whole community, but we still did it through the Supreme Court, because judicial matters belong in the judiciary, not in the legislature. In the case of parole, how ready the community is to welcome back a person is not relevant. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. I'm not saying the community should put up with them, I'm saying that it's irrelevant to the considerations of the Parole Board, because what they should assess is how ready the individual is for parole, not how ready the community is.

So again, I support Tsu's suggestion about the submission of briefs, but on the condition that the decision still lies with the Board, not with the Assembly.

I can get behind that solution as well.

Would something like to write up a proposal where the Assembly is invited to prepare briefs on the subject? With whatever we agree to do, however, I think it needs to be clear how this change affects the ongoing case(s) of parole.

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 may decide to recommend 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.
4. Prior to the special parole board's final decision, the Assembly shall be informed of a request for parole; citizens shall be allotted one week to formally present briefs to the special parole board on their thoughts in regards to the convicted, their past crimes and the appropriateness of parole.
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.
9. Changes to the parole system shall not affect current subjects of parole nor the status of their parole retroactively.

Here's an alternative wording that brings in Tsu's proposal that's been popular, but never given a formal text. I also added a line to address the issue of ex post facto decisions. 

With the changes made to HEM's proposal, there will need to be a new motion/second - in the meantime, there's still the question of retroactivity to consider with that proposal (i.e., it's totally ambiguous over what happens to Milograd).