Users browsing this thread:

Apad · 11-26-2014, 01:52 PM

100% ^ this guy

Apad
King of Haldilwe

southern bellz · 11-26-2014, 02:24 PM

(11-25-2014, 05:05 PM)Apad Wrote: I second the motion

Well, we are going to have a vote on HEM's proposal. If you think that parole should be a decision of the community, I urge you to vote for.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

~~Unibot~~ · 11-26-2014, 05:48 PM

I can't find HEM's proposal. Where is HEM's proposal?

southern bellz · 11-26-2014, 05:56 PM

(11-25-2014, 04:28 PM)southern bellz Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 04:48 PM)HEM Wrote:
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 nature of the past crimes committed, the security of the region and the genuine willingness of the convict to reform their behavior.
4. If parole is recommended, the matter will be referred to the Assembly for review. A majority vote will confirm the nominee for parole.
4. 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.
5. After six months of residency, the individual may apply for citizenship, albeit with a prohibition on holding office.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Motion to vote

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

TAC Saxton · 11-26-2014, 06:03 PM

You might wanna fix the numbering in there...

I am a Super Villain

~~Unibot~~ · 12-02-2014, 08:14 PM

There are a number of standing issues with this draft; TAC notes the numbering. I would also reiterate as Tsu said, the proposal is vague in regards to what happens to Milograd.

Clarify these issues. We've got time to properly formulate a draft. Discussion has been so focused on the abstracts of the debate that you needed to be Indiana Jones to find HEM's actual proposal - with it recovered from the Temple of Doom, I hope we can actually talk about the merit of it (that specific proposal).

Outstanding Issues:
- Wrong numbering.
- What happens to Milograd if the proposal passes? Does it apply ex post facto?
- Can the Assembly reasonably discuss criminal justice issues? We seem to take our stupid pills before each of these debates.
- Should the Assembly have a say in regards to criminal justice? Does that not mix politics and criminal justice?
- How much of this proposal is about Milograd himself? Would we want to apply this resolution to every convict, or is this personal? Is this proposed system good in principle? Or is it a messy retrospective change with the hopes of blocking someone specifically? Do we want to extrapolate this system to other convicts in the future?
- Do we want our Assembly tied up in these discussions? I find them boring and rather embarrassing for TSP.

(This post was last modified: 12-02-2014, 08:16 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

HEM · 12-02-2014, 08:30 PM

(11-26-2014, 06:03 PM)TAC Wrote: You might wanna fix the numbering in there...

I like having two section 4s Angel

Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.

southern bellz · 12-02-2014, 09:07 PM

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 nature of the past crimes committed, the security of the region and the genuine willingness of the convict to reform their behavior.
4. If parole is recommended, the matter will be referred to the Assembly for review. A majority vote will confirm the nominee for 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.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

~~Unibot~~ · 12-02-2014, 09:18 PM

-What happens to Milograd if the proposal passes? Does it apply ex post facto?
- Can the Assembly reasonably discuss criminal justice issues? We seem to take our stupid pills before each of these debates.
- Should the Assembly have a say in regards to criminal justice? Does that not mix politics and criminal justice?
- How much of this proposal is about Milograd himself? Would we want to apply this resolution to every convict, or is this personal? Is this proposed system good in principle? Or is it a messy retrospective change with the hopes of blocking someone specifically? Do we want to extrapolate this system to other convicts in the future?
- Do we want our Assembly tied up in these discussions? I find them boring and rather embarrassing for TSP.

Also what does "consider the nature of the past crimes committed" mean? Is 'considered', code for something pudding-headed?

And finally, what about Tsu's alternative proposal for regional briefs? Do we have an alternative text for that compromise?

southern bellz · 12-02-2014, 09:18 PM

I don't think it's fair to have this vote ex post facto, and I don't think this law suggests that. But Milograd would still be accountable to the parole board. Considering Milograd wouldn't really be impacted too much by these changes, I do think it is safe to say that this isn't just about Milograd, but about a broken process.

As far as the rest of your questions, besides the fact that most of them are disguised insults, most of them have been debated to death, where people find a fundamental disagreement of opinion. I think that is why it is important to hold a vote. Democracy involves voting, and not just on ideas that Unibot believe in.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific