Users browsing this thread:

HEM · 11-19-2014, 05:23 PM

(11-19-2014, 05:19 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I highly doubt this proposal will change anything. Why? Because it ignores the main issue, which is that many don't want to see someone convicted of treason back in the region, even as a non citizen, and the only people who would ever need parole would be those convicted of treason.

I agree with Glen, it is obvious that the problems with having a Parole Board greatly outweigh the benefits, if there are any, and we should simply eliminate it.

The problem, Kris, is as you rightly point out: we only had one person eligible for parole as a banned member.

Milograd was an incredibly unique case, that hopefully never occurs again. I think there could be people to belabor under bans that may deserve a second chance in the future.

I also think it might be worth expanding the scope of a reformed parole board. For instance, allowing the process to potentially cut down non-lifetime sentences (i.e. perhaps allow someone sentenced to a 6 month ban to apply for parole after 3 months).

Let me know what you think.

Gustave Berr · 11-19-2014, 05:29 PM

I think it is better to fix than destroy in this case. In the case that there is another conviction at any time, the option should be there.

HEM: you and I both agree that there should be a tiered application timeline.

United States of Kalukmangala

Former High Court Justice

HEM · 11-19-2014, 05:34 PM

(11-19-2014, 05:29 PM)Gustave Berr Wrote: I think it is better to fix than destroy in this case. In the case that there is another conviction at any time, the option should be there.

HEM: you and I both agree that there should be a tiered application timeline.

Excellent. I think that would help make this institution more effective.

What do you think about the composition of the Board?

***Kris Kringle*** · 11-19-2014, 05:36 PM

I consider paroles a failed experiment. If someone has committed an offence so serious that they received a lifetime ban, any move towards parole will result in this situation, I think that we can all agree that is obvious. I don't see why 6-month bans would merit any parole, since they are not a long-term punishment.

I was not opposed to the concept of a Parole Board, but if it is going to be as useless as it is turning out to be, we might as well abolish it. People with short sentences don't need parole, and people with long sentences won't be accepted by the region if given parole.

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

Apad · 11-19-2014, 05:37 PM

I think justice rulings should include if the convicted has the chance for parole.

Apad
King of Haldilwe

***Kris Kringle*** · 11-19-2014, 05:38 PM

Does anyone know how many criminal convictions have we had in the region?

(Serious question, I'm curious to see how common or rare this is)

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

HEM · 11-19-2014, 05:43 PM

(11-19-2014, 05:36 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I consider paroles a failed experiment. If someone has committed an offence so serious that they received a lifetime ban, any move towards parole will result in this situation, I think that we can all agree that is obvious. I don't see why 6-month bans would merit any parole, since they are not a long-term punishment.

I was not opposed to the concept of a Parole Board, but if it is going to be as useless as it is turning out to be, we might as well abolish it. People with short sentences don't need parole, and people with long sentences won't be accepted by the region if given parole.

But why don't they need parole? They might have already been rehabilitated and ready to return to the region.

~~Unibot~~ · 11-19-2014, 05:46 PM

Quote:People with short sentences don't need parole, and people with long sentences won't be accepted by the region if given parole.

I think this may be a question of time. It's been a few hours since the announcement from the special parole board. Has Milograd even made a resident nation? We're responding to something in a very short period of time and that gives a certain perspective on restorative justice. We have months to discuss parole - we shouldn't rush to an immediate assumption that anything has failed, I don't think.

TAC Saxton · 11-19-2014, 05:47 PM

Because the PB was conceived on the premise of those with indefinite sentences. Anyone without such a sentence only has to bide their time until they serve their sentence.

I am a Super Villain

Gustave Berr · 11-19-2014, 05:48 PM

(11-19-2014, 05:34 PM)HEM Wrote: Excellent. I think that would help make this institution more effective.

What do you think about the composition of the Board?

I personally think it is fine as is. There is also some merit to replacing the Chair with the MoFA, but again I think it is fine as is.

(11-19-2014, 05:36 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: People with short sentences don't need parole, and people with long sentences won't be accepted by the region if given parole.

But this gives the region a voice in the parole. If it receives a majority, that means a majority of the region would be accepting of the person returning to the region. If it doesn't, then the person won't receive Parole, and they won't be subject to the hatred that Milograd is likely to see if he decides to be active. I don't think this was a failed attempt, but a learning experience.

United States of Kalukmangala

Former High Court Justice