I really don't see why we should get rid of the current parole system, considering that there's not enough evidence to truly say that it doesn't work.  One person in the system since it was implimented isn't good evidence to say that the current parole system isn't good.  However, that isn't to say that a rewrite should also be out of the question, but not a full elimination.  While it may be true that most people just don't come back, having the systems in place previously would be much preferable than having people scramble to put something together if the situation ever arose.

Reply

Just a quick thought that may be completely bonkers: What if parole is not the convoluted process we have here, but simply a new case type by which the court must examine evidence, testimony, and the original crime to determine by some standard of evidence whether the individual in question can reasonably be expected to participate in good faith?

Reply

Just a quick thought that may be completely bonkers: What if parole is not the convoluted process we have here, but simply a new case type by which the court must examine evidence, testimony, and the original crime to determine by some standard of evidence whether the individual in question can reasonably be expected to participate in good faith?

That sounds a lot more like the German concept of "suspension of sentence on probation" (or probation for short) :p
Not that I don't like the German system because in real life it works decently for the most part.

Reply

Here's the thing: Parole is a fine idea in concept, but one of the things that don't transition from RL. Sure, the person *might* come back and be a useful, productive member of the region. Or, they might come back and try undermine it completely. Or ... they likely will just ... not come back.

The question is: is it worth it to have a laborious process for a one-in-a-game event?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The question is: is it worth it to have a laborious process for a one-in-a-game event?

Probably not, which is why I'm partial to the idea of just having it be a simple and dumb case upon request, rather than the convoluted process we have now.

Reply

The question is: is it worth it to have a laborious process for a one-in-a-game event?

Probably not, which is why I'm partial to the idea of just having it be a simple and dumb case upon request, rather than the convoluted process we have now.

So we scrap the convoluted process, and leave any indefinite ban as just that, indefinite.

Milograd was the only individual the South Pacific has ever used parole for. The system was brought into law specifically for him, in fact, as some citizens were not comfortable with not allowing such a criminal to remain cutoff from our region. They went on parole just fine, didn’t really do much of note, and then conducted a coup d’etat of Lazarus. While on parole. That ended his chance pretty quickly, and we haven’t gone back since to using the system. It’s just not worth it to try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

Reply

Parole doesn't work on the internet.

Or at least in the cases where people are banned indefinitely specifically in the South Pacific.

In real life, where a "ban" means prison, people who get parole actually know how it feels to be in prison and would never want to go back.

But in TSP, that's not the same. An indefinite ban isn't a punishment, its just a deportation, and on the internet where thousands of other communities exist, many times people will just hop over to them. If they ever return, more likely than not they'll be using the parole system as a chance to try again their malicious intents. Not to mention the anonymous nature of the internet (for reference see the Greater Internet F***wad Theory)

While they'll always be people who respect their second chance, those people don't come around often enough to make a parole system worth it.

Reply

Probably not, which is why I'm partial to the idea of just having it be a simple and dumb case upon request, rather than the convoluted process we have now.

So we scrap the convoluted process, and leave any indefinite ban as just that, indefinite.

Even though I think you're right for a different reason, scrapping something just because it is unnecessarily convoluted and could easily be made nice and simple is never a justifiable reason.

Reply

I think that having a theoretical option around is a good and necessary thing - if we abolish parole, what does it say about our attitude towards criminal law in general?

I believe that allowing extreme punishment without even a theoretical option of reintegration, whether it be the death penalty/life without possibility parole or an indefinite ban without any chance of having it revoked, tends to lead to a generally much more negative attitude towards reintegration.
Creating a category of convicts that can never, not even in theory, e reintegrated does in my opinion affect both the attitudes of the general population and the convicts.

I will not explicitly refer to any possibly controversial real life comparisons now, especially since they are based on my personal opinions/experience and thus anecdotal, not empirical.

But I do believe that we should consider whether this may affect TSP's attitude to minor criminals (some of which have gone on to become active, valued members of the community) or their attitude towards TSP as well. Many people do look at our laws and try to interpret them as well as they can - a law that looks too much like it does not offer second chances will discourage reintegration and reinforce negative stereotypes of people convicted, while a law that gives the opposite appearance may have the opposite effect.

Reply

I think that having a theoretical option around is a good and necessary thing - if we abolish parole, what does it say about our attitude towards criminal law in general?

I believe that allowing extreme punishment without even a theoretical option of reintegration, whether it be the death penalty/life without possibility parole or an indefinite ban without any chance of having it revoked, tends to lead to a generally much more negative attitude towards reintegration.
Creating a category of convicts that can never, not even in theory, e reintegrated does in my opinion affect both the attitudes of the general population and the convicts.

I will not explicitly refer to any possibly controversial real life comparisons now, especially since they are based on my personal opinions/experience and thus anecdotal, not empirical.

But I do believe that we should consider whether this may affect TSP's attitude to minor criminals (some of which have gone on to become active, valued members of the community) or their attitude towards TSP as well. Many people do look at our laws and try to interpret them as well as they can - a law that looks too much like it does not offer second chances will discourage reintegration and reinforce negative stereotypes of people convicted, while a law that gives the opposite appearance may have the opposite effect.

But, here's the thing: We don't offer bans for minor offenses, just for egregious one. I suppose the more recent example of a low level criminal case was against CS, but he wasn't even banned.

Look, I get it. Saying there's a permanent ban on someone sounds harsh and unforgiving ... but it should be! That's the point.

To come back to Milo, there's little equivalent IRL to couping for the lulz. It would literally be like having someone completely erase the U.S. government. Someone who did that would never get parole ... so, I'm not sure why we should be worrying about that here.

I'd support Roavin's idea of a simplified system. But, I'm also in favor of scrapping this full force.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply