Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 10-24-2019, 12:08 PM

My fellow South Pacificans,

For a considerable amount of time we have had two extraneous articles in the Criminal Code; Article 3, dealing with Parole, and Article 4, dealing with Prohibited Regions and Organisations.

Article 3 is one of the worst pieces of law ever written in this region, despite the good intentions behind it. Every single individual who has ever been subject to the parole system has had it revoked in farcical circumstances. The system has not been used in a very long time, and for good reason.

Article 4 was superseded a year and a half ago by the proscriptions act, but was retained in regional law due to the fact that the organisation known as “The Empire” was designated as a prohibited organisation but not as a proscribed organisation. This is no longer the case as the organisation has now been proscribed under it’s “Rahl Family” identity.

As such I propose that both these articles be eliminated from the Criminal Code.

Amendment to the Criminal Code Wrote:
Criminal Code
...

3. 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 parole board.
a. Said parole board shall consist of the senior most member of the Council on Regional Security, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the Chair of the Assembly.
b. The 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.
c. 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.

(2) After six months of residency, the individual may apply for legislator status, albeit with a prohibition on holding office.

(3) 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.

(4) After six months of legislator status, the individual may apply to the parole board for the prohibition on holding office to be lifted. The 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.

(5) At each point of the parole process, prior to the parole board's decision, the Assembly shall be informed of a request and legislators shall be allotted one week to formally present briefs to the parole board regarding the convicted, their past crimes and the appropriateness of parole.

(6) Changes to the parole system shall not affect the current status of parolees, although any new procedure shall be followed hereafter.

4. Prohibited Regions and Organizations

(1) The Cabinet or the Council on Regional Security may request the Assembly designate foreign regions and organizations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Prohibited Groups. Such requests must be accompanied with a report detailing those activities that meet the definitions of hostility detailed in Section 2 of this Article.

(2) For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that--
a. Were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific;
b. Have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific;
c. Groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific’s government or military;
d. Groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations.

(3) For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement, provided the target-region is not an ally or a region that The South Pacific is at war with, shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.

(4) Membership in a designated Prohibited Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of Legislator status.
a. A seven day grace period will be allowed for renunciation of membership in the Prohibited Group.
b. The seven days grace period begins immediately after the notification of the legislator in question that they are a member of a Prohibited Group by the Prime Minister or a member of the Council on Regional Security.

(5) Any individual whose Legislator status has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited Group to the High Court within 7 days of their legislator status being revoked.
a. The High Court shall uphold the revocation of Legislator status if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of revocation.
b. The High Court shall reinstate Legislator status if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of revocation.

(6) Applicants for Legislator status who are members of a designated Prohibited Group shall not be granted such status unless they renounce membership in the Prohibited Group.

(7) Membership in a designated Prohibited Group does not constitute a criminal offense; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.

(8) Regions at war with The South Pacific or with which The South Pacific is at war shall be automatically considered Prohibited Groups.
a. The Assembly may further designate Prohibited Groups via a vote with a 60% majority in favor, should the Cabinet or the Council on Regional Security request such a designation.

(9) The Assembly may rescind a Prohibited Group designation via a vote with a 60% majority in favor.

(10) The following regions and organizations are deemed Prohibited Groups within The South Pacific--
a. The Empire

(11) The Chair of the Assembly shall update clause 10 of this article to reflect The South Pacific's current Prohibited Groups.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 10-31-2019, 09:48 PM by Nakari.)

***Roavin*** · 10-24-2019, 03:24 PM

Regarding Article 3, I'd prefer a rewrite over a full repeal. It's probably a discussion worth having whether we want to have irreversible banishment [on IC grounds] or not.

Regarding Article 4, I see what you're saying but it's still somewhat different. If we kill Article 4 now, Dali (since he left Rahl) would no longer be covered, for example.

**Belschaft** · 10-24-2019, 03:49 PM

Dali is individually named in the Rahl proscriptions so that isn't the case.

I think whether or not irreversible banishment is a good thing is a legitimate discussion, but the Article 3 system is not fit for purpose and should be removed.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Sasha · 10-24-2019, 05:45 PM

Several things:

1. Could you (or others) please provide us with some more background on the parole system and in particular why it has failed in the past?

2. You claim that you oppose the article on parole because it has been revoked in the past under "farcical circumstances" but looking at both the judicial and criminal acts, parole appears to currently be the only way to have a ban for treason or a ban for conduct violations that was not successfully appealed lifted and is also the only method currently enshrined in law to otherwise deal with very long sentences.
Therefore, I would like clarification on what your intentions actually are - do you want to actually make it possible/easier for people to have their bans lifted or do you want to make it completely impossible (for certain violations)?

3. Have you considered reforming the Parole part? I think the idea is good but I agree that at least part of the implementation is not. I would be quite willing in helping with the design of a new scheme, though currently I lack some information about how the parole system failed precisely (even if the law text does give me some idea).

4. As for the part on prohibitions - I believe that it is a bit redundant currently, though it does specifically allow the banning of organisations from legislatorship only (which may perhaps be wanted in future cases) and also has the assembly vote on such measures - we should consider looking at keeping the option of banning organisations from legislatorship only. I propose looking at creating a unified proscription act which creates the option of banning organisations from legislatorship only and which allows some additional assembly oversight (while still putting the immediate power in the hands of the cabinet).

5. I propose separating the two sections into two separate bills because I believe that the parole one in particular requires further discussion.

***Tsunamy*** · 10-25-2019, 10:19 PM

Practically speaking, parole just doesn't work. Just as most people don't return after being temporarily banned from the region, the idea that we need parole is ... just yeah. I don't even know the last person who was on parole. And honestly, I feel like there was only ever one person, no?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Amerion** · 10-25-2019, 10:45 PM

Having had a look at the ban list, I see that other than proscriptions, the only IC ban is that of Cormac who the High Court 'found guilty of the crime of treason against the Coalition of the South Pacific and is sentenced to an indefinite ban from the region and forum.' Given that this measure would remove the prospect for the parole of this individual, will there be another avenue created or will this ban be well and truly 'indefinite'?

***sandaoguo*** · 10-26-2019, 01:58 PM

(10-25-2019, 10:19 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Practically speaking, parole just doesn't work. Just as most people don't return after being temporarily banned from the region, the idea that we need parole is ... just yeah. I don't even know the last person who was on parole. And honestly, I feel like there was only ever one person, no?

And the people who do return — when we make the dumb mistake of allowing them back — never do so in good faith.

Penguin · 10-26-2019, 02:50 PM

(10-26-2019, 01:58 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: And the people who do return — when we make the dumb mistake of allowing them back — never do so in good faith.

Simple fix - we don’t let them come back ?‍♀️

This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Penguins shall one day rule the pie!
And by "pie", I mean "World"!!
Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP
Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala
I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History.
There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking.

Sasha · 10-26-2019, 04:24 PM

(10-25-2019, 10:19 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Practically speaking, parole just doesn't work. Just as most people don't return after being temporarily banned from the region, the idea that we need parole is ... just yeah. I don't even know the last person who was on parole. And honestly, I feel like there was only ever one person, no?

(10-26-2019, 01:58 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: And the people who do return — when we make the dumb mistake of allowing them back — never do so in good faith.

It would still be nice to actually have an idea why the system failed rather than just general comments. Just because Obamacare had negative effects in some regions and on some people doesn't mean that all healthcare is bad, does it? I do not believe that offering some kind of parole or similar system is (fundamentally) bad - this is one is simply lacking.

(10-25-2019, 10:45 PM)Amerion Wrote: Having had a look at the ban list, I see that other than proscriptions, the only IC ban is that of Cormac who the High Court 'found guilty of the crime of treason against the Coalition of the South Pacific and is sentenced to an indefinite ban from the region and forum.' Given that this measure would remove the prospect for the parole of this individual, will there be another avenue created or will this ban be well and truly 'indefinite'?

As far as I can see, I see no other avenue to have this ban legally revoked under current law. I'd still like an official answer on this.

Finally, to everyone: past offenders may not have returned or returned in bad faith - we still need to examine the possibility that some of them could have or that future members could become good, honest members of the community under the right circumstances.
The real world keeps showing us that increasing punishments, that excessively harsh criminal systems often have far, far more negative effects than positive.
I believe that we should keep some kind of option of integration for all IC offenders and most OOC offenders - we need to strike a workable balance between security, reintegration and prevention in our legal system and strive to improve it where it is lacking.

North Prarie · 10-26-2019, 05:31 PM

I don’t think parole is a necessarily bad idea - if someone genuinely sees the wrong in their ways and wants to help the region, i’d let them back in. However, it can be easily abused, so that kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast.
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister