We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Poll: Should the Amendment to the Criminal Code be passed into law?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Aye
41.67%
20 41.67%
Nay
35.42%
17 35.42%
Abstain
22.92%
11 22.92%
Total 48 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

[PASSED] A1911.01: Amendment to the Criminal Code (Parole and Prohibited Groups)
#1

Legislators,

a motion to vote on the following bill has been seconded.

The debate thread can be found here.

The Criminal Code in its current form can be found here.

As an amendment to a general law, the vote will last 3 days, ending at 23:30 UTC on 6th November 2019. The vote requires a 60% majority to pass.

Please vote by poll if possible. If you cannot vote by poll, post 'Aye', 'Nay' or 'Abstain' in this thread. Please do not vote both by poll and by post. Comments and discussion belong in the debate thread and may be moved there.
 
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.
 
[-] The following 2 users Like Nakari's post:
  • Divine Owl, Poppy
#2

Note: the majority requirement has raised to 60%, as repealing this law would involve rescinding a Prohibited Group designation, which requires a 60% majority.
#3

(11-04-2019, 07:50 AM)Nakari Wrote: Note: the majority requirement has raised to 60%, as repealing this law would involve rescinding a Prohibited Group designation, which requires a 60% majority.

Honourable Chair,

Article 1.4 of the Legislative Procedure Act states that “General laws, amendments, resolutions, and treaties require a simple majority of those voting to pass” whilst only “Constitutional laws, constitutional amendments, and resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass”. The Criminal Code is not marked as a Constitutional Law as specified by Article 1.1 of the Charter, and as such is a General Law. In this matter the law is thus clear that a simple majority of those voting is the necessary threshold for amendment, and this decision is thus extremely questionable.

I would respectively ask what law, precedent or court ruling you considered when reaching this decision.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Belschaft's post:
  • Jebediah
#4

Honourable Chair,
I personally believe that, unless the law is a constitutional law or specifies that the law or its majority requirement require such a majority to be repealed, it should fall under the rules for general laws and only require a 50% majority.
Laws ought to be written clearly, so if the intention is that the law not be repealable unless a special majority is reached, that should be clearly stated as being applicable to the entire law.
#5

(11-04-2019, 10:48 AM)Belschaft Wrote:
(11-04-2019, 07:50 AM)Nakari Wrote: Note: the majority requirement has raised to 60%, as repealing this law would involve rescinding a Prohibited Group designation, which requires a 60% majority.

Honourable Chair,

Article 1.4 of the Legislative Procedure Act states that “General laws, amendments, resolutions, and treaties require a simple majority of those voting to pass” whilst only “Constitutional laws, constitutional amendments, and resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass”. The Criminal Code is not marked as a Constitutional Law as specified by Article 1.1 of the Charter, and as such is a General Law. In this matter the law is thus clear that a simple majority of those voting is the necessary threshold for amendment, and this decision is thus extremely questionable.

I would respectively ask what law, precedent or court ruling you considered when reaching this decision. 

Repealing this section of law essentially takes two actions: it repeals the relevant sections of law, but also rescinds the designation of a proscribed group. One requires 50% majority, the other 60%.

When we have passed omnibus law packages that encompass both constitutional and general laws, the precedent is to use the higher requirement to determine the required majority (with the consequence that some amendments to general laws have required more than a simple majority). I followed this precedent here, and chose the higher required majority.

If this vote reaches between 50% and 60% majority, I am happy to leave the ultimate determination to a Legal Question.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Nakari's post:
  • Sasha
#6

(11-04-2019, 01:42 PM)Nakari Wrote:
(11-04-2019, 10:48 AM)Belschaft Wrote:
(11-04-2019, 07:50 AM)Nakari Wrote: Note: the majority requirement has raised to 60%, as repealing this law would involve rescinding a Prohibited Group designation, which requires a 60% majority.

Honourable Chair,

Article 1.4 of the Legislative Procedure Act states that “General laws, amendments, resolutions, and treaties require a simple majority of those voting to pass” whilst only “Constitutional laws, constitutional amendments, and resolutions dealing with matters of constitutional law require a three-fifths supermajority of those voting to pass”. The Criminal Code is not marked as a Constitutional Law as specified by Article 1.1 of the Charter, and as such is a General Law. In this matter the law is thus clear that a simple majority of those voting is the necessary threshold for amendment, and this decision is thus extremely questionable.

I would respectively ask what law, precedent or court ruling you considered when reaching this decision. 

Repealing this section of law essentially takes two actions: it repeals the relevant sections of law, but also rescinds the designation of a proscribed group. One requires 50% majority, the other 60%.

When we have passed omnibus law packages that encompass both constitutional and general laws, the precedent is to use the higher requirement to determine the required majority (with the consequence that some amendments to general laws have required more than a simple majority). I followed this precedent here, and chose the higher required majority.

If this vote reaches between 50% and 60% majority, I am happy to leave the ultimate determination to a Legal Question.

Chair,

With all due respect to your position, the precedent you refer to - that when passing an omnibus bill including both Constitutional Laws and General Laws the higher threshold is used - has no relation to this matter, as it relates to bills effecting both Constitutional and General Laws. The Criminal Code is a General Law in its entirety.

Article 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act (LPA) details the powers of your office, including discretionary powers, but at no place in our laws is the Chair granted the power to assign certain matters voting thresholds different to those explicitly defined by Article 1.4 of the LPA.

As such your action here is in clear violation of Article 1.4 of the LPA and thus unlawful. Regardless of the passage of this specific amendment, your action would establish a precedent directly contrary to Article 1.4 of the LPA. As such, and unless you are willing to acknowledge your error and revoke this unlawful action, I will be seeking immediate redress from the Courts.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Belschaft's post:
  • Sasha
#7

I would propose to postpone the vote until the legal question about which majority requirement takes precedence is completed, to avoid any wrongdoing.
[Image: st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.u5.jpg]
[-] The following 2 users Like Jebediah's post:
  • Aga, Omega
#8

The vote has closed with 19 Ayes, 15 Nays, and 11 Abstains. There is a 55% majority for Aye. Excitingly, we won't know whether it's passed or not for a while!
[-] The following 2 users Like Nakari's post:
  • Jebediah, Seraph
#9

Legislators,

Please be advised that, based on the Opinion of the High Court issued the 8th of February, the voting threshold is determined to be a simple majority.  In this case, this amendment has passed with a 54% majority in favor.

A breakdown of the votes (including abstentions):

[Image: 2Kjkbyd.png]

(without abstentions)

[Image: SXE9IZi.png?1]

This thread will remain up until the 11th of February, 23:00 UTC before being archived.




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .