Parole |
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm all for allowin' parole, but allowin' the Assembly to overturn rulings of the court is a gross violation of separation of powers.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific (07-22-2014, 01:39 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: And all those changes mean absolutely nothing if those people come back and start their life cycle all over again. That's why I proposed heavy restrictions on the "paroled" users. They'd let back in, but they would be prohibited from the government to prevent them from doing it again. I did raise the idea of adding a later option of restoring full access, but even then it could be upwards of two years before they gain full access.
There is already an appeals system, and a certain amount of flexibility in sentencing. Only one crime carries a permanent sentence - treason - and it is the only crime that parole would be inappropriate for.
As such, this is entirely redundant. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |