[DRAFT] Criminal Recategorization Act

I think this is good but I think it would be easier and simpler to just overhaul gross misconduct rather than split it into different laws.

Also why is phishing, adspam, spamming and crashing only in the penal code when all of the other other laws in the penal code are in the criminal code and it would make the penal code just a little bit shorter without having to explain what phishing, adspam, spamming and crashing is in the penal code when it should be explained in the criminal code.
 
Ruby:
I think this is good but I think it would be easier and simpler to just overhaul gross misconduct rather than split it into different laws.

Also why is phishing, adspam, spamming and crashing only in the penal code when all of the other other laws in the penal code are in the criminal code and it would make the penal code just a little bit shorter without having to explain what phishing, adspam, spamming and crashing is in the penal code when it should be explained in the criminal code.
Click to expand...
Gross misconduct is trying to do too much. My approach here is to aim for more specific crimes that can be applied to best fit situations. Gross misconduct is a blunt instrument and a catch all and as a result, it has to have the widest array of possible punishments to cover all scenarios, but this creates weird scenarios where a lesser case of gross misconduct can be given the highest sentence possible depending on who your justice is.

As for the penal code point, those offenses are all OOC in nature and that provision is what gives some direction to the admin team, who will often not take action unless necessary or at with the government’s blessing. That provision is giving them our blessing so they can handle the OOC offenses without going through a IC court trial process. Another big goal with this bill is not mixing the two kinds of offenses together by leaving these as IC crimes.
 
Pallaith:
Gross misconduct is trying to do too much. My approach here is to aim for more specific crimes that can be applied to best fit situations. Gross misconduct is a blunt instrument and a catch all and as a result, it has to have the widest array of possible punishments to cover all scenarios, but this creates weird scenarios where a lesser case of gross misconduct can be given the highest sentence possible depending on who your justice is.

As for the penal code point, those offenses are all OOC in nature and that provision is what gives some direction to the admin team, who will often not take action unless necessary or at with the government’s blessing. That provision is giving them our blessing so they can handle the OOC offenses without going through a IC court trial process. Another big goal with this bill is not mixing the two kinds of offenses together by leaving these as IC crimes.
Click to expand...
Oh, that’s actually really good idea…

You have my full support!
 
Pallaith:
It is. No consideration given to the words "as appropriate" though I guess. Whatever, it's not worth the hassle, I have amended the draft to specify two clauses.
Click to expand...
I would still consider having the "amendable" portion of the Legal Code excised. There is no reason why the government can't be responsible for maintaining a publicly viewable list of allies/enemies.
 
With three objections, the scheduled vote is cancelled. I quote now from the Regional Assembly Rules:
4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.
Click to expand...
Quorum is currently 17, so six objections, including the the citizen that introduced the proposal, are required to override the objection.
 
Halsoni:
This is blatant obstructionism. I move for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

I'm generally opposed to adding more law violations without any good reason, especially when proposed by a sitting Justice. The conflict of interest, even if incidental, is not lost on me.

I find many of the new laws overly repressive and vague And with no defined sentencing guidelines, people can legally be banned for years for accidentally violating a vague new rule that we didn't need in the first place.

We have seen people abuse the justice system in other GCRs in very similar ways, The South Pacific and The East Pacific being the poster children for this trend.

At the very least now no one can accuse me of not trying to stop something terrible from occurring. Sometimes your best is all you can do.

My only hope is that these new, poorly defined laws won't be used vindictively, but my fear is that they absolutely will be. Future historians are welcome to quote me.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

I'm generally opposed to adding more law violations without any good reason, especially when proposed by a sitting Justice. The conflict of interest, even if incidental, is not lost on me.

I find many of the new laws overly repressive and vague And with no defined sentencing guidelines, people can legally be banned for years for accidentally violating a vague new rule that we didn't need in the first place.

We have seen people abuse the justice system in other GCRs in very similar ways, The South Pacific and The East Pacific being the poster children for this trend.

At the very least now no one can accuse me of not trying to stop something terrible from occurring. Sometimes your best is all you can do.

My only hope is that these new, poorly defined laws won't be used vindictively, but my fear is that they absolutely will be. Future historians are welcome to quote me.
Click to expand...
This is a reason to vote against, not to block the vote at the eleventh hour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top