Preclusions for the Attorney General's Office

23 Mere

23 Mere

TNPer
Bill Title: An Amendment to Chapter Seven, Section 7.2, of the Legal Code to Include Preclusions for the Office of the Attorney General and Any Sub-offices, Agents or Enactors of the Attorney General's Will.
Bill Short Title: Preclusions for the Attorney General's Office.
Status: Proposal
Written/Co-written by: 23 Mere.



An Amendment to Chapter Seven:
Justification: This Bill Recognises the Office of the Attorney General as the principle legal investigative and enforcement body which although, at the time of writing, sees little activity holds an extremely important place in the maintenance of the rule of law alongside the courts of the realm. Pertaining to its importance in maintaining the rule of law it seems paramount that the holders of the Office, any of its sub-offices or its agents or actors of its will should be outstanding citizens beyond legal reproach. With that in mind the bill proposes the following:

1. Chapter Seven, Section 7.2 of the Legal Code will be amended to add the following clause:

7. Any individual will be precluded from the Office of the Attorney General if they have been found guilty of committing, or conspiring to commit, any of the following offences, under Chapter One of the Legal Code: Treason, Espionage or Gross Misconduct.
Click to expand...

2. Current clauses 7-28 of Chapter 7 of the Legal Code will be re-numbered 8-29 respectively.
Click to expand...
 
This (as less specific language) used to be in the legal code. It took me some difficulty to track down when it was removed, and I do not know why it was removed as I don't remember any discussion of that change.

As a point of information this would prevent the re-election or possibly effect the removal of our current Attorney General.

Given the very narrow nature of their offense, I'm not certain that it would serve the interests of The North Pacific to ban them from serving the region now or ever in the future in this capacity. After all, the prosecutor's decision to prosecute certainly does not necessarily effect penalties and is also subject to review.

I would like to hear more from the bill's proponent regarding how they came to want to propose this now.
 
this would put Tomb up the creek without a paddle. Was that the intent?

But I am not sure i agree. When a felon has completed their sentence, should they be precluded forever from seeking Attorney General office? And if the public wish to elect a felon to this office, should they be unable to?
 
Eluvatar:
This (as less specific language) used to be in the legal code. It took me some difficulty to track down when it was removed, and I do not know why it was removed as I don't remember any discussion of that change.

As a point of information this would prevent the re-election or possibly effect the removal of our current Attorney General.

Given the very narrow nature of their offense, I'm not certain that it would serve the interests of The North Pacific to ban them from serving the region now or ever in the future in this capacity. After all, the prosecutor's decision to prosecute certainly does not necessarily effect penalties and is also subject to review.

I would like to hear more from the bill's proponent regarding how they came to want to propose this now.
Click to expand...
I can't find any instance of this being in the Legal Code between 2009 (when the independent AG was created) and 2012, when the Legal Code was revamped.

Can you tell me where it was removed? Perhaps I can track down the discussion.

That said, if a nation is found Guilty by the Court and serves their sentence, I do not support exclusionary measures beyond it.
 
i also cannot understand why we would make being a felon a disqualification from being Attorney General and not make it a disqualification from being a Justice or delegate, for example.

Nah. Glad to see people proposing bills, but i cannot see this one flying.
 
Eluvatar:
I would like to hear more from the bill's proponent regarding how they came to want to propose this now.
Click to expand...

Having just joined TNP I thought the best method of introduction for someone who enjoys the legal system, its technicalities and wonderful joys was to come out swinging in either the judicial or legislative branches, and seeing as the judicial one isn't particularly busy at the moment I fell to the latter. There was no particular intent about why this moment was chosen to propose the bill, mere housekeeping surrounding something I found was particularly strange and could be debated and addressed.

flemingovia:
this would put Tomb up the creek without a paddle. Was that the intent?

But I am not sure i agree. When a felon has completed their sentence, should they be precluded forever from seeking Attorney General office? And if the public wish to elect a felon to this office, should they be unable to?
Click to expand...

I don't know who Tomb is through interaction, never spoken to the (wo)man [delete at appropriate] but I wouldn't consider their position to be compromised despite their prior actions. The bill does not contain a provision for backdating, which I would suggest indicates that this would be an action going forwards, rather than looking backwards. Many societies within the western world hold provisions that stop convicted felons from holding public and law related offices and roles due to the fact they've committed an offence and it would be, amongst other reasons, a interesting decision to have them enforcing the laws they broke.

flemingovia:
i also cannot understand why we would make being a felon a disqualification from being Attorney General and not make it a disqualification from being a Justice or delegate, for example.

Nah. Glad to see people proposing bills, but i cannot see this one flying.
Click to expand...

Very much testing the waters with this bill, I had intentions over time to see its extension to other 'law' related roles such as the Justices but not roles of political office. In personal opinion political expression is a fundamental right, therefore even felons should be allowed to express that right through voting and standing in elections. Law enforcement is to ensure the protection of an individuals rights and the maintenance of the peace; roles that seem strange to hand over to those who had breached the rights of others or breached the peace in the past.

Nevertheless, as you said, it's merely a proposal. I saw something I thought could be discussed and whatever the outcome is at least we've discussed it and set a clear precedent for ourselves in the future. The failure to pass legislation is just as important as passing it in personal opinion, in scenarios like this, where if its decided that the current system is the preferred by a democratic process then we've got a point of reference for future challenges or court cases.
 
I'm generally one who is quite sceptical about giving a lot of people second chances. However, automatic and irreversible disqualification I cannot support. This is NS, people make mistakes, change their views on the game, etc all the time. I could only consider supporting this if such disqualification was somehow reversible, or expired a certain time after the conclusion of their sentence -- though I think the former will just duplicate the election process, and the latter would be just as arbitrary.

While the A-G obviously has significant involvement with the legal system, the sole exclusion from this office is still rather arbitrary. I'd say I'd be far more worried about the Delegate having been convicted of an offence against the region rather than the A-G, due to their capacity to cause harm.
 
23 Mere:
Law enforcement is to ensure the protection of an individuals rights and the maintenance of the peace; roles that seem strange to hand over to those who had breached the rights of others or breached the peace in the past.
Click to expand...
That's more of a RL approach. It might make sense there, as those in the Justice system should be above reproach. That said, if you take a look at the TNP Legal Code:

Legal Code:
Chapter 2: Penal Code

1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
4. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
5. Proxying may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
6. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.
7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.
8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
Click to expand...
I think the punishments here are sufficient. Obviously ejection and banning will preclude any 'felons' from running for office (AG or Justice).

Guy:
I'd say I'd be far more worried about the Delegate having been convicted of an offence against the region rather than the A-G, due to their capacity to cause harm.
Click to expand...
You might want to read through the Courtroom thread (if you haven't already).
 
flemingovia:
can anyone shed light on the reasons for the clause's removal? It might help this debate.
Click to expand...
In reviewing the discussion thread it is not specifically stated, but appears to have been altered to bring the AG's Office more in line with other elected officials and further define the duties of the office.

So, I think the argument in favor of applying this to all offices would gain some support but singling out just the AG is likely to fail.
 
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
can anyone shed light on the reasons for the clause's removal? It might help this debate.
Click to expand...
In reviewing the discussion thread it is not specifically stated, but appears to have been altered to bring the AG's Office more in line with other elected officials and further define the duties of the office.

So, I think the argument in favor of applying this to all offices would gain some support but singling out just the AG is likely to fail.
Click to expand...
yes, I can see an argument for preventing felons from holding office in TNP. Although I do not agree with the argument.

My legal opinion is that this might also be subject to challenge under clause 7 of the Bill of Rights:

No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
Click to expand...

Eternal disqualification from office could (and if I were justice, would) be considered a disproportionate punishment.
 
If changes to the proposal were to be made outlining that the preclusions were for all elective positions would this get more traction? I can understand the concerns under Clause Seven of the Bill of Rights but that would very much be a matter for Justice consideration. I would only suggest that what is considered disproportionate is a matter of viewpoint rather than a matter of fact. Some may say that restrictions on voting rights is a disproportionate punishment yet the majority agree that it is suitable, making it as such. Would the same not be for this?
 
23 Mere:
If changes to the proposal were to be made outlining that the preclusions were for all elective positions would this get more traction? I can understand the concerns under Clause Seven of the Bill of Rights but that would very much be a matter for Justice consideration. I would only suggest that what is considered disproportionate is a matter of viewpoint rather than a matter of fact. Some may say that restrictions on voting rights is a disproportionate punishment yet the majority agree that it is suitable, making it as such. Would the same not be for this?
Click to expand...
It might make more sense, given that you're not exclusively targeting the AG's office, but you'll probably actually get less traction given the general sense that this is a grossly excessive punishment to be effected on every single elective office in the region. Just think about that, you're effectively prohibiting someone from serving the region in many official capacities over even relatively minor offences. Sure, what constitutes excessive punishment is a matter of opinion, but understand that there can be a majority opinion in which many different people have come to agree on a point by looking at the consequences of the given action.

At the end of the day, we are talking about elective offices, whose occupants are selected through a democratic process. This gives a certain degree of leeway in determining whether someone is trustworthy enough to serve in a position given their previous record. We are free to decide whether a person's past actions warrant the preclusion of their ability to hold an office based on the severity of their previous offences. And we do all this without blanket legislation that precludes anyone from holding office over even minor convictions. Given this, I just don't see the point to enacting such a blanket ban.
 
This is not a proposal I can support.

If we wish for the commission of certain crimes to be punishable by a revocation of the ability to hold elected office for a definite or indefinite period of time, I believe the correct place to put that is in the list of punishments the court may hand out upon conviction. I am not convinced that this is something we want to do, but I could perhaps be talked around.

But as a blanket prohibition against being able to serve in elected office based on any kind of conviction, I simply cannot get behind the idea. It never made sense to me when we had it, and I was pleased when it was removed. It's extremely heavy handed and far too permanent for an online game - heck, it has the potential to incite overthrows of the government to get around it if it applies too broadly (say, if nobody who wants to serve is able to stand for election), which seems counterproductive.

On a more philosophical or theoretical level, I oppose the idea that lifelong loss of rights is called for. If our punishments are crafted well, if we stand behind them as appropriate responses to various offenses, then we must be prepared to accept the person convicted back into society with full rights and privileges at the end of their sentence. Legislation that does not permit for rehabilitation, or which revokes rights after the fact (in this case, by preventing anyone who has been convicted in the past from running, even though that was not a part of their original conviction), is bad legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top