|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 23, 2016 12:15:14 GMT -6
I thought it might be interesting to have one place for the non-parliamentarians among us to put their ideas.
My suggestions, then:
1) New applicants should be required to declare on their honour that they have never been charged or convicted of a crime involving "moral turpitude", and that they must agree that their application can be immediately terminated if they do not disclose this (clause 5).
2) For citizens, it should be an offence in Talossan law to fail to disclose to the A-X in a timely manner that one has been charged with an offence in obes home juridstiction involving "moral turpitude". The punishment should be banishment, and the only defences should be evidence that a disclosure was in fact actually made, mistaken identity, or that the offence did not involve "moral turpitude" as our law woukd define it. Proceedings should always be in camera, and asserted innocence of the charge, or even exoneration by another court, is irrelevant to the proceedings. If no defence is offered after a certain passage of time, (2 weeks?) then the Cort can rule. I reckon 99% of the riff-raff will be done in by this, and a genuinely innocent petson who was exonerated will not fear disclosure.
3) I find it vanishingly unlikely that someone would make the declaration, but there are always exceptions. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with that. Perhaps: the A-X submits the declaration to the Cort immediately (no discretion in the matter), and the Cort has a fixed period of time to rule. If the declared offence meets the definition of "moral turpitude", then the Cort can suspend the citizen from activity until the "real" court has rendered its verdict. If exonerated, the subject of the order can ask for it to be lifted. If guilty, the A-X can ask the Cort to recognise the judgement of the "real" court. As the Cort would have already ruLed on whether it was involving "moral turpitude", the only defence at this point would be mistaken identity.
I dont think it would be right to make any of this retroactive though. I agree with those who say that there is no real way of getting Canun out, aside from waiting for time to pass and the electoral law to take its course. This is why, regrettably, I got quite agressive about revocation of titles. As we cant do anything legally, I feel strongly that we need to demonstrate as fortrightly as we can that we do not want this person in our community.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 23, 2016 12:31:21 GMT -6
Any community must have an option to expell it's unfitting elements in a smooth and agreed-upon way, it's a pity Talossa had none. At the end of the day, the only indicator of whether we want someone out or not is our own subjective opinion on whether we want someone out or not. There's no objective truth, no objective morality, and therefore it's our own shared morality with which to measure crimes and misdeeds of our citizens. I oppose any games of "foreign jurisdiction decisions application" because they are burdensome.
I mean, someone isn't wanted in Talossa, we all agree on it, but - what the heck - why do we have some artificial obstacles to act according to our mutual agreement and just expel Iustí from our country? What possible mistake we might do if we do renounce him?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 23, 2016 12:53:13 GMT -6
So you are talking about "ostracism" in the classical sense? But you know, in ancient Athens the ostracised could eventially come back, and "I dont like his face" was as valid a reason as anything for adding your shard of pottery to the pile. Trouble is I dont think theres an appetite for that in the Ziu for something like that, aside from any other objections.
I think what Ive proposed keeps our courts away from questions of guilt or innocence that are not our responsibility, and puts the burden of compliance on those who have something to declare. The test then is, did they declare? Under this law Canun would be on his way out since he clearly had no intention of declaring anything, given his extensive lies to a number of people back in 2013 on the subject of his whereabouts.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 25, 2016 6:40:05 GMT -6
1) New applicants should be required to declare on their honour that they have never been charged or convicted of a crime involving "moral turpitude", and that they must agree that their application can be immediately terminated if they do not disclose this (clause 5). This could be a good idea. Aside from providing grounds to terminate an application before citizenship is granted, failure to disclose would constitute immigration fraud and allow the Cort to revoke the citizenship of someone who lies on this question. But I think we should be careful in how we define the crimes that require disclosure. "Moral turpitude" is a vague standard. 2) For citizens, it should be an offence in Talossan law to fail to disclose to the A-X in a timely manner that one has been charged with an offence in obes home juridstiction involving "moral turpitude". The punishment should be banishment, and the only defences should be evidence that a disclosure was in fact actually made, mistaken identity, or that the offence did not involve "moral turpitude" as our law woukd define it. Proceedings should always be in camera, and asserted innocence of the charge, or even exoneration by another court, is irrelevant to the proceedings. If no defence is offered after a certain passage of time, (2 weeks?) then the Cort can rule. I reckon 99% of the riff-raff will be done in by this, and a genuinely innocent petson who was exonerated will not fear disclosure. I'm less sure about this. The Covenant of Right and Freedoms protects individuals from being forced to testify against themselves. I don't think a general mandatory reporting requirement like this would be permissible under the similar protection against self-incrimination (5th Amendment) in the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 7:28:41 GMT -6
I think that you could compare it to being convicted of failing to make an income tax turn, couldn't you? www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7203The offence is not the underlying charge or conviction, its the failure to declare it. I think the bigger issue is when someone does declare. Then you have a thornier problem. If you look at US immigration rules, they actually do extensively define the kind of offences involved in "moral turpitude". This could be an annex to an eventual law.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 25, 2016 7:44:44 GMT -6
The distinction made in US law is that the tax filing requirement has a non-punitive regulatory purpose, and a tax return is not normally expected to be incriminating. A requirement to file tax returns only to report illegal income would certainly be unconstitutional. A requirement to report criminal charges would almost inevitably be expected to disclose the existence of evidence that the disclosed has committed a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 8:01:59 GMT -6
The distinction made in US law is that the tax filing requirement has a non-punitive regulatory purpose, and a tax return is not normally expected to be incriminating. A requirement to file tax returns only to report illegal income would certainly be unconstitutional. A requirement to report criminal charges would almost inevitably be expected to disclose the existence of evidence that the disclosed has committed a crime. If for arguments sake, our code didnt penalise the underlying offence. Just didnt mention it at all. Would it still be incriminatory? Its just a fact in a persons biography in another jurisdiction then, isnt it?
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 25, 2016 8:31:26 GMT -6
For the record, I do believe in objective morality, and I do believe in the rule of law, even more so in a nation like Talossa than one like the UK or the USA.
I believe we probably could see the person involved banished without any change to the law, and certainly a disrepute crime like Dame Miestra has proposed would also work, as there'll still be disrepute being brought upon Talossa by the time the law is passed.
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Feb 25, 2016 8:33:25 GMT -6
Another consideration is that here in the UK we have The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which if after a rehabilitation period (and there has been no further conviction(s)) the conviction is deemed "spent" and (with some exceptions) need not be disclosed by the ex-offender in any context.
Therefore, if someone living in the UK had say a 2 years custodial sentence, after the rehabilitation period of 4 years s/he does not have to declare the same. It is also a libellous offence under section 8 of the same act to publish details of a spent offence to cause damage to the person in question.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Feb 25, 2016 9:27:34 GMT -6
I don't think being *charged* with a crime should be lumped in with being convicted of one. Picture an applicant for citizenship who was charged with some moral-turpitude offense many years ago. He was acquitted, and nearly everyone has forgotten about it. Do we really want to force him to bring it all up, and be judged by us, before he's admitted to citizenship?
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 9:45:21 GMT -6
I don't think being *charged* with a crime should be lumped in with being convicted of one. Picture an applicant for citizenship who was charged with some moral-turpitude offense many years ago. He was acquitted, and nearly everyone has forgotten about it. Do we really want to force him to bring it all up, and be judged by us, before he's admitted to citizenship? — John R And just convicted isn't enough either. Appeals exists... My original solution however was to just remove them as citizens when condemned, and if they win their appeal or when they have served their time, they can apply to reactivate their citizenship, unless the crime was too horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 10:10:12 GMT -6
Another consideration is that here in the UK we have The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which if after a rehabilitation period (and there has been no further conviction(s)) the conviction is deemed "spent" and (with some exceptions) need not be disclosed by the ex-offender in any context. Therefore, if someone living in the UK had say a 2 years custodial sentence, after the rehabilitation period of 4 years s/he does not have to declare the same. It is also a libellous offence under section 8 of the same act to publish details of a spent offence to cause damage to the person in question. This is a good point. It also brings up that in some jurisdictions, criminal records arent publicly available-only certain people have access to them, and with different levels of detail. It might have changed, but I doubt that in the UK or Ireland for exampLe that there is any equivalent of a public list of those in prison, so unless one had access to the court docket and studued it very closely, or the case got press coverage, one would never know.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 10:24:04 GMT -6
I don't think being *charged* with a crime should be lumped in with being convicted of one. Picture an applicant for citizenship who was charged with some moral-turpitude offense many years ago. He was acquitted, and nearly everyone has forgotten about it. Do we really want to force him to bring it all up, and be judged by us, before he's admitted to citizenship? — John R Its also the case that if one is acquitted, or the charges are dropped, one should hsve nothing to answer for-certainly not from us. I wasxthinking more of a situation whete someone was charged. They would gove an authority here a heads up, but we wouldnt & shouldnt publish it everywhere.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 25, 2016 12:03:24 GMT -6
If for arguments sake, our code didnt penalise the underlying offence. Just didnt mention it at all. Would it still be incriminatory? Its just a fact in a persons biography in another jurisdiction then, isnt it? Yeah, I guess that goes to the "bigger issue" you alluded to earlier: what do you do if someone provides an affirmative response? If the state truly has a legitimate non-punitive purpose for asking the question, there could be an argument that the requirement to report does not violate 5th Covenant rights, but I'm not sure what that could be. A point of comparison: in the U.S. military, there are regulations requiring servicemembers to report criminal charges and convictions, but the purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the chain of command is aware of circumstances that could make the servicemember unavailable for deployment, relocation, etc. Moreover, the self-report or information derived from the self-report cannot be the basis of criminal or disciplinary action against the servicemember.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Feb 25, 2016 12:34:05 GMT -6
Bear with me here, please. Can someone explain to me why criminals need to be stripped of their citizenship?
|
|