|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 25, 2016 15:23:06 GMT -6
It's an exaggeration, I think. You can certainly be fired for violating a duty of care... if I knew about a sex offender doing something wrong (living too close, working at the school, etc.) and didn't say anything. That would be endangering children, and that person would rightly deserve to get canned. But I'm pretty sure that only something like a security clearance can be threatened for just knowing a criminal.
This whole thing sucks, of course, and I'm not minimizing it (especially as someone who's been targeted by someone malicious over this). Certainly I was really freaked out.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 25, 2016 16:00:01 GMT -6
I don't think being *charged* with a crime should be lumped in with being convicted of one. Amazingly, I agree with KJ1 on this one. That was exactly the move that KR1 pulled on Grubi - turning "one of Grubi's ex once sought a protection order against him" to "OMG GRUBI IS A WOMAN-BEATER". My proposal for a Disrepute offence would require conviction.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 25, 2016 16:04:25 GMT -6
Anyway, can I repeat that my proposal is not that "serious criminals should be kicked out of Talossa". The proposal is that "serious criminals who by being convicted of a crime have brought Talossa into disrepute and made Talossa unsafe for other citizens should be kicked out". The crime we're talking about here is a "contagious" one, one which makes other Talossans unsafe by association.
Hey, maybe I should just replace "bring Talossa into disrepute" with "make Talossan citizens unsafe". That's the crime we're punishing. Cannon is doing time for his real crime, but the issue is that he's made other Talossans vulnerable (in a way that he wouldn't if, for example, he were doing 25 years for tax fraud like Al Capone).
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 25, 2016 16:06:51 GMT -6
Anyway, can I repeat that my proposal is not that "serious criminals should be kicked out of Talossa". The proposal is that "serious criminals who by being convicted of a crime have brought Talossa into disrepute and made Talossa unsafe for other citizens should be kicked out". The crime we're talking about here is a "contagious" one, one which makes other Talossans unsafe by association. Hey, maybe I should just replace "bring Talossa into disrepute" with "make Talossan citizens unsafe". That's the crime we're punishing. Cannon is doing time for his real crime, but the issue is that he's made other Talossans vulnerable (in a way that he wouldn't if, for example, he were doing 25 years for tax fraud like Al Capone). I hear you. And I disagree. Or rather, I do not condone. Please do read my proposal in the thread of the announcement from the Royal Gazette.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 25, 2016 16:08:32 GMT -6
Salus populi suprema lex is my stance and I can't see myself shifting from it. Safety of Talossans comes first, above individual rights in some contexts. Yes I said it. But there is no way I can see that my careful proposal could be misused, unless both the Government and the UC became thoroughly corrupt, and in that case no-one has any rights anyway.
|
|
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 16:10:35 GMT -6
As nothing but a quick point of information, the statute Iustì was convicted of violating covers BOTH paedophila and statutory rape (so long as the victim is under 14). Texas doesn't have an actual "statutory rape" law.
— John R
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 25, 2016 16:11:21 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure that "statutory rape" as a concept is an Americanism anyway.
But more importantly: can anyone (Ián A., Epic?) give me a way to deal with Cannon that would ensure:
a) that our Kingdom, and all of its citizens, suffer no punishment or abuse due to association with Cannon's crimes; b) that any survivor of sexual abuse will feel safe in Talossa;
without a legal process which might result in him losing citizenship? Because I don't care about the means, only the ends.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 25, 2016 16:16:52 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure that "statutory rape" as a concept is an Americanism anyway. But more importantly: can anyone (Ián A., Epic?) give me a way to deal with Cannon that would ensure: a) that our Kingdom, and all of its citizens, suffer no punishment or abuse due to association with Cannon's crimes; b) that any survivor of sexual abuse will feel safe in Talossa; without a legal process which might result in him losing citizenship? Because I don't care about the means, only the ends. Yes, I am on-line with my iPhone, so the possibilities are limited, again, I direct you to the thread of the Royal Gazette, I have proposed a very rough possibility of what could be done.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 25, 2016 16:20:03 GMT -6
I really don't think persona non grata / shunning while retaining citizenship would make survivors feel safe, or make any difference to - for example - Admiral Tim's employers. Only complete disassociation, i.e. banishment, will do that. You realise we are legally allowed to banish people already, right?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 25, 2016 16:21:05 GMT -6
Dama Miestra, it seems to me like the primary problem is that such a law does seem like an ex post facto one -- we're criminalizing something that has already occurred. That is to say, we're creating a new label and saying it's a crime and it only applies to some stuff that already happened. Probably at minimum, it wouldn't be able to get rid of Iusti, even if we held that it was generally okay otherwise.
I think this is a weird and tricky legal issue, but it exists for good reason, and it might be clearer if we change the terms we use.
Let's say that I want to kick out Epic because his arms have the color blue in them. That's obviously not a crime, and I can't kick him out by making it a crime now (an ex post facto law). But neither could I say that having blue arms brings Talossa into disrepute or apply some other label, and that the penalty for that is expulsion, and then prosecute him for that. That's a silly example, but in principle this is what we'd be doing if we said Iusti had broken a new law (that we'd just made up) because of his past actions, and kicked him out for it.
I know the idea is that he's currently doing something bad by committing the act of "bringing us into disrepute," but I think that's actually just a legal fiction we'd be creating. I know this because there has been great disagreement over what such a "crime" would constitute, and because it is not an actual affirmative action that Iusti has taken. We'd be trying to criminalize his status as someone who had in the past done something -- and that's just an end-run around the protection against ex post facto laws.
Fortunately, though, I think we can come up with procedural ways to stop this from happening again, and solve the ex post facto issue by sending Iusti and letter and saying we want him to renounce his citizenship immediately and never want to hear from him again after that. If he refuses, then we run a census during this term, and he'll be gone in seven months.
|
|
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 16:26:07 GMT -6
But more importantly: can anyone (Ián A., Epic?) give me a way to deal with Cannon that would ensure: a) that our Kingdom, and all of its citizens, suffer no punishment or abuse due to association with Cannon's crimes; b) that any survivor of sexual abuse will feel safe in Talossa; without a legal process which might result in him losing citizenship? Because I don't care about the means, only the ends. The reality is that there's no way to ensure those things with a process that does result in him losing his citizenship.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 25, 2016 16:50:00 GMT -6
Perhaps we have reached the limits of this argument and the new Ziu just needs to have a straight up-and-down vote on whether we can deprive citizenship from anyone for any reason. Because the current OrgLaw and Lexhátx do have provisions for revocation of citizenship, and even more so, for banishment (permanent revocation of citizenship). And I don't remember people screaming about attacks on human rights when those laws came in.
|
|
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 17:12:40 GMT -6
Perhaps we have reached the limits of this argument and the new Ziu just needs to have a straight up-and-down vote on whether we can deprive citizenship from anyone for any reason. Because the current OrgLaw and Lexhátx do have provisions for revocation of citizenship, and even more so, for banishment ( permanent revocation of citizenship). And I don't remember people screaming about attacks on human rights when those laws came in. I don't think anyone disagrees that in principle banishment can be a proper punishment for crime in Talossa. The argument is really about whether particular proposals made so far adequately respect due process and other rights of defendants prior to banishment being imposed.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 25, 2016 17:22:37 GMT -6
Exactly. The problem is not banishment per se, but rather what results in banishment, and, much more importantly, by what means this banishment is delivered.
And I hold that crimes not committed under Talossan jurisdiction, i.e. crimes directly (and possibly primarily) pertaining unto Talossans or Talossa, should not have any banishing effect upon the perpetrator’s citizenship, because that would essentially amount to double jeopardy. And when that citizen has no way to represent him- or herself in a trial, or even STAND trial (physically, or virtually), then we are in a horrendous non-lawful, and inorganic area, which I would hate for Talossa to allow to stand.
Let us most importantly remember that banishment is our highest possible non-pecuniary punishment — essentially our capital punishment (and I am a FERVENT opponent of capital punishment; it essentially makes us play gods. So, I apologise in advance, if someone feels offended by that comparison). So I would hate to see it applied so carelessly; and so illegally.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 17:28:14 GMT -6
I would just like to repeat that my proposal was NOT banishment. Just putting the citizen as inactive until such as day as he can come back to reclaim his citizenship.
|
|