|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 25, 2016 17:31:22 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. What does that even mean? Where and how and under what authority can you decide someone to be officially inactive? I don't get it.
|
|
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 17:33:29 GMT -6
With respect, that is precisely what the Census law does.
The argument that we can't legally punish a sexual abuser because they didn't abuse a Talossa (THAT WE KNOW OF) seems morally repugnant to me. I've seen these tricks around jurisdiction played before, and I don't think they have a place in our legal system.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 25, 2016 17:37:59 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. Il est possible que tu supportes ma proposition de l’expulsion (“shunning”, persona non grāta) des délinquants ? Consulte ma contribution à “Royal Gazette”. Cela ne mettrait le/la citoyen(-ne) au status inactif, mais nous donnerait la possibilité de nous désolidariser de lui/elle.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 17:38:43 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. What does that even mean? Where and how and under what authority can you decide someone to be officially inactive? I don't get it. It was a proposal people judged inorganic...
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 25, 2016 17:46:19 GMT -6
With respect, that is precisely what the Census law does. The argument that we can't legally punish a sexual abuser because they didn't abuse a Talossa (THAT WE KNOW OF) seems morally repugnant to me. I've seen these tricks around jurisdiction played before, and I don't think they have a place in our legal system. Ah, but that is how it is. Take Australia, for example: Australia could not punish an Australian for having murdered somebody else, even if it were another Australian, if the crime occurred outside of Australia, i.e. outside of their jurisdiction. What makes you think we have ANY JURISDICTION over what Iustì Carlüs Canun has done? What is next? Are we going to require that whosoever gets a parking/speeding ticket disclose that information to the Talossan government, and pay a penalty in Talossa, as well?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 25, 2016 17:49:13 GMT -6
In other news, MZs have hijacked this thread.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 25, 2016 19:40:47 GMT -6
There are precisely 7 MZs, and most of us aren't them.
I've argued in another thread for the recognition of foreign jurisdictions, for the purpose of ordinary inter-nation criminal consequences (stripping of naturalisation, limits on activity, etc) and also due to the peculiar nature of Talossa's nationhood, where it's a nationhood carried with us.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 19:45:17 GMT -6
With respect, that is precisely what the Census law does. The argument that we can't legally punish a sexual abuser because they didn't abuse a Talossa (THAT WE KNOW OF) seems morally repugnant to me. I've seen these tricks around jurisdiction played before, and I don't think they have a place in our legal system. Ah, but that is how it is. Take Australia, for example: Australia could not punish an Australian for having murdered somebody else, even if it were another Australian, if the crime occurred outside of Australia, i.e. outside of their jurisdiction. What makes you think we have ANY JURISDICTION over what Iustì Carlüs Canun has done? What is next? Are we going to require that whosoever gets a parking/speeding ticket disclose that information to the Talossan government, and pay a penalty in Talossa, as well? Canada punishes Canadians for child exploitation, pollution and terrorism done in other countries EVEN the the crime is legal in that other country. Several Canadians went to jail after doing child sex tourism in countries where it's legal. But it's only for certain crimes and technically its only if the Canadians were not prosecuted in the country where they committed the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 19:46:38 GMT -6
In other news, MZs have hijacked this thread. I am not an MZ even if I can submit bills...
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 19:50:10 GMT -6
With respect, that is precisely what the Census law does. The argument that we can't legally punish a sexual abuser because they didn't abuse a Talossa (THAT WE KNOW OF) seems morally repugnant to me. I've seen these tricks around jurisdiction played before, and I don't think they have a place in our legal system. I just need a PM who helps coordinate the questions and I can send it a few weeks after the election
|
|
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 19:57:21 GMT -6
Many countries have laws against sex tourism which are extra-territorial in effect.
Anyway, this is all a distraction. I have never suggested we tried Cannon for sex crimes. I have suggested we create a new law, "bringing Talossa into disrepute / endangering the security of Talossa and its citizens by being convicted of a morally repugnant crime in another jurisdiction". Then the A-X brings suit after that, a Public Defender is appointed for Cannon (or anyone else), and the UC rules, and that's final.
Note that this doesn't mean such a suit for banishment will succeed. Cannon will have a chance to retain his citizenship, if the UC decides that his conviction does not make Talossa or Talossans unsafe - which is more than he might get with these administrative tricks for simply "losing" his citizenship, which strike me of a way of avoiding responsibility on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 25, 2016 20:33:21 GMT -6
The problem, of course, is that such a schema really does seem like an ex post facto law, for the reasons I mentioned. I completely understand the urge to go that way -- to just cut the Gordian Knot and expel the person we can all agree we want gone. It might be very satisfying, but it's also creating a new crime that Iusti violated in the past, before it was created, which is against the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms. And if we can do that for him, we can do it for anyone that bothers a majority of folks -- and then we have no real civil liberties at all.
Iusti's taken a lot with him to prison, it seems, including our sense of peace and perhaps even some of our trust in each other. Let's not also send the rule of law and our civil liberties with him, too. We can figure this out.
|
|
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 20:59:27 GMT -6
The problem, of course, is that such a schema really does seem like an ex post facto law, for the reasons I mentioned. True, and it would require an unlawful (in the Anglo-American legal tradition) in absentia trial as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 25, 2016 20:59:57 GMT -6
That actually doesn't seem like a problem to me. We can do his trial by post, if necessary.
|
|
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 21:02:25 GMT -6
I honestly don't understand this. People don't want to make a crime by which we can try Cannon (and future similar criminals, and John McGarry if he's still a citizen) because double jeopardy, in absentia, ex post facto, etc. And yet they turn around and suggest pulling his citizenship by "letting him strike out" or other such administrative jiggery-pokery. I think a public trial would be much more honest, and a Public Defender could have some input in that situation (or, as AD suggests, the accused could participate himself by snail-mail or appoint his own attorney).
You see, I really do want cases like these dealt with in public, for the world to see how Talossa deals with terrible criminals among its citizenship. Not waved away by sleight-of-hand so we can all forget about it ASAP. I detest this kind of murky, backroom, underhand stuff.
|
|