Thread for non-MZs: proposals re banishment

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Feb 25, 2016 21:02:25 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

People don't want to make a crime by which we can try Cresti

Freudian slip?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Yeah, CRESTI'S NEXT. Edited.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Feb 25, 2016 20:59:57 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

That actually doesn't seem like a problem to me. We can do his trial by post, if necessary.

As long as we have actual notice and an opportunity to participate in the trial and present a defense, I'm okay. But for Canun specifically, it seems like the ex post facto issue is pretty insurmountable unless we just amend the OrgLaw to eliminate the prohibition on ex post facto laws. And I can't imagine anyone who is serious about civil liberties voting to do that.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I still do not believe that introducing a new crime of "making Talossan citizens unsafe by bringing Talossa into disrepute" is an ex post facto law. He is doing it right now, being in jail like that, and easily Googleable.

But even given that, I want to introduce the law to deal with future cases like this.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Dama Miestra, I see it like this:

Iusti will be gone in a few months -- seven months, max. One way or another, he will be gone.

Once he's gone, Talossa will remain. And that future Talossa can either continue to have due process of law and a Covenant of Rights and Freedoms... or not.

I don't mean to be alarmist. We can probably knowingly pass a single bill that goes against our principles, and the world won't come tumbling down. Heck, it might just get thrown out of Cort. But modern Talossa was born from principle in tumult and clamour, and it was a good thing. It was a good thing when we passed from the rule of men -- from that time when the guy in power found that the meaning of the laws was as malleable as clay in his hands. Remember the use of the power of veto to "veto" prospective citizens? It was a stand on inconvenient principle that won, in that time. But how could we ever do that again if we knew, in our hearts, that we regarded the principles of justice as something disposable when we really wanted to get around them?

Let's do this right

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feb 25, 2016 21:21:24 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I still do not believe that introducing a new crime of "making Talossan citizens unsafe by bringing Talossa into disrepute" is an ex post facto law. He is doing it right now, being in jail like that, and easily Googleable.

Yes, but we'd be just labeling his past crime as something new and passing a law to punish him for that. You can't criminalize "having committed a crime in the past" unless you're... well, making a law after the fact, I think.

Feb 25, 2016 21:21:24 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

But even given that, I want to introduce the law to deal with future cases like this.

That's fair enough, I think. I see less of a jurisdictional problem than Epic believes exists.

[Inxheneu Crova]

Will all you MZs please leave! Or at least take off your shoes ;-) Some questions, note I may use the answers in ETT.

AD, leaving aside Canun, would your ex-post facto objections to Miestra's idea still apply to future cases like this?

Miestra, what kind of defence could the Public Defender offer to the charges? Im just concerned that if we had a trial-like procedure it might inadvertantly offer a platform for unsavoury rhetoric by the defendant, against his victim.

To His Majesty-if we had a list of countries where we judged that the courts were unfair or their system authoritarian, would there be a concern that that might put local Talossans at risk of being considered subversive by state authorities?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Miestra, what kind of defence could the Public Defender offer to the charges?

Stuff like: "Your Honours, my defendant's crime is unrelated to Talossa, it has not harmed Talossa in any way, or brought oppobrium on us, and therefore he deserves to do his time and come out and reclaim his citizenship". I think any lawyer who tried "she was asking for it" would simply be bringing Talossa into more disrepute and thus dooming his client.

[Sir Tamorán dal Navâ]

Here's something I wonder: why not simply take the consideration of "banishment" (for want of a better word) on a case-by-case basis? Does there need to be a hard, fast rule about this? A guideline, to be sure, but it shouldn't be too stringent, if only because of the possibility of misusing it. For example, treason in the United States is defined as providing aid and comfort to an enemy. That's vague enough that it's difficult to convict someone for treason (because it's not exactly treason if they aid and comfort an enemy that they are unaware is the enemy, for example). But an egregious enough case and it's clear enough to convict. Treason, in this case, would be the charge that we bring down on the violator; perhaps not for aiding and comforting any enemy, per se, but for carrying out an action that violates the principles and spirit of our nation; doing that – violating the principles and spirit of our nation – is as destructive and damaging as the traditional view of treason. Our enemies are not always concrete; sometimes they are violations of Talossanity.

Now, legally defining that may be difficult, but I think that's where the deliberation of legislators, judges, and leaders can generally come to a common ground. Let's make the rule clear enough to be applied where appropriate, but loose enough to allow interpretation on a case-by-case basis. After all, even a certain unnamed former Talossan head of state wasn't above designing and implementing a strictly-interpreted rule as a political weapon.

Plus, despite the recent instance of this "banishment-worthy" offence, wouldn't there need to be a proper legal (in the Talossan context) method for carrying this out? Shouldn't the person in question be punished within the law, within the proscribed rules, rather than by fiat? I fully agree with the intent and result of the actions brought down on the offending individual (I don't think I have to loudly rant against child abuse to be against it; being against it is the default position, after all), but I disagree with its method. We are only doing things morally and correctly by adhering to the principle of doing the right thing, for the right reason, and in the right way.

Of course, it's entirely possible you've all mentioned this and I've overlooked it in my haste to jump into the conversation. :-)

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Feb 26, 2016 10:39:15 GMT -6 Sir Tamorán dal Navâ said:

being against it is the default position, after all

You would be surprised at the bullshit I have heard helping child abuse prevention/treatment organisations...

It is sad to see that not everyone feels the same way.