|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:31:26 GMT -6
I dont know if any of us really know what we want, to be honest. Were barely past defining the problem. If you stop people participating on elections though what else is really left for them to do in Talossa? Might just be better to end the connection? There's no reason to stop them from voting, surely? They have interests and concerns like everyone else. Anyhow, I had formed the distinct impression that we were anxious to rid ourselves of ICC as fast as possible. I've been away for a couple of days and haven't kept up, so maybe I was wrong. I may be an outlier, in that I dont think we can push him out and stay true to our rules. I dont think what I am proposing would apply to him. I think however a National Census held soon would mechanically remove him, or else he would strike out, but not I guess before 2017?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:27:01 GMT -6
Just trying to think this through. Well, I don't even play a lawyer on TV, so I'm glad someone with a bit of training is! I'm by no means saying this is the best possible idea. The more the better.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:20:02 GMT -6
If the apprpriate authorities had known then it could probably have been handled better. Not necessarily in secret, but in a more prepared way and with all the steps that were taken to secure information, have a safe space to discuss the issue, organise a coherent response, etc. It was the sudden explosiveness of the revelation (from 9 months ago, but even so) that caused the problem.
An undeclated conviction would probably end up causing the same chaos, but then it could be contained by the ability to close down the relationship with the citizen involved, on the basis they *didn't* make the declaration.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:03:39 GMT -6
I dont know if any of us really know what we want, to be honest. Were barely past defining the problem.
If you stop people participating on elections though what else is really left for them to do in Talossa? Might just be better to end the connection?
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 12:40:12 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. Public order? We had two aytempts at intimidation and numerous piblic insukts thrown around in.the last few days.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 12:38:46 GMT -6
I think I'd prefer not to have an MC who's doing time, for example. One can for oneself vote by mail or telephone.
Someone who did their time on the other hand, I dont see why they couldnt become citizens. If we were all 18+.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 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?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 24, 2016 15:12:56 GMT -6
No, this is not relevant. Its entirely true none of us were there. Its entirely true miscarriages of justice happen. Its also true that we know less than nothing of the circumstances of this case, and that we are in no position to substitute ourselves for the courts and for Canun's own attorneys. Above all we are heading down this road of potentially trivialising a victims suffering. I strongy object to circulating documents relating to this case among ourselves and attempting to divine motivations or find flaws. Its not our responsibiliy, for one thing.
Here's a very practical thought experiment. We know Talossa was apparently quite an important part of Iusti Canun's life. The evidence on Wittenberg is that one of the last things he apparently did as a free man was to log in here on the morning he went to prison. Its entirely possible if the victim or his or her family were on close terms with Canun before this they know what Talossa is, and what part he played in it.
Now imagine they are reading this conversation thread.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 24, 2016 14:01:09 GMT -6
Your Majesty, I'm sorry to say I think we have gone beyond constructive prudence and we are veering into destructive obstinacy. The worst case scenario is that some idiot may complain about it in six months time. This is shaking peoples commitment to Talossa right now.
I feel that there is a clear consensus across lines of party and ideology on this. I really dont see what else is needed for you to act with a clear conscience. The Proclamation situation is not pertinent here.
You do however raise a completely fair point about creating a precedent. What if it is stipulated that this is a specific response to an emergency situation where you have seen a clear national consensus, but that you want some sort of consultative body established to help you deal with this kind of issue next time?
For example, why not add some distinguished people with a range of points of view (e.g., ex Seneschals or Justices willing to serve, who are not criminals?) to the Privy Council for advice in precisely this sort of eventuality?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 Inxheneu Crova on Feb 23, 2016 7:17:08 GMT -6
Wish we coukd get back to the really important issues.
I'm devastated that noneof the weell known Potter fans have taken the bait and proposed a Ministry of Magic.
Take a look at @eltamlalt's Tweet:
Defence Against the Dark Arts would obviously be useful at the moment. Divination could come in handy for immigration purposes.
|
|