We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Access to Justice Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Luthori Christian Women's Association
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2417
Description[?]:
We totally support a tough criminal justice system, but it must be fair. Everybody should have access to legal support, whether they are rich or poor. Belinda Braithwaite (Leader of the LCWA) |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government provision of legal aid to the accused.
Old value:: Legal representation is never paid for by the state.
Current: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state for defendants with low incomes.
Proposed: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state for defendants with low incomes.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 20:06:26, June 20, 2007 CET | From | Redneck Party | To | Debating the Access to Justice Act |
Message | So, to be "fair" you want the Empire to pay for poor people, and ignore the hard working people who earn their own money? Nothing "fair" at all about it. What is "fair", is everyone paying their own way, and not mooching off the Empire's over used tax money. |
Date | 21:09:34, June 20, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Vodka and Pimm's Party | To | Debating the Access to Justice Act |
Message | We quite agree with the Rednecks. We do not condone our tax monies being used to pay for criminals' legal expenses. |
Date | 21:14:34, June 20, 2007 CET | From | Secular Party | To | Debating the Access to Justice Act |
Message | Nevermind the fact that some innocent people will never get legal representation without this. All who vote against this apparently want the idea of equal protection under the law to be a myth. |
Date | 21:27:46, June 20, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Access to Justice Act |
Message | "Equal protection" surely means all our defence bills should be settled by the state? |
Date | 21:30:15, June 20, 2007 CET | From | Secular Party | To | Debating the Access to Justice Act |
Message | No, it means the law the same way to every person and every person being given a chance to defend themselves in a court, which is hard to do without a lawyer. |
Date | 21:49:17, June 20, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Access to Justice Act |
Message | If the state doesn't provide defence lawyers for all defendants then it shouldn't supply them to anyone. Nothing else can claim to be equal or fair. |
Date | 05:04:28, June 21, 2007 CET | From | Secular Party | To | Debating the Access to Justice Act |
Message | Yes, you're right. We'll propose that immediately. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 26 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 74 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Role-play is most enjoyable and successful when there is good communication and friendly relations between all players involved. |
Random quote: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does, if that catch-phrase has any meaning, but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is justice." - Ayn Rand |