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: Tough on Crime 2471
Details
Submitted by[?]: Trabajo y Libertad
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: January 2473
Description[?]:
| No longer giving the priority to protecting criminals, but to prosecuting them. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to appeal against a judgement rendered by a court.
Old value:: Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court.
Current: All judgements are final and binding; appealing against them is not possible.
Proposed: Judgements may only be appealed against for grave procedural errors.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy with respect to the death penalty.
Old value:: The death penalty is illegal and is never to be applied.
Current: The death penalty is not applied, except for terrorism, treason and crimes against mankind.
Proposed: The death penalty is not applied, except for terrorism, treason and crimes against mankind.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The terms of extradition.
Old value:: Extradition to nations with capital punishment or with cruel or inhumane treatment of suspects and convicts is not allowed.
Current: The law does not limit the power of the government to pursue extradition treaties.
Proposed: The law does not limit the power of the government to pursue extradition treaties.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government provision of legal aid to the accused.
Old value:: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state.
Current: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state.
Proposed: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state for defendants with low incomes.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: The operation and funding of the police is left to local governments.
Current: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Proposed: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The use of torture for obtaining information.
Old value:: Torture is never allowed.
Current: Suspects can only be tortured under grave emergencies where the information is vital.
Proposed: Suspects can only be tortured under grave emergencies where the information is vital.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:26:00, October 18, 2007 CET | From |  Partido Democrático Liberal - L.C. | To | Debating the Tough on Crime 2471 |
| Message | This bill should be retitled the "The Way the Facists Deal With Crime" |
| Date | 16:47:25, October 18, 2007 CET | From | Trabajo y Libertad | To | Debating the Tough on Crime 2471 |
| Message | Actually, unless you want criminals running free then this makes a lot of sense. Article 1 (The right to appeal against a judgement rendered by a court) prevents timewasting and stops criminals from going free on technicalities. Article 2 (Government policy with respect to the death penalty) is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crimes. Article 3 (Government provision of legal aid to the accused) means the rich still have to pay for their own defence rather than receive this for free. Article 4 (National Police Department) ensures a nationwide police force to handle major crimes and bring about cooperation between local forces. Article 5 (The use of torture for obtaining information) will prevent repeats of situations like the FAAR attack on Kivonah. Article 6 (The terms of extradition) allows the government the freedom to send criminals back to be punished for their crimes. What's so wrong with all that? |
| Date | 19:51:17, October 18, 2007 CET | From | Partido Democrático Liberal - L.C. | To | Debating the Tough on Crime 2471 |
| Message | Hahaha are you serious??? hahaha See only you would say that. That's exactly why the Fascists are the joke of Davostan. |
| Date | 23:24:38, October 18, 2007 CET | From | Trabajo y Libertad | To | Debating the Tough on Crime 2471 |
| Message | Who's the joke of Davostan? The party that takes action to combat crime, protect the nation and explains it's reasons, or the party that misuses labels like Fascist because it lacks the ability to argue in support of it's stance? Firstly, you need to accept that fascism is a completely valid political stance, simply one that values the nation and the state over the individual. It can be similar to our opinion, but not identical. Fascism, for example, typically dismisses the concept of a class struggle and believes that a class system is not only natural but desirable, while we believe it is something to be destroyed. What you've seen of us that you identify as fascism is a strong nationalist element and a belief in efficient governance. We are here to cut through the bureaucracy that shelters the elite and leave in it's place a truly successful system of government responsive to the needs of society and the people that form it. You still haven't made a single argument against these laws. I eagerly await any attempt by your party to put together a coherent argument, but I find it highly unlikely this will happen. |
| Date | 00:47:56, October 19, 2007 CET | From | Partido Democrático Liberal - L.C. | To | Debating the Tough on Crime 2471 |
| Message | There is no need your bill and your junta of fascists have been voted down in a vote of confidence and as well your "Tough on Crime" which is hardly to be called that, more like a lets take us back a couple decades provided by your freindly neighborhood fascist or so called communists party. |
| Date | 09:52:33, October 19, 2007 CET | From | Trabajo y Libertad | To | Debating the Tough on Crime 2471 |
| Message | Again, you've avoided the issues by trying to make a direct attack on my parties character. Yes, the vote of confidence failed when the DDN sided with liberals and foreigners, but your attempt to form a coalition failed too, stalemate. Yes, it's clear Davostan's parties don't support our stance on justice, but unlike them we are brave enough to propose such laws, stand by them, and argue in their favour. The opposition offer no alternatives, and makes no arguments on the issues. And again you're misusing the phrase "fascist" |
| Date | 03:55:24, October 20, 2007 CET | From | Partido Democrático Liberal - L.C. | To | Debating the Tough on Crime 2471 |
| Message | There is no misuse of the word fascist you are not a human dictionary and it can be taken into many terms if applied to a correct relative meaning, don't act like an einstein because we are stalemating you, thats exactly what you do when backed into a corner and the entire country knows it. Ha and your brave enough to propose laws and stand by them? Who was the one who didn't want to give as many proposal rights to parties??? Who used the phrase "I won't deny it, we don't want you small parties taking our seats, it will damage everything we're working to do in making this nation great" which is in a short sense of the word, we don't want anyone else proposing laws if it goes against what we stand, and sorry to tell you we still do we exaust our proposals every time we get a chance and we do argue them against you, so get your facts straight before you go around accusing everyone of misusing words as that is an ill fated attempt by you to sidetrack your accusations as being fascist. Did I use those words in the corret phrase or did I mispell something, because I have played this game for a long time and usually when you authorotarians run into a roadblock you start pointing out stupid things. Oh my god I hope I used everything in the correct way according to the Dictionary of the Nationalists. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 95 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 130 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper |