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: Fairness In Criminal Justice Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: New Democratic Party
Status[?]: passed
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: October 2113
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS the quality and competence of a criminal defence attorney can make a difference in the outcome of a criminal trial, and WHEREAS those with greater means are likely to be able to afford better legal counsel, while those with low incomes are defended by public defenders, who are generally less experienced and competent, and BELIEVEING that for fairness, all should be equal before the law and this should include the quality of legal counsel available to the defendant, NOW THEREFORE the government of Ikradon shall pay for the representation of all defendants in criminal trials. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 for defendants with low incomes.
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:49:03, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Fairness In Criminal Justice Act |
| Message | After some consideration, We can see some benefits of this. If people are allowed to choose the lawyer they want without worry of cost, it would make the lawyer market much more competitive, weeding out the bad lawyers. However, if the cost of legal fees is standardized, many of the best lawyers may quit doing criminal cases altogether, is of concern. |
| Date | 14:21:45, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Fairness In Criminal Justice Act |
| Message | We agree, this seems like a good set of policies. ---Bob Laws |
| Date | 15:09:46, September 18, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Fairness In Criminal Justice Act |
| Message | We can see the benefit of imposing caps on lawyers' fees, eliminating the salary difference between the lawyers of rich plaintiffs and those of poor ones; it would be a distortion on the free market but one we could live with in in order to make justice more equal. The idea that the state should pay for the lawyer fees of all Ikradonians, from the poorest people to the largest companies, is however ludicrous. We have better uses for our resources than this, surely. Furthermore, the FSA finds the litigious culture spreading though Ikradon to be already worrying; if going to court becomes free, it can only unleash a nightmare of frivolous suits! Keep our legal system sane: shoot this law down. |
| Date | 00:05:14, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Fairness In Criminal Justice Act |
| Message | This bill only covers criminal trials. Civil suits, frivolous or otherwise, are not covered. So the only reason costs would dramatically increase would be if the state decided to charge more people with crimes. |
| Date | 19:25:55, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Fairness In Criminal Justice Act |
| Message | The NP makes a fair point, which we had missed. The person responsible for analyzing this bill has been fired. We still object to the State paying for the lawyers of rich Ikradonians though, and will vote against. We however see the passing of this bill as far less of a disaster than our previous interpretation of it had led us to believe. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 311 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 288 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to things like the amount of melanin in our skin or the shape of our eyes or our gender instead of the unique identities of each of us as complex human beings." - Franklin Thomas |