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: Justice Act

Details

Submitted by^[?]: United Reform Party

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: March 2589

Description^[?]:

Yeah!

Proposal^[?] to change The government's position towards the use of forensic DNA databases.

Old value:: No DNA is recorded.

Current: DNA from persons accused or convicted for a crime is recorded.

Proposed: The decision on forensic DNA databases is left to local governments.

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 for defendants with low incomes.

Proposed: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state for defendants with low incomes.

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date	12:05:24, June 08, 2008 CET
From	Party for a Federal Meritocracy
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	We like Art. 1 but cannot accept Art. 2.

Date	13:43:52, June 08, 2008 CET
From	Scientific Libertarian Party
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	Huh. We like article 2, and don't really like article 1.

Date	13:46:41, June 08, 2008 CET
From	Scientific Libertarian Party
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	Article 1 increases government power, but increases it at a local level, which is not quite as bad as increasing it at a national level. Article 2 decreases government spending, which is not as important as decreasing government power, but still important.

Date	15:29:20, June 08, 2008 CET
From	Party for a Federal Meritocracy
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	Generally, we will go with decreasing Government expenses. However, we view the justice system as too important to play lottery games with. If we are going to try to convict someone we should also put forth the effort to ensure the accused gets the opportunity to defend him/herself--without bankruptcy (or having the attorney walk when the fees can no longer be paid).

Date	17:50:25, June 08, 2008 CET
From	United Reform Party
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	If the fees could no longer be paid then a state-appointed attorney would take up the case.

Date	21:59:16, June 08, 2008 CET
From	Party for a Federal Meritocracy
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	That's my point. You accuse someone, and then let them go bankrupt trying to prove they are not guilty. If they succeed in going bankrupt, okay--now we'll pay? And what happens if the accused wins? They get to be free and poor? You want to someone spend everything he/she has worked for, all the money they've saved, and then--after they've spent it all to win in a case where they really are innocent--pat them on the back and send them to a homeless shelter?

Date	23:21:10, June 08, 2008 CET
From	Scientific Libertarian Party
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	It depends where the line is drawn to distinguish 'defendants with low incomes'. I would imagine that that line is well above the level where an individual would go bankrupt trying to pay legal fees. So only people who can afford it are made to pay for themselves (and nobody goes bankrupt because it depends on income, not current savings), and the government doesn't waste money paying for lawyers for people who can afford to hire their own. I don't see why that's so bad.

Date	00:03:19, June 09, 2008 CET
From	Party for a Federal Meritocracy
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	I hate to break it to you, but you can go bankrupt under your scheme. If you have a lot of income from investments, and have to sell them to pay the lawyers, now you've lost your source of income and can't pay the bills. And what happens to those who lose their jobs because they're not working--they're on trial. Which "income" do we use? Before or after they got charged? (I'll give you a hint--most RL schemes use the pre-trouble income.) This can result in people going broke, not being able to continue paying the lawyer(s) they hired, but still not qualifying for the state to pay. And then there's the whole bureaucracy to keep such a system going. If we just agree up front that the Government will provide the attorneys for both sides we don't have such issues. There is no maximum income level or savings you can have in order for an attorney to be provided. Much better to simply provide the attorneys. It's more balanced, too. We're paying to put someone away; why not cover the cost to be sure we've got the right person?

Date	00:04:31, June 09, 2008 CET
From	Party for a Federal Meritocracy
To	Debating the Justice Act
Message	Please note--for all the focus on Art. 2 here. Concerning Art. 1: Although we would go for the option presented here, we prefer that all DNA be recorded.

Vote

Seats

yes

Total Seats: 106

Total Seats: 244

abstain

Total Seats: 0

Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640

Random quote: "Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit." - Eli Khamarov

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 66