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: Rights to Trial by Jury
Details
Submitted by[?]: National People's Gang
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2118
Description[?]:
| In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been alleged to have been committed. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The formal title of the Head of State.
Old value:: President-Councillor
Current: President of the Commonwealth
Proposed: President Councillor
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:05:52, September 29, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | This is an urgent clarification of the criminal justice system. |
| Date | 20:56:12, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | Umm I can understand that, but why are you trying to get the hyphon removed from the head of state title? |
| Date | 21:35:08, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | It's a means to get it into a constitutional amendment. This used to be accepted, but the PTN objected to it for an unrelated reason during procedure act 1. This is how our anthem got changed to "probably none," etc. If you want to require a 2/3 vote on something, add a meaningless const. amendment. |
| Date | 22:01:56, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | It was never accepted by me. But i can hardly vote against trial by jury. |
| Date | 22:30:19, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | It used to be an accepted practice. Albert convinced GA to vote against it, but really his reasons were hollow. |
| Date | 23:20:34, September 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | Typically, TiC makes accusations without supplying the evidence. We are more than happy to submit the relevant links for examination: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=11111 http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=9802 http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=10089 It has never been an "accepted practice" - it was, however, abused by one particular party which developed a predeliction for moving mind-bogglingly obvious bills, supported by inane constitutional proposals in order to achieve recognition for widespread support in constitutional amendments. Until now, jury trials would have been considered by most to rate among the "mind-bogglingly obvious" - however, we now have a party which is proposing summary executions on suspicion of law-breaking. We believe it is entirely in order that the right to trial by jury should be enshrined in the constitution and, on those grounds, urge the RCP to reconsider their vote. |
| Date | 01:21:47, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | "It has never been an "accepted practice" - it was, however, abused by one particular party which developed a predeliction for moving mind-bogglingly obvious bills, supported by inane constitutional proposals in order to achieve recognition for widespread support in constitutional amendments." There is no recognition at all for anything to do with bills without proposals, or with unweighted proposals(such as anthem, HoS title, etc.) It was accepted by many, which is obvious considering that they voted in favor. "Until now, jury trials would have been considered by most to rate among the "mind-bogglingly obvious" - however, we now have a party which is proposing summary executions on suspicion of law-breaking." Not suspicion, conviction. There is a difference and this is included in the bill description. "We believe it is entirely in order that the right to trial by jury should be enshrined in the constitution and, on those grounds, urge the RCP to reconsider their vote." We agree, but we cannot support this blatant hypocracy and continued lies from you. However, we cannot vote against a jury trial. Therefore we will abstain, which is just as effective for this sort of bill. |
| Date | 02:14:25, September 30, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | The bill description says: "Members shall be executed, pending convictions of involvement." Which means they are executed prior to being convicted. As TiC well knows, there are no lies here, only facts which they find uncomfortable. |
| Date | 03:27:30, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | I meant after they were convicted, sorry for the mistake. To execute someone, then convict them, is utterly pointless. |
| Date | 03:35:53, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | We made a mistake in vocabulary, which has been corrected. |
| Date | 05:55:35, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | Trivia: which character in Alice in Wonderland said: "Sentence first, verdict later!" |
| Date | 13:02:29, September 30, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | Thank you for the clarification, the correction in the bill and the apology. As you may now understand the reason for this bill you may also appreciate the desire to bind jury trials to the constitution. We hope this new understanding will give you impetus to vote in favour. |
| Date | 18:40:34, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | We will do so on the condition that the Refuseniks retract their earlier statements against the Adam Smith Party for using this method. A jury trial should be enshrined in the Lodamun constitution. I would like to see the rest of the Bill of Rights find it's way there as well. |
| Date | 19:07:58, September 30, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | Regrettably, we cannot, in all honesty, retract statements which we feel to be true in order to win TiC approval for this bill, so we merely ask TiC to vote according to their principles. |
| Date | 21:48:32, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | So you condemn usage of something that you are now doing yourself? |
| Date | 01:51:12, October 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | We condemn misusage. |
| Date | 05:49:14, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | Whatever Guess the speaker: "In game terms if you vote yes on this you will be giving the ASP enormous credit for a constitutional amendment which is the removal of a hyphen. This is nothing more than gamesmanship. Vote against." |
| Date | 09:24:20, October 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | You are obviously not only incapable of understanding the difference between the situations but, as we've said before, you're incapable of understanding that there could be a difference. And then you whinge about the lack of engagement in debate. We've not yet witnessed one incident of TiC "debating" anything, merely bleating the same old catchphrases, with the puppetmaster's arm firmly your rear it's always easier to move your lips in time with someone else's words than think for yourself. |
| Date | 09:42:09, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Rights to Trial by Jury |
| Message | Excuse me? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 129 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 72 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 99 |
| Random fact: To see what other nations are up to and to actively involve yourself in international activities: check the Roleplaying section on the forum! Don't be shy to make a news post about your party's recent achievements. |
| Random quote: "I think one should not go fast, because if you make mistakes you don't realize what you've done." - Manuela Carmena |