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: Lex Magnum I
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kanjoran Imperial 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: October 2121
Description[?]:
| R-C now! |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on the separation of the police and the military.
Old value:: A civilian police force is in place and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Current: A civilian police force is in place and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Proposed: The military acts as a de-facto police force, with powers of arrest.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Current: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers carry military-grade equipment.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:42:31, October 03, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Lex Magnum I |
| Message | We won't support permanent martial law. Article 2 we could vote for under certain circumstances, but Article 1 is something we would never support. |
| Date | 22:53:41, October 03, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Lex Magnum I |
| Message | There is absolutely no need for our police officers to be constantly carrying military grade equipment. |
| Date | 07:14:12, October 04, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Lex Magnum I |
| Message | We will give the KPP a chance to convince us of what harm it would do, but we might otherwise vote for it if alone in a bill as a way of showing good faith to the KIP. In our view, the police should never be outgunned by criminals. We have to balance that against the feeling of oppression that might be felt by some law abiding citizens upon seeing the police with such arms, and we'd be inclined perhaps to figure that standard firearms tend to be sufficient in civilized countries. But, given the good faith the KIP has shown, and given that we think it's a close call, we will support the police carrying military weapons issue if it is on its own in its own bill, unless the KPP can convince us it is not a close call. |
| Date | 00:15:12, October 05, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Lex Magnum I |
| Message | Because it goes against the reasoning for separation of military and police. Military is shoot to kill no questions asked. The police are meant to police the Kanjoran populace within Kanjor. If we give them military assault rifles and grenade launchers innocent civilians will be killed. We will become a police-state in which the people must live in fear of their own police officers. If an officer misses his target with a standard firearm his new target is wounded/damaged. If he does so with an assult rifle that same mistaken target is blown away/dead/destroyed. Do we want to unnerve the people and make them see their own government as the enemy? Do they want to be shot in the streets? Look in Iraq for example. Innocent people die there all the time from military grade equipment use in urban centers. Imagine if that were happening in Kanjo and our other densely populated cities. |
| Date | 00:29:51, October 05, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Lex Magnum I |
| Message | Actually, it's not the reason for the separation of police from the military, as rule by the military means martial law. See, what I want is for *criminals* to be in deep fear of the police but innocents not to be. It's the balancing of the scales (maximizing criminal fear while minimizing the law-abiding public fear) that I'm still working on in my head. |
| Date | 01:47:28, October 05, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Lex Magnum I |
| Message | I believe if innocents are surrounded by men with assault rifles and other military paraphernalia it would create a deep fear in innocents. Especially since the likelihood there being innocent bystanders is greatly increased when you factor in the use of such dangerous weapons. |
| Date | 01:53:48, October 05, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Lex Magnum I |
| Message | I think I'll lean against the proposal based on civilian fear and that no civilized real life nation seems to find it necessary for police to have military weapons. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 117 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 482 | ||||||
| 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: "An economist is a surgeon with an excellent scalpel and a rough-edged lancet, who operates beautifully on the dead and tortures the living." - Nicholas Chamfort |