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: Law and Order Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Action Française
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 2137
Description[?]:
| Offering greater protection to our officers. Prison is not supposed to be a good thing, no earning money or education in prison. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Current: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Education in prisons.
Old value:: An education plan for prisoners is provided to improve rehabilitation.
Current: An education plan for prisoners is provided to improve rehabilitation.
Proposed: Prisoners are not given any form of education.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:06:10, November 02, 2005 CET | From |  Malfico Progressive Fascist Party | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | This bill is completley reprehensible. Article 2 would one of the most damaging laws we could pass. It is important that we allow prisoners to engage in self-improvement, else they are very likely to reoffend. Through education, generally skills and qualification related, prisoners should rejoin society with improved job prospects and better able to live fufilling lives. Article 1 is also unneccasary. It is not the police officer's role to terminate the lives of citizens; and arming them with lethal weapons has only that goal in mind. The policeforce is not some form of government army that is used to quell the masses. It does not need to be armed, it should not be armed, and if there is anything we can do about it; will never be armed. |
| Date | 16:31:18, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Action Française | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | Then we have a problem. Criminals from poor areas can go to prison and come out with better qualifications than their law abiding peers who went to the same school, that is totally wrong. http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=26231 Plus the MPFP have announced before that they are against paying for education, yet they support a policy whereby criminals are educated at the states expense? Why should criminals be put in a better position that those who obey the law? As for arming police officers, we feel that there is little problem with this, officers who are confronted by armed citizens will need to protect themselves in kind. Officers would receive thorough training, we are not exactly going to let them loose with firearms and order them to shoot to kill. |
| Date | 16:35:54, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Malfico Progressive Fascist Party | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | If education in prison can lessen the chance of re-offending then we support it. It seems that the NA supports prison only as a punishment, a sinister perversion of a child's time out. Well if the NA is happy to see criminals leave prison angry at the state and having learned from other criminals, and therefore to go on to repeat and likley exceed their previous misdemeanours, then a pox be on their leaders mustache. We cannot support this bill. We cannot comprehend why anybody would. |
| Date | 16:54:08, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Action Française | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | You haven't answered the second point from my previous comments. Why is the MPFP willing for the state to pay for criminals education, but not for the law abiding. Why should those who have no qualification, but do not break the law be put in a worse position than their peers who have been educated at the taxpayers expense in prison. Personally the NA favours punishment over incarceration. We would like to see a whole host of corporal punishment, punishments brought back, rather than wasting money on locking up men. |
| Date | 16:54:44, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Action Française | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | And like all good followers of the Emperor, the leader of the NA is cleanshaven. |
| Date | 20:42:20, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Malfico Progressive Fascist Party | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | Prison does not have to cost the taxpayer anything, prisons if correctly managed can fund themselves. |
| Date | 22:51:18, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Action Française | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | How the hell? Ah, are our prisons just islands? |
| Date | 03:35:42, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran Imperial Party | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | we will vote yes |
| Date | 17:47:04, November 03, 2005 CET | From |  Mouvement d'Étoile Rouge | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | Why article 2? When they're released they are likely to re-offend. With rehabilitation, the chance of re-offending is greatly reduced, and so they will not be back in prison. |
| Date | 17:47:19, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Mouvement d'Étoile Rouge | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | A definite no. |
| Date | 17:51:08, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Action Française | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | Read above arguement, we have private schools only, so why should criminals get free education? |
| Date | 23:19:35, November 03, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran Socialist Party | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | Well Artical 1 is good. An officer has the right to defend himself against a criminal. Also this might cut down on crime. Would you rather go up against an officer with a .45 or an M-16? It would serve as a deterrent to crime. Artical 2 is also good. Criminals should not mooch off of the system. We would be helping those who hurt the state by furthering their education. Poor people would be getting arrested just to get a good education. Also (though I don't think this is a bill) you could conscript them into services that nobody else wants to do. Like Janetorial services and whatnot. |
| Date | 19:57:15, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Malfico Progressive Fascist Party | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | I very much doubt poor people would get deliberatly arrested to gain an education. Our prisons are not the most present of places, and nor should they be. A medium point has to be found between punishment and rehabilitation. How can you be willing to put people back into society without minimising the chance that they will reoffend. Perhaps it would be a better idea spending your time looking at ways of improving the economy so that the poor can afford better educations. I point out that schooling is compulsory, and as such everybody has had a chance at it. Will you deny those have failed a second chance? |
| Date | 22:20:02, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran Socialist Party | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | Well now that I looked at the giant list of what our laws are and see that we have public schools, not private, my argument is not valid. Still I do not think the government should pay for those who would hurt it. Where do you cut people off though? I agree that somebody who shoplifted or robbed somebody should recieve some education so they can get a better job, but what about murderers? |
| Date | 13:05:45, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Action Française | To | Debating the Law and Order Bill |
| Message | I wasn't sure if we had state schools. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 160 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 325 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 114 |
| Random fact: Each user account may only be used by the player who set it up. Handing over an account to another player is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise, what is there to defend?" - Robert Redford |