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: Ut amplio legis egestas
Details
Submitted by[?]: Novus Partis Rexisti
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: December 4396
Description[?]:
| A bill to improve Selucia's police. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Voting rights of criminals.
Old value:: Criminals released from jail are allowed to vote.
Current: Criminals released from jail are allowed to vote after a certain period of time.
Proposed: Criminals released from jail are allowed to vote after a certain period of time.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The terms of extradition.
Old value:: Extradition to nations with capital punishment or with cruel or inhumane treatment of suspects and convicts is not allowed.
Current: The law does not limit the power of the government to pursue extradition treaties.
Proposed: The law does not limit the power of the government to pursue extradition treaties.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Parliamentary privilege.
Old value:: Members of the legislature are not exempt from any civil or criminal liability for their speech or actions during their term of office.
Current: Members of the legislature are not exempt from any civil or criminal liability for their speech or actions during their term of office.
Proposed: Members of the legislature are exempted from any civil or criminal liability for their speech or actions related with the performance of their duties during their term of office.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Public executions (if death penalty is legal).
Old value:: Executions are always carried out in private; only necessary personnel are allowed to be present, which might include spiritual advisers.
Current: Executions may be carried out in public and/or be broadcast on television.
Proposed: Executions are always carried out in private; however, family members, the victim and the victim's relatives are allowed to be present.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:34:54, May 17, 2018 CET | From | Factio Republicana Socialistica | To | Debating the Ut amplio legis egestas |
| Message | Senators, We may be persuaded to support several of these proposals, although we'd want more detail on how the Rexist Party wishes to see these implemented. Several of these we strongly disagree with, however. To be more specific, we strongly support the reintroduction of corporal punishment, but only because we know that incarceration is far far worse. If corporal punishment is reintroduced, it has to be provided as a voluntary alternative to imprisonment, and must be carried out under strict medical supervision. A policy identical or similar to that introduced by Senator Hortensius in 4373 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=563675) would have our support. In what concerns the death penalty, we wish to know which crimes the Rexist Party proposes it be applied for, which method of execution they are suggesting, and what their overall motivation is for reintroducing this punishment. We support the death penalty because we believe some individuals, because of their own actions, must die, particularly those guilty of high treason like the terrorist responsible for the murder of Consul Varro. It is a great shame that the assassin could not be captured alive, and that even if he were he could not have been sentenced to death. If the Rexist Party is willing to restore capital punishment under similar conditions as those introduced by our own party in 4374 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=563927) we would vote in favor. What we strongly object to, however, is the proposal to permit the family of the victim to witness the execution. The death penalty is not revenge or entertainment, it is a grave and serious punishment for serious crimes, to be carried out for grievous harm against the community, and not for the emotional satisfaction of third parties. We have concerns about the restriction of voting rights for convicted criminals. While on the surface it may appear just, we fear this may create a perverse incentive for convictions to be passed down for political or ethnic reasons, disenfranchising citizens for the wrong reasons. One could imagine a liberal judge more willing to convict conservative offenders, or an ethnic Selucian judge more eager to hand down convictions to ethnic minorities, or indeed a Pagan judge convicting Hosians more than Pagans. We fear this policy would lead to corruption. We do strongly support parliamentary privilege, and find it strange that until now the Republic has allowed the politically-motivated persecution of legislators in the exercise of their duties. Decimus Nasennius Valens Senator |
| Date | 13:53:18, May 17, 2018 CET | From | Clara Aurora - COSIRA | To | Debating the Ut amplio legis egestas |
| Message | There is no parliamentary privilege simply because those are principles of the Republic, as Factio Republicana should know. As representatives of the Selucian people, Senators should have an exemplary behaviour, and if they break any of the national rules, they should receive the same punishment as any other citizen. There is no politically-motivated prosecution, and no Senator has been ever sentenced because they know they should not break the rules. Parus Adrada, Princeps Senatus |
| Date | 13:56:44, May 17, 2018 CET | From | Novus Partis Rexisti | To | Debating the Ut amplio legis egestas |
| Message | As servants of the Selucian people, we need Senators to be present at meetings of the Senate, by excusing them of minor crimes, this ensures that they shall be there. Augustus Scipio Longidium Senator |
| Date | 18:27:05, May 17, 2018 CET | From | Factio Republicana Socialistica | To | Debating the Ut amplio legis egestas |
| Message | Senators, Neither Princeps Senatus Adrada nor Senator Longidium seem to understand what parliamentary privilege is and why it is essential in a free Republic. Parliamentary privilege ensures that Senators can speak freely in the Senate without fear of legal action for slander or revealing state secrets, allowing them to discharge their parliamentary duties freely and openly. Otherwise, under current legislation, the threat of legal action for criminal or civil offences, even if frivolous, can serve as an intimidation tactic against political opponents and stifle free parliamentary debate. Not long ago the current Caesar made several unfounded accusation against our own party, including xenophobia, discrimination, and belonging to the far right. Under current legislation I very well could sue Ms. Gryllus for slander, and even if I don't win, that would cause a lot of disruption and limit her ability to discharge her duties. The Republican Party has repeatedly argued for demilitarization and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, and I certainly don't want to find myself on trial for treason for advocating legitimate political and ideological views. If the Senate ever finds itself needing to investigate abuses of power by the military or secret services, they should be allowed to do so freely without fear of prosecution for revealing state secrets. In other words parliamentary privilege is not a tool to set Senators above the common people, nor is it an excuse for minor crimes. It is a guarantee that they can perform their duty to the Republic freely and transparently. Decimus Nasennius Valens Senator speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.[1][2] It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament—for example, as a question[3] to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets |
| Date | 18:28:06, May 17, 2018 CET | From | Factio Republicana Socialistica | To | Debating the Ut amplio legis egestas |
| Message | OOC: LOL, please ignore that last bit at the end, that was just something from Wikipedia I used for research... |
| Date | 23:48:02, May 17, 2018 CET | From | Novus Partis Rexisti | To | Debating the Ut amplio legis egestas |
| Message | I would agree with my friends in the Factio Republicana. Senator Augustus Scipio Longidium |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 321 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 429 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The use of proxy servers makes it impossible to detect multiing and is therefore forbidden. Players who access Particracy through a proxy will have their accounts inactivated. |
| Random quote: "The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda against democracy." - Alex Carey |