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: Legal Aid Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Socialist Movement
Status[?]: passed
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: February 2083
Description[?]:
| We at the USM feel that a change needs to be made here. We believe that any criminal who cannot afford, or will be seriously disadvantaged by, paying for legal aid, should of course be helped out by the state. However, it is our belief that richer peoples who have the means to pay for their representation, should have to pay their way. Not only does this help out our poorer citizens in times of trouble with the law (either guilty or innocent), it also saves the Hobrazian government money, as we would not need to cover rich people's legal expenses. Money saving like this would mean that there would be no need for ridiculous 'tied aid' to build up money! |
Proposals
Article 1
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.
Proposed: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state for defendants with low incomes.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:59:18, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | How do you define low income? |
| Date | 23:03:17, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | I would define low income, in this case, as: 1. Either not being able to afford Legal Representation outright; or 2. Being put at a serious economical disadvantage by paying for, Legal Representation. Basically we are trying to close a loophole where richer people who can afford to represent temselves in court without being put on financial pressure do not have to pay. |
| Date | 23:06:27, July 14, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | Makes sense. We'll support this and hope the Hobrazian public will too. |
| Date | 01:56:03, July 15, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | We will support this. |
| Date | 15:40:21, July 18, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | I'll support this. Those who can afford legal representation drain resources meant for those who can't afford it. This is fair. |
| Date | 12:23:41, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | But actually after thinking about it, wouldn't denying a suspect legal representation just because he has some money be a form of discrimination? What is the cutoff rate for making to much money? There is a thin line between having enough money just to survive and living in poverty. There are other factors at play also. Suppose the suspect has a family but he makes to much money for free counsel but then he'll go bankrupt paying it out of his own pocket. This doesn't only affect the suspect but it can destroy his entire family, his home, and children. This is reverse discrimination which I cannot support. What if he turns out to be innocent? Our we prepared to repay him the costs of his legal fees and everything else that he may have lost? Please think about this before you vote. |
| Date | 14:25:32, July 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | L-PU: I don't see it as discriminating at all. Would you deny those in poverty benefits because others aren't getting them? I would doubt it. Again, I refer you to the conditions that I have set out (see above). These would ensure that a family or whatever is not put under serious economic pressure. I really don't see how you could class economics as being discriminatory or not: fair enough if it was down to skin colour or ethnic background, but you can't draw parallels between the 'rich' and 'poor'. I hope you will reconsider and support this Bill. |
| Date | 14:47:42, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | "but you can't draw parallels between the 'rich' and 'poor'" Isn't this the basis of this bill. To prevent those who barely have enough money from recieving legal representation that should be available to all citizens regardless of wealth. I'm sorry but this is discrimination. |
| Date | 15:10:24, July 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | If it is discrimination, then you won't be in favour of giving those in poverty income support and benefits; because that's surely discriminating against rich people since they won't get any? Please answer this for me. Personally, that doesn't sound very liberal. You cannot draw parallels between the rich and poor in the same way you can racial discrimination or others, and that's a fact. This is a sensible way to save money, meaning we wouldn't need any pipe-dreamed private space exploration programs and the like. It also protects some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I am shocked that you think this is discrimination. You wouldn't give rich people economic support, but you would allow them the economic support of legal representation when they can easily afford it? I don't understand this at all. I'm sorry but this is blatantly not discrimination, and hypocracy on the L-PU's part. |
| Date | 17:16:18, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | When the hell did I say I'm not in favour if giving benefits to the poor? PLease don't put your words in my mouth. Now let me explain in baby speak so you canunderstand why I oppose this bill. The law is set up so everybody even me and you will get legal representation regardless of our monetary standing. This ensures that all citizens receive the same counsel so as to prevent richer "capitialist" bankers from going out and buying the best lawyer in the city and thus have quite an advantage over the poor man who cannot afford a "capitalist" banker lawyer. Now being a socialist as you make it well known, this should make you more angry because now you are letting the rich buy their way out of jail while the poor man with the appointed lawyer chances are much lower than the rich man, who since ithis bill of your's is no longer stuck with a appointed lawyer. Talk about a bill backfiring on you. Here you are trying to save some money and punish the rich man and instead he goes off gets a better lawyer then the poor manwho you were trying to help. But again your discrimination against people who have $30 bucks in their pocket actualy made a big problem that didn't exist until this anti-moneyman bill of yours, As a socialist I'm afraid you are not quite ready for the comintern. And please don't call me a hypocrite when your the socialist who allows "capilitalist" bankers to pay for their counsel with sack with a dollar sign on it.. You just created a huge class gap with this bill of yours. |
| Date | 18:04:50, July 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | I haven't at all. All legal representation is paid for by the state, but I see no laws banning rich people from buying their own lawyers and overriding the legal representation of the state. This does happen in the real world, and I very much assume that as such, this would happen here. If it didn't, it would seem rather totalitarian or obtrusive. This is not what we're arguing about: we're arguing that richer people deserve to pay for their legal representation, rather than getting another economic boost from the state. The way you tabled your argument made a direct comparison with benefits: which I have yet to have an explaination for. You said that denying a rich person a state lawyer is discriminatory. I then argued that with that mentality, denying a rich person benefits would be disriminatory. Surely you can see some sort of comparison there? I have defined in a previous post what I mean by not being able to afford legal representation, so this should not be a problem. I honestly don't see why you are making a big fuss out of this Bill, because surely it it unfair for the richer, upper classes to get subsidised by the state? This is making the wealth gap expand, which is only in the interests of the rich. Hopefully the United Blobs are still on 'our side' of this debate. |
| Date | 22:34:42, July 19, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Legal Aid Act |
| Message | In this case I am. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 239 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 161 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts. |
| Random quote: "Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us." - Henrik Tikkanen |