Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 09:48:38 PM
In other words, just possessing this status will be a crime. We're saying it is a crime to be a person who has been convicted of specific things in certain courts, and that the only burden of proof is "does this conviction exist," something that is usually just a records search away. We have to afford people some protection and avenue to protest not only that their conviction fits the specified categories (which presumably will be what the trial is about) but also a chance to show that the conviction as a whole is unjust. Further, we're also talking about people who may be unable to come to their own defense for some time by the very nature of the accusation (since they'll be in a prison).
All right. Give me an example how your ideal system would have pursued the prosecution and trial of I. Canún with a trial for "bringing Talossa into disrepute".
BTW, the Government in re: Hooligan was guilty of entrusting the case (after 2 resignations) to an Attorney-General who didn't know what he was doing and gave up at the least sign of a robust defence. You are still clearly quite upset about the case, but your accusations about the motives behind it are slanderous and guaranteed to start a fight that should have been over 6 years ago. I personally think Hooligan had a case to answer and I am ashamed - not that the case was brought - that it was brought so incompetently that he never actually had to answer for his deeds. I would consider it a favour, in the interests of continuing civil debate over this legislative project, if you were to delete that paragraph (and I'll delete this one).