Happy Independence Day! (But it's the 44th year beginning, and the 43rd year ending. ;) )
Welcome to Wittenberg!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 04:17:36 PM
You will get unanimous support from the FreeDems if you also include our language on allowing the number of Cosa seats to be varied
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 05:26:27 PM
If the drafting of the Reserved Seats for Newbies amendment goes ahead as it looks like it, Amendment #1 will no longer be needed.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 28, 2021, 02:38:40 PM
The bolded bit is the part which would right now make this suggestion unconstitutional. So - how should we change it?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on December 27, 2021, 04:23:00 PMI like this idea! This makes sense not just as a way to get people involved right away, but also to make sure that citizens who have not yet had the opportunity to vote have at least a minimal amount of representation in the Cosa.
Comments?
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:26:28 PMAt least there is something to look up, which is explicitly identified in the law. It can be improved (and I've made specific suggestions how to do do), but it's still better than not even have anything to look up for those who are motivated to do so.
Because I had no idea - until you told me - that these sections of the Wisconsin Code had anything to do with "harassment, perjury, bribery or counterfeiting" - and no way of knowing apart from making a guess and doing a Google search. This is hilarious, because the Regent is complaining about "people not knowing what's against the law", where the status quo is you have to look up the laws of a completely different country right now to know what's against the law in Talossa, and you don't mind that, because you're used to finding out such information. I'm not. No-one else is (except perhaps other lawyers).
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:17:58 PMRight, so why does the rest of the bill say what it does?
Yes, because those are the only situations in which Section A3 applies.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:17:58 PMWell, that's what I've been saying all along. In my initial comment on the bill I tried to set aside A.3 and focus on the problems created by repealing the existing criminal code (which seems unnecessary to the purpose of A.3).
... oh, I get it. You think that the sections A1-2 will entitle prosecutors to just "make up" crimes to take people to Court for. That's a very novel interpretation which I would never have thought of.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:17:58 PMIf you want those removed, please answer quickly: should Talossa be a civil law jurisidiction, where the courts cannot rule at all where statute law is silent? If not, what should be the basis of our common law?Really, what we see today are mostly hybrid systems to one degree or another. Sir Alexandreu mentioned "interstitial common law" in a previous post, and that's where I think the common law is strongest. Filling in the gaps, addressing procedural issues, providing precedent about how codified law should be interpreted. But I think the basic elements of crimes and their penalties should be codified in statute. As I mentioned earlier, most common law jurisdictions have either abrogated common law crimes or "frozen" them so that new ones cannot be created by the courts.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 03:27:06 PMI'm amazed that you think giving the State the administrative ability to take away citizenship is less oppressive than giving the CpI the discretion to decide - upon a formal complaint - whether someone has violated the Covenants and to evoke a discretionary punishment which may be far less than banishment.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 03:27:06 PMConversely, if your fear is rogue prosecutions, not rogue convictions, might I suggest that limits on prosecutorial power would be the answer? I suggested elsewhere a "grand jury", but no-one bit on that one.Yes, I think the principle of legality is a great limit on prosecutorial power: have crimes and their elements defined up front, so if prosecutors try to charge someone with something that isn't even a crime there can be a procedure to have the charges quickly dismissed as legally insufficient. And that also makes it easier to identify cases of malicious prosecution and sanction prosecutors who bring frivolous charges. A grand jury is a fine idea in principle, but it would be a lot more practical if we had a much larger active population. Any solution that requires multiple additional bodies means taking away from anything else we would like to see get done in Talossa (legal reform projects, language stuff, other cultural endeavours, etc.).
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 03:27:06 PMLet's go back to why we are doing this. It is not just because it is unseemly to have written another jurisdiction's laws wholesale into our own. It is because one of our own citizens is doing time for statutory rape, and that section of the law did not give Talossa's State or courts any options to disassociate ourselves from this charater and his crimes. I don't see how your suggested amendments (reasonable on the surface) would do so; mine would.Why we're doing what, specifically? How does a general repeal of the criminal code achieve the purpose you're talking about? Why not leave the criminal code in place for Talossan crimes and separately enact a mechanism (whether a new crime or something else) to deal with the issue of non-Talossan crimes that you're talking about? I don't see how one is necessary, or even helpful, for accomplishing the other.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 27, 2021, 06:08:08 PMI'm just trying to explain what I meant when I said we need "something along the lines of" the proposed A.3. Our criminal code only addresses crimes over which Talossa has jurisdiction. This bill does what I see as two very different things: it scraps the laws that define Talossan crimes, and also makes provision for dealing with citizens who have committed non-Talossan crimes. I agree that the second objective is a legitimate issue that we should address in some way, though I do take exception to the specifics of the proposal.
As far as I can tell, you don't like eliminating the current criminal code stuff and replacing it with vague and contradictory principles left to the whim of the legal system, and I have the same concerns. I guess our objections are different in the sense that you focused on the elimination and I focused on the replacement, but I have to admit I don't understand this particular semantic focus.