Advertisement
by Thyerata » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:32 am
by Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:36 am
Hereby defines:
Extrajudicial punishment as punishment apart from a formal legal system, for those suspected of criminality or transgressions against society or persons.
Hereby mandates:
No member nation shall allow for the occurrence of extrajudicial punishment through refusing to enact proper legal punitive measures on those who enact extrajudicial punishments on suspected individuals.
All member nations must make extrajudicial punishment a criminal or civil offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems.
Clarifies that nothing in this legislation criminalizes interference in criminal activity until the appropriate representatives of the law arrive to arrest the suspected individuals, as long as those individuals do call upon those representatives within a reasonable amount of time.
by Bananaistan » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:43 pm
by Aclion » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:35 pm
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:"Let's see, what do we have here..." Princess Twilight Sparkle begins, quickly reading over the draft on the table before her. "Now, I would like some clarification here. My nation lacks a formal law enforcement agency. We have Royal Guardsponies who sometimes keep the peace, but they aren't really for general law enforcement, just for martial law. And then some townships appoint a Sheriff, who appoints deputies, and generally they keep their town free of crime... but most of the nation relies on the actions of ordinary ponies to stop lawbreakers and villains. Would we be required to criminalize such actions? What would we even do to such citizens if they broke anti-extrajudicial punishment laws and continued to exact punishment on criminals?"
by Bakhton » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:46 pm
Bananaistan wrote:"We feel the proposal needs some work to acheive its aims. Particularly the definition clause needs to be tightened up to exclude the chastisement of errant children while an employer might also want to dismiss employees for gross misconduct without necessarily calling in the civic guards."
- Cde Brian
by Bakhton » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:50 pm
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:Hereby defines:
Extrajudicial punishment as punishment apart from a formal legal system, for those suspected of criminality or transgressions against society or persons.
Hereby mandates:
No member nation shall allow for the occurrence of extrajudicial punishment through refusing to enact proper legal punitive measures on those who enact extrajudicial punishments on suspected individuals.
All member nations must make extrajudicial punishment a criminal or civil offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems.
Clarifies that nothing in this legislation criminalizes interference in criminal activity until the appropriate representatives of the law arrive to arrest the suspected individuals, as long as those individuals do call upon those representatives within a reasonable amount of time.
A small-ish purple pony, wings and horn included, materializes in the drafting chamber with a flash of pink light.
"Let's see, what do we have here..." Princess Twilight Sparkle begins, quickly reading over the draft on the table before her. "Now, I would like some clarification here. My nation lacks a formal law enforcement agency. We have Royal Guardsponies who sometimes keep the peace, but they aren't really for general law enforcement, just for martial law. And then some townships appoint a Sheriff, who appoints deputies, and generally they keep their town free of crime... but most of the nation relies on the actions of ordinary ponies to stop lawbreakers and villains. Would we be required to criminalize such actions? What would we even do to such citizens if they broke anti-extrajudicial punishment laws and continued to exact punishment on criminals?"
by Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:49 pm
Aclion wrote:Do you rely on ordinary ponies to enact punishment on lawbreakers or only to citizens arrest? Because the latter is specifically protected.
Bakhton wrote:"Those sheriffs would be considered the appropriate representatives of the law. First clarification clause covers the second objection. They can stop crime but they must alert the representatives of the law within a reasonable time period."
by Bakhton » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:31 am
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:Aclion wrote:Do you rely on ordinary ponies to enact punishment on lawbreakers or only to citizens arrest? Because the latter is specifically protected.
"The former, sir." Twilight Sparkle replies. "For the most part, ordinary ponies such as you or I- er, well, such as myself, are responsible for ensuring the safety of Equestria. Why, I remember one time, where a few of my close friends and I made matching costumes and pretended to be one masked hero... the Mysterious Mare Do Well, and- but I digress."Bakhton wrote:"Those sheriffs would be considered the appropriate representatives of the law. First clarification clause covers the second objection. They can stop crime but they must alert the representatives of the law within a reasonable time period."
Twilight looks confused. "But what representatives of the law would they alert? The Sheriffs of some other town, to deal with something hundreds of miles away and not even in their jurisdiction, that can't be right. There isn't anyone they could reasonably alert, besides other civilians."
by Bakhton » Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:12 am
Thyerata wrote:I wouldn't submit this until this legality challenge is resolved
by Thyerata » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:49 pm
Bakhton wrote:"Draft III is up!"Thyerata wrote:I wouldn't submit this until this legality challenge is resolved
"It appears this has largely been resolved as legal, unless anyone has further dispute."
by Bakhton » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:54 pm
Thyerata wrote:Bakhton wrote:"Draft III is up!"
"It appears this has largely been resolved as legal, unless anyone has further dispute."
Not so. GenSec haven't ruled on it yet, so we can't presume anything
OOC: Scion, SP and Bears are in my region. I've heard from Scion that three of them have RL commitments (finals), so they're going to wait a bit.
by Thyerata » Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:05 pm
Bakhton wrote:Thyerata wrote:
Not so. GenSec haven't ruled on it yet, so we can't presume anything
OOC: Scion, SP and Bears are in my region. I've heard from Scion that three of them have RL commitments (finals), so they're going to wait a bit.
OOC: No they're not. GenSec doesn't really choose to rule on things until they reach quorum most of the time. Sciongrad and Imperium Anglorum have already stated the duplication claim is frivolous.
by Araraukar » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:06 pm
Thyerata wrote:OOC: regional discord channel says otherwise
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Bakhton » Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:33 pm
by Bakhton » Wed May 03, 2017 10:38 am
by Covenstone » Wed May 03, 2017 10:51 am
Bakhton wrote:"This proposal has been ruled legal by the powers that be. Time to get back on board with Draft III." Lara blows the dust off her proposal.
by Bakhton » Wed May 03, 2017 2:31 pm
by Aclion » Wed May 03, 2017 4:19 pm
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:Aclion wrote:Do you rely on ordinary ponies to enact punishment on lawbreakers or only to citizens arrest? Because the latter is specifically protected.
"The former, sir." Twilight Sparkle replies. "For the most part, ordinary ponies such as you or I- er, well, such as myself, are responsible for ensuring the safety of Equestria. Why, I remember one time, where a few of my close friends and I made matching costumes and pretended to be one masked hero... the Mysterious Mare Do Well, and- but I digress."
Bakhton wrote:OOC: I believe the strength would be mild, I originally had it at significant, but I think it's better at mild. Any thoughts?
by Bakhton » Thu May 04, 2017 4:05 pm
by Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave » Fri May 05, 2017 3:46 pm
Bakhton wrote:OOC: Any objections to submitting?
Imperium Central News Network: Fourth Fleet assets mobilized to Exterior Territories | Military Oversight opens full recruitment | Civil Oversight authorizes update of Internal Security Locust units | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Bakhton » Fri May 05, 2017 8:02 pm
Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave wrote:Bakhton wrote:OOC: Any objections to submitting?
OOC:
Just the one; it doesn't appear that this draft contains any provisions for criminals killed by law-enforcement to prevent them from committing, or continuing to commit, a crime. I suspect you'd rather avoid police being arrested for eliminating a mass-shooter so as to avoid them opening fire on a bus of schoolchildren.
by Bananaistan » Fri May 05, 2017 10:55 pm
Bakhton wrote:OOC: Any objections to submitting?
by Bakhton » Fri May 05, 2017 11:41 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Bakhton wrote:OOC: Any objections to submitting?
"I still think that the definition clause needs to be tightened up. I know you changed it on foot of my last comment but at the moment it would still allow the mob to cause physical or mental harm to their target which is not excessive. There must be a way to state it such that the any harm, no matter how small, cannot be caused by those not in authority to do so while still allowing but restraining the harm caused by legitimate chastisement by parents or employers or superior officers and avoiding the whole corporal punishment issue. Bananaistan would have no problem should this effectively prohibit corporal punishment but I do recall a delegation previously proposing such a ban running into serious opposition."
- Ted
by Bakhton » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:57 pm
Bananaistan wrote:Bakhton wrote:OOC: Any objections to submitting?
"I still think that the definition clause needs to be tightened up. I know you changed it on foot of my last comment but at the moment it would still allow the mob to cause physical or mental harm to their target which is not excessive. There must be a way to state it such that the any harm, no matter how small, cannot be caused by those not in authority to do so while still allowing but restraining the harm caused by legitimate chastisement by parents or employers or superior officers and avoiding the whole corporal punishment issue. Bananaistan would have no problem should this effectively prohibit corporal punishment but I do recall a delegation previously proposing such a ban running into serious opposition."
- Ted
by Wallenburg » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:39 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement