Advertisement
by Morover » Mon May 18, 2020 4:48 pm
by WayNeacTia » Mon May 18, 2020 10:21 pm
Further allows the confiscation of recreational drugs;
Requires member-states to expunge all criminal records that have to do with drug possession;
Further requires member-states to end the prior incarceration of individuals who have been charged with drug possession;
Clarifies that individuals charged with other crimes on top of drug possession may have their sentences for the unrelated crimes continued, but any extension of the sentence that may have been a result of drug possession must be negated;
Demands that member-states shall pay reparations to all individuals who are currently or previously incarcerated for drug possession, equal to the amount of profits that would be lost (including, but not limited to, the lack of employment while incarcerated) from twice the length of the sentence, as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired;
Further demands that any fines or similar that were given as criminal punishment of drug possession must be given back to the individual who paid the fine within a reasonably timely manner.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Morover » Tue May 19, 2020 7:13 am
Wayneactia wrote:"I like the idea, I really do. But there are some serious deal breakers here:Further allows the confiscation of recreational drugs;
Really? Why? If they aren't illegal anymore, why should police be able to confiscate them? This is an immediate hard pass.
Requires member-states to expunge all criminal records that have to do with drug possession;
Why? If it was a crime at the time, and someone was convicted, that's on them, not on the state.Further requires member-states to end the prior incarceration of individuals who have been charged with drug possession;
See above.Clarifies that individuals charged with other crimes on top of drug possession may have their sentences for the unrelated crimes continued, but any extension of the sentence that may have been a result of drug possession must be negated;
Once again, see above.Demands that member-states shall pay reparations to all individuals who are currently or previously incarcerated for drug possession, equal to the amount of profits that would be lost (including, but not limited to, the lack of employment while incarcerated) from twice the length of the sentence, as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired;
Are you high? With this clause, it will not even make it to vote, let alone pass. Drop this one or this endeavor dies here and now.Further demands that any fines or similar that were given as criminal punishment of drug possession must be given back to the individual who paid the fine within a reasonably timely manner.
[i]See my above statement.
by Kenmoria » Tue May 19, 2020 7:31 am
Morover wrote:Wayneactia wrote:"I like the idea, I really do. But there are some serious deal breakers here:Further allows the confiscation of recreational drugs;
Really? Why? If they aren't illegal anymore, why should police be able to confiscate them? This is an immediate hard pass.
"The overall goal of the proposal, ambassador, is to increase effective treatment for drug addiction - the confiscation of drugs is sometimes a necessary, if unfortunate, step in that process. You should also note that this proposal doesn't legalize recreational drug possession, it simply makes it so that criminal punishment may not be inflicted upon those who are guilty of drug possession."Requires member-states to expunge all criminal records that have to do with drug possession;
Why? If it was a crime at the time, and someone was convicted, that's on them, not on the state.Further requires member-states to end the prior incarceration of individuals who have been charged with drug possession;
See above.Clarifies that individuals charged with other crimes on top of drug possession may have their sentences for the unrelated crimes continued, but any extension of the sentence that may have been a result of drug possession must be negated;
Once again, see above.Demands that member-states shall pay reparations to all individuals who are currently or previously incarcerated for drug possession, equal to the amount of profits that would be lost (including, but not limited to, the lack of employment while incarcerated) from twice the length of the sentence, as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired;
Are you high? With this clause, it will not even make it to vote, let alone pass. Drop this one or this endeavor dies here and now.Further demands that any fines or similar that were given as criminal punishment of drug possession must be given back to the individual who paid the fine within a reasonably timely manner.
[i]See my above statement.
"It is not just to keep someone incarcerated for something that is not worthy of incarceration, and those that were unjustly incarcerated should have reparations paid to them."
by Morover » Tue May 19, 2020 7:45 am
Kenmoria wrote:Morover wrote:"The overall goal of the proposal, ambassador, is to increase effective treatment for drug addiction - the confiscation of drugs is sometimes a necessary, if unfortunate, step in that process. You should also note that this proposal doesn't legalize recreational drug possession, it simply makes it so that criminal punishment may not be inflicted upon those who are guilty of drug possession."
"It is not just to keep someone incarcerated for something that is not worthy of incarceration, and those that were unjustly incarcerated should have reparations paid to them."
“Reparations - yes. Reparations equal to he total sum of profits that would be lost from double the length of the sentence - definitely not. That’s a ridiculous sum of money if a member state has multiple drug users incarcerated who previously had highly-paying jobs.”
by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Tue May 19, 2020 1:03 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue May 19, 2020 1:11 pm
Morover wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“Reparations - yes. Reparations equal to he total sum of profits that would be lost from double the length of the sentence - definitely not. That’s a ridiculous sum of money if a member state has multiple drug users incarcerated who previously had highly-paying jobs.”
"Would it be preferable if it was equal to the total sum of profits that was lost from the time incarcerated as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired?"
by Araraukar » Tue May 19, 2020 1:15 pm
Morover wrote:"Would it be preferable if it was equal to the total sum of profits that was lost from the time incarcerated as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired?"
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 Morover » Tue May 19, 2020 3:52 pm
by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Tue May 19, 2020 3:57 pm
by Kenmoria » Tue May 19, 2020 3:58 pm
by Stellonia » Tue May 19, 2020 3:58 pm
Morover wrote:"We have heard your feedback regarding the reparations, and while we disagree vehemently with the fact that states are not responsible for repaying those imprisoned over something that does not deserve incarceration, we do understand that such reparations may prove to be overly burdensome for some exceptionally poor states, especially those coming out of disaster which negatively affected economic conditions. As such, we have taken out the clause guaranteeing that right. Hopefully, better wording on the subject can be found, so that the clause can be reinstated to some effect."
"We have kept the clause guaranteeing the repayment of fines, however."
by Morover » Tue May 19, 2020 4:01 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“On a semantic note, in clause 2 you make reference to ‘unless allowed by this resolution’. However, I can’t see any clause in your proposal that would allow member states to criminalise drug possession.”
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:Is this Proposal intented to cover hard drugs like cocaine?
--Saint Maximilian Kolbe, O.F.M. Conv., patron of drug addicts
Consuasor ad Sancti Imperii
by WayNeacTia » Tue May 19, 2020 8:24 pm
Morover wrote:"We have heard your feedback regarding the reparations, and while we disagree vehemently with the fact that states are not responsible for repaying those imprisoned over something that does not deserve incarceration, we do understand that such reparations may prove to be overly burdensome for some exceptionally poor states, especially those coming out of disaster which negatively affected economic conditions. As such, we have taken out the clause guaranteeing that right. Hopefully, better wording on the subject can be found, so that the clause can be reinstated to some effect."
"We have kept the clause guaranteeing the repayment of fines, however."
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Spiritual Republic of Caryton » Tue May 19, 2020 8:26 pm
Music of Caryton: [8-29-22] Classic Carytonic Sing-Along Hymns
by Araraukar » Tue May 19, 2020 10:21 pm
Spiritual Republic of Caryton wrote:It is the right of nations to punish recreational drugs as they please
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 Ardiveds » Wed May 20, 2020 12:00 am
by Picairn » Wed May 20, 2020 3:54 am
by Morover » Wed May 20, 2020 7:43 am
Spiritual Republic of Caryton wrote:Opposed. It is the right of nations to punish recreational drugs as they please and people who commit crimes should not be pardoned. It also presses against governments ruled by religion, ie the Spiritual Republic of Caryton to impose what WA defines as its morality.
Araraukar wrote:Spiritual Republic of Caryton wrote:It is the right of nations to punish recreational drugs as they please
OOC: Oh, they still can. They just have to put it under some other offence. Endangerment of minors, if the druggies have children. Traffic violations if they are out in traffic while high. Disruptive conduct (similar to RL existing alcohol-related charges) or disruption of peace or whathaveyou. People on drugs are going to be doing something stupid anyway, so get them on that instead. That's not something that can be plugged by the author without making this entirely impossible to pass.
Ardiveds wrote:"We agree with the general sentiment of the resolution, especially since cannabis is already legal in Ardiveds and most of the people who have been charged with possession of other drugs are in prison for far more than just that; however, we refuse to pay anything to people formerly incarcerated for possession of drugs. We can help find them jobs after rehabilitation but paying them anything is out of the question. We stand Opposed."
--- Kaiser
Picairn wrote:"While the Empire of Picairn has legalised marijuana, canabis and other mild drugs to the public, Schedule 1 drugs like heroin, cocaine, crack, LSD, etc. are still off-limits due to their powerful side-effects on the human mind and body. Some drugs can even kill you by rotting your flesh and destroy your organs. We maintain strict regulations on the dose and quality of the drugs on sale, as well as jail anyone who refused to comply or was found to possess Schedule 1 drugs. To release the convicted criminals would create an outrage across Picairn, and we do not owe them anything for enforcing our laws and protecting the public health. Same as the delegate from Ardiveds, we refuse to pay to people formerly incarcerated for possession of highly illegal drugs. We can help find them jobs after rehabilitation but paying them anything is out of the question. Opposed."
by Morover » Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:00 am
by Bananaistan » Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:02 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:28 am
by Deacarsia » Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:31 am
Morover wrote:"Why?"
by Araraukar » Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:22 pm
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement