[Proposal] Criminal Code Discussion

[Joshua Bluteisen]

I second the motion.

[Cormac]

I do think we should have an actual range of sentences clearly layed out, with leniencies given for newer members, as well as for those members without known extraregional interests. It's a long process, but as someone who has been forced out of a region due to a witch hunt (led by our old friend, the almighty jesus whale), it's not a nice place to be in and we should be making sure that people don't gain control of our judiciary for their own purposes.

I don't think leniency should be granted to newer citizens or citizens without extraregional interests by default. A newer citizen or a citizen without extraregional interests committing treason or destroying a forum, for example, isn't anymore acceptable than someone who has been here for years or someone involved in one or two other regions doing that.

I agree with you that we want to ensure independence and fairness in criminal proceedings. The best way to ensure that is through the system we've established in the Scroll of Ma'at, with the Council of Priests appointed by the Pharaoh -- the non-partisan head of state -- and confirmed by the legislature, the Council of Scribes. The best way to ensure an independent and fair Council of Priests is to ensure that only those who will maintain independence and fairness are appointed and confirmed to the Council of Priests.

And again, by prescribing maximum sentencing, we have also ensured a further degree of fairness in the criminal code. In combination with appointing and confirming Priests who will know when it's appropriate to exercise leniency and when it isn't, this system should work.

[Tim Stark]

I third the motion

[ARR]

The fact remains, and will always remain, that newer members (by that I mean genuinely newer members) will know far less about what is 'treason' or what is 'forum destruction,' simply because they haven't been involved in the rulemaking. I don't think that total sanctuary is due to them, but I do think some leniency should bbe acceptable.

[Cormac]

The fact remains, and will always remain, that newer members (by that I mean genuinely newer members) will know far less about what is 'treason' or what is 'forum destruction,' simply because they haven't been involved in the rulemaking. I don't think that total sanctuary is due to them, but I do think some leniency should bbe acceptable.

In more than four years of playing NationStates, I've never encountered a newcomer who has accidentally committed treason or accidentally destroyed a forum soon after arrival. They may not know the exact definitions of those crimes, but they do seem to know enough to avoid engaging in action that would meet those definitions.

In the unlikely event a newcomer really does accidentally engage in a crime without knowing it's a crime, I trust the system we've just established through the Scroll of Ma'at to apply appropriate leniency. We can't carve out rules for every scenario, however unlikely the scenario may be. At some point we have to trust that the system we've created will do what is right when confronted with a scenario for which no established rules exist.

[Cormac]

As the motion to vote on this was made before ratification of the Scroll of Ma'at when we were still operating under the procedural rules of the constitutional convention, I am disregarding the motion and secondments.

As this code has been incorporated into a new draft for a comprehensive Legal Code, discussion should be shifted to that thread.