Osiris Fraternal Order

So I was going over our double jeopardy provisions in our Scroll and I noted an anomaly, here's the current text:

(3) The Council of Priests will not hear criminal charges against any citizen if the citizen has previously been found not guilty of the exact same charges by the Council of Priests."

Why is this a problem? It doesn't specify "same charges in the same case". The wording here means that once you're found not guilty of a crime, you're immune from prosecution for future commissions of that crime. Since this is not, I think, what we're wanting the scroll to say... I think it needs an amendment. I propose the following amendment to Section 1.3.3 of the Scroll of Ma'at:

(3) Citizens will face neither multiple trials for the same violation of the law once acquitted before the Council of Priests nor be punished more than once for the same violation of the law.

I played around with more complex wording but I think the above line does what we need it to do. Suggestions? Questions?

[small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small]
[small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small][small]I'll take "The Penis Mightier" for 400 Alex.[/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small][/small]

Speaking from intimate experience with Osiris and double jeopardy provisions (or lack there of), this seems good.

Pass this, you guys.

I move that this officially be titled the Suck it Trebek Amendment.

On a more serious note, I have no objections to this. Seems like a solid amendment.

Pursuant to Section 2(2) of the Rules of the Council, I have edited the title to bring it in line with the Council's standards.

Amerion wrote:Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:47 pmPursuant to Section 2(2) of the Rules of the Council, I have edited the title to bring it in line with the Council's standards.

I disagree that the changes you've made are non-substantive. You might define it as non-substantive in regards to the content of the piece, but I believe a snappy title contextualizes the content.

Beyond that, 2.2 says you're supposed to detail the full extent of the "corrections" made. That would include quoting what was there before and what exactly you changed. You haven't done that here.

And for a more meta point: the titles of these amendments require differentiation. Otherwise, archives are going to become very hard to look through later. Considering all three points (and especially the fact that you've failed to follow 2.2's actual requirements before making your edits), I'm requesting you put it back please.

Treize Dreizehn wrote:Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:49 am

Amerion wrote:Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:47 pmPursuant to Section 2(2) of the Rules of the Council, I have edited the title to bring it in line with the Council's standards.

I disagree that the changes you've made are non-substantive. You might define it as non-substantive in regards to the content of the piece, but I believe a snappy title contextualizes the content.

Beyond that, 2.2 says you're supposed to detail the full extent of the "corrections" made. That would include quoting what was there before and what exactly you changed. You haven't done that here.

And for a more meta point: the titles of these amendments require differentiation. Otherwise, archives are going to become very hard to look through later. Considering all three points (and especially the fact that you've failed to follow 2.2's actual requirements before making your edits), I'm requesting you put it back please.

I was under the impression the title was an attempt at humour and hence did not detail the full extent of corrections made. I apologise for that error.

Could you remind me what the original title was please? I recall it had 'suck it' in the title.

Your meta point is valid. However, 'suck it' is not an appropriate title. I accept that bills which seek to amend the Scroll of Ma'at should have differing titles, but I ask that you come up with a more formal one. When you do, you can either edit the title yourself (I believe that you should be able to as the original poster?) or post it in this thread and I will edit the title accordingly.

Edit: Will '[Ongoing] Amendment to the Scroll of Ma'at re: double jeopardy' suffice?

I appreciate that you'd like a title that's more formal, but I'd prefer something a bit more irreverent. As that's not a formatting, grammar or spelling error (as outlined in 2.2), I'd like to stick with the original title. The title of the amendment should be "[Ongoing] Amendment to the Scroll of Ma'at: Suck it Trebek". I cannot in fact edit the title of the thread without moderation privileges so I leave that to you.

Duly noted. The title has been amended.

Anyone with further thoughts on the amendment?

The way its worded, someone could get acquitted of a crime - and then commit another instance of the same crime, and get off. I think the issue you described still exists.

"Same Crimes" being the type, and I know in-game lawyers who'd argue that to the hilt.

I would like to suggest a bit more complex wording, to cover double-jeopardy of only the same instance of crime, not repeat offenses.