Bono vs Southeast (this time for real)

[TomC]

I'd be up for hearing it- I did vote against it but not because I thought it was cruel and unusual or that it violated any right to worship.

But may I ask: when Bono speaks of its unconstitutionality, does this refer to the SE constitution or the Atlasian? If Atlasian, it might be better for the SC to hear it.

[TomC]

***ducks then grabs gavel off floor***

Well, okay then, proceedings may begin.

[TomC]

I would recommend the requirement that any necromancer or other form of wizard who is to be executed for violating the law set forth in Initiative 144 be given pain killers or anesthesia immediately before the fire is lit.

I thank everyone for their submissions.

Magistrate Dibble, based on 144 and how it is written, how can we be assured that your recommendation will be standard practice? If pain killers or anesthesia are not given, would you consider this a form of cruel and unusual punishment?

Does Secretary Bono intend to address the court? I don't believe we've heard an argument from the plantiff about how this violates the freedom of worship clause.

[TomC]

On July 24, 2006, the Southeast passed an initiative numbered 144:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Secretary Bono has sued, claiming the law violates a Southeasterner's right to worship as well as the "cruel and unusual" clause of the Bill of Rights (32).

This court finds that the punishment for necromancy is cruel and unusual. Without specific provisions to alleviate pain and suffering as well as to ensure a limit on public viewing of this stark punishment, I can not allow it to be invoked. As a temporary officer of the Southeast Court, I'm not willing to craft qualifiers and guidelines to what should be a legislative effort. Therefore, in it's current form, I strike down initiative 144.

I also question whether the punishment fits the crime. Magistrate Dibble gives plenty of great examples of problematic "beings" that may result from necromancy; however, many of the most stark violations by these beings are charges somewhat separate from the "raising of the dead" itself. For example, eating someone's brain and flesh might qualify an offender for the death penalty, I'm not convinced necromancy, in and of itself, is automatically so horrific that it deserves such an unusual punishment.

Further, the court has not been convinced that this law violates a right to worship and only voids it on the grounds it is cruel and unusual.

*** bangs gavel and tosses it back to Dibble.***