Bono vs Southeast (this time for real)

[Bono]

I wish to challange the constitucionality of the anti necromancy iniciative, on the grounds that it both imposes a cruel and unusual punishment, and violates the freedom of worship clause.

[Bono]

Am I correct in assuming that this case is before the Southeastern Magistrate, and not the federal Supreme Court?

Totally correct.

[Bono]

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.

Southeast.
I'm not going to challange a regional law based on the federal bill of rights, since I don't believe the federal bill of rights affects the regions.

[Bono]

Your honor, I'll be brief.
The Southeastern Bill of Rights states, in its fifth clause:
"Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to hold religious or philosophical beliefs according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no person shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for acting upon those religious or philosophical beliefs in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious or philosophical profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he does not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious or philosophical pursuits. "

It seems to me that practicing necromancy does not inherently disturb either the public peace or others. Dibble's examples are just hipothetical uses such practices could have. However, these law is not about such examples. It is about necromancy in general, affecting others or not. It does not make any distinction, and that is simply because if it did, such a law would be completely unecessary--such offenses are already criminalized in general law.


As for the matter of the punishment, the Southeastern Bill of Rights tates, in cause:
"No magistrate, or court of law, shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments."

This law mandates courts to impose a penalty that is certainly cruel, for all the reasons President Ebowed mentioned, and for public exposition and disfiguring of the body. Why should we deprive the executee's loved ones of even a token memorial to pay their respects to.

Aditionally, clause 17 of the bill of rights reads:
"All penalities ought to be proportioned to the nature of the offense.[...]"
It seems to me that if there is a case of a punishment not proportional to the "crime" is this one. If we do not even apply the death penalty to rape, why should we apply it to harmless mystical practices?

I rest my case.