NE1: The Northeast Drug Courts Act (Tabled)

[cinyc]

The Northeast Drug Courts Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Governor SirNick

Debate on this bill shall remain open for 72 hours, or until around 3PM on January 10, 2014, unless modified or extended.  The sponsor, Governor SirNick, is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.   If the sponsor does not speak, because there is other legislation in the proposed legislation thread, the bill will be tabled and the Assembly will move on to the next bill.

The floor is open to debate.

[Cincinnatus]

I don't oppose the idea behind this bill, but doesn't the Federal Government already deal with these issue?  Drugs are certainly decriminalized, and AFAIK mostly legal.  Is this really necessary?  Further research is required..

[Lincoln Republican]

Drug crimes should be dealt with by the same courts that deal with any other crimes.  

After all, drug crimes are still crimes.  The Northeast judicial system is perfectly capable and qualified to deal with these crimes.  The law is the law regardless of the offence.

We have qualified judges and attorneys who know the law, regardless of which laws we are dealing with.

One type of crime does not warrant special separation from other crimes.  Crimes go before the court, and there is but one court, and that is the court of law.

[Deus Naturae]

I support Section 3 of this bill, but I don't believe there should be separate courts for certain types of offenses. Not only do I disagree with the idea of the government preferring certain types of cases over others, but I would think that, if we were going to create some sort of separate courts system, that there would be numerous types of cases that we would rather prioritize. For example, I think that we much rather fast-track and devote greater attention to homicide cases than non-violent drug crimes.

[Earthling]

I don't believe we need to create a new court. If we want this, appoint judges who deal with small criminal procedures (theft, small drugs, accidents, etc.) to relieve the courts from some of the workload.

I do support section 3.

[sentinel]

If the Assembly finds this bill unnecessary given federal code and an already excellent court system, we can motion to table this bill.

[cinyc]

If the Assembly finds this bill unnecessary given federal code and an already excellent court system, we can motion to table this bill.

There's no need for a motion to table.  You as sponsor can table the bill at any time you want.

I don't believe we need to create a new court. If we want this, appoint judges who deal with small criminal procedures (theft, small drugs, accidents, etc.) to relieve the courts from some of the workload.

I do support section 3.

Section 3, which I don't support, was in the Rehabilitation bill passed by the Assembly earlier in the week.  It is unnecessary to pass it again.

[sentinel]

I'm going to table this bill. The debate the Assembly is having makes me think that this reform is not needed in the Northeast at this time. It seems that federal drug laws are satisfactory and that current Northeast court system is doing an alright job of handling the problem.

[cinyc]

Okay.  This bill has been tabled by the sponsor.  We will move on to the next bill shortly.