Voting Whilst Banned Bill (Law'd)

[HappyWarrior]

Voting Whilst Banned Bill
1. It shall be a crime for any person to vote or attempt to vote in an Atlasian election whilst banned from doing so after being convicted in the Supreme Court and then sentenced to a ban from voting.
2. This crime shall be tried as though it were a crime under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
3. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the presiding Justice; He may use any combination of the following as punishment, depending upon the severity of the offense:
i. Up to 3 months ban from voting in any Atlasian elections.
ii. Up to 6 months ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.

_________________________________________________________________

Sponser:Lief

[Franzl]

Guess I don't see any reason to oppose this legislation, though I'm unsure if we really need it. But what the hell, why not?

[MasterJedi]

Yeah, I don't see a problem with this bill at all either.

[RI]

Guess I don't see any reason to oppose this legislation, though I'm unsure if we really need it. But what the hell, why not?

Pretty much.

[Lief 🗽]

This was introduced on behalf of Peter. I support it, though I think the maximum sentences are maybe a bit harsh.

[MasterJedi]

This was introduced on behalf of Peter. I support it, though I think the maximum sentences are maybe a bit harsh.

If anything they're a little too light.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Has people voting while banned really been a problem?  I still support the bill as it does not doing anything harmful, but this doesn't really seem to be a problem.

[SPC]

So, if a person tries to vote when they're banned from voting, they'll be banned from voting?

[MasterJedi]

So, if a person tries to vote when they're banned from voting, they'll be banned from voting?

I suspect what was meant was that there would be additional time added on. Though that should probably be written into the bill.

[Smid]

So, if a person tries to vote when they're banned from voting, they'll be banned from voting?

I suspect what was meant was that there would be additional time added on. Though that should probably be written into the bill.

I move an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Lief 🗽]

I'll accept that as a friendly amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I guess I'll abstain. While it does nothing harmful, it doesn't seem to do anything useful either.

[Smid]

     I guess I'll abstain. While it does nothing harmful, it doesn't seem to do anything useful either.

It does nothing, except, of course, to punish people who are breaching their sentence for an earlier crime committed in Atlasia.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I guess I'll abstain. While it does nothing harmful, it doesn't seem to do anything useful either.

It does nothing, except, of course, to punish people who are breaching their sentence for an earlier crime committed in Atlasia.

     But since their vote would never be counted, them breaching their sentence is meaningless. That would be like punishing armed robbers by binding their hands in such a way that they could not possibly use a weapon, & then passing a law saying that they cannot possess a firearm while in this state. It's a pointless gesture.

[MasterJedi]

     I guess I'll abstain. While it does nothing harmful, it doesn't seem to do anything useful either.

It does nothing, except, of course, to punish people who are breaching their sentence for an earlier crime committed in Atlasia.

     But since their vote would never be counted, them breaching their sentence is meaningless. That would be like punishing armed robbers by binding their hands in such a way that they could not possibly use a weapon, & then passing a law saying that they cannot possess a firearm while in this state. It's a pointless gesture.

Though we should keep it how it is right now I believe the intention of this bill is for people using other accounts for voting since they themselves are banned so maybe adding that on would be a good idea.

[Franzl]

     I guess I'll abstain. While it does nothing harmful, it doesn't seem to do anything useful either.

It does nothing, except, of course, to punish people who are breaching their sentence for an earlier crime committed in Atlasia.

     But since their vote would never be counted, them breaching their sentence is meaningless. That would be like punishing armed robbers by binding their hands in such a way that they could not possibly use a weapon, & then passing a law saying that they cannot possess a firearm while in this state. It's a pointless gesture.

Though we should keep it how it is right now I believe the intention of this bill is for people using other accounts for voting since they themselves are banned so maybe adding that on would be a good idea.

That would already be covered by voter fraud in the CCJA.

This does apply to people using their main account

[Peter]

In my view, its the closest to a jail break Atlasia can have, and therefore we ought to guard against it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In my view, its the closest to a jail break Atlasia can have, and therefore we ought to guard against it.

     But we already do, since we don't count the vote. It's like a jailbreak where 10 feet from the door the inmate is nabbed & dragged back in.

[Smid]

     I guess I'll abstain. While it does nothing harmful, it doesn't seem to do anything useful either.

It does nothing, except, of course, to punish people who are breaching their sentence for an earlier crime committed in Atlasia.

     But since their vote would never be counted, them breaching their sentence is meaningless. That would be like punishing armed robbers by binding their hands in such a way that they could not possibly use a weapon, & then passing a law saying that they cannot possess a firearm while in this state. It's a pointless gesture.

The fact they didn't succeed is besides the point. This isn't so much like binding the hands of an armed robber, it's actually more like charging someone with attempted murder when they tried but failed to kill someone.

Binding the hands of an armed robber reflected in this sort of a Bill would be more like banning the person perminantly from the Forum, since hand binding prevents a lot more than just holding a weapon. Your example is an exageration of what this Bill recommends.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I guess I'll abstain. While it does nothing harmful, it doesn't seem to do anything useful either.

It does nothing, except, of course, to punish people who are breaching their sentence for an earlier crime committed in Atlasia.

     But since their vote would never be counted, them breaching their sentence is meaningless. That would be like punishing armed robbers by binding their hands in such a way that they could not possibly use a weapon, & then passing a law saying that they cannot possess a firearm while in this state. It's a pointless gesture.

The fact they didn't succeed is besides the point. This isn't so much like binding the hands of an armed robber, it's actually more like charging someone with attempted murder when they tried but failed to kill someone.

Binding the hands of an armed robber reflected in this sort of a Bill would be more like banning the person perminantly from the Forum, since hand binding prevents a lot more than just holding a weapon. Your example is an exageration of what this Bill recommends.

     Your example would be more accurate if it included the precondition that they were completely unable to kill their intended victim, no matter what. Furthermore, the perpetrator was aware that they could not succeed. Any circumstance under which they would be unaware would allow them to claim mistake of fact as a defense.

     Seriously, I fail to see how this law accomplishes anything. It punishes people for a victimless, necessarily failed crime that precludes criminal intent. Sorry if that doesn't make sense to me.

[Smid]

Your example would be more accurate if it included the precondition that they were completely unable to kill their intended victim, no matter what. Furthermore, the perpetrator was aware that they could not succeed. Any circumstance under which they would be unaware would allow them to claim mistake of fact as a defense.

So you're suggesting we shouldn't make something a crime unless we can be absolutely certain of catching everyone who commits it? If someone commits a crime and isn't caught, then they're lucky to have gotten away with it. If someone commits a crime and is caught, then they should pay the punishment for it. If they're breaching the terms of a court order - that of not voting - but they fraudulantly do so anyway, they should be charged regardless of whether or not they thought they'd get caught.

Let me state again - if someone is caught voting while banned, they're breaching the order placed on them by the courts, they're breaking the rules of the game and they should be punished accordingly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, I'm saying that we shouldn't make something a crime unless it can succeed. Of course, this includes a clause for an attempted crime, so it is prosecutable, though just barely.

     More importantly though, your post implies that this should be treated as a probation violation, which would be rather different from the bill as written.

[Smid]

     No, I'm saying that we shouldn't make something a crime unless it can succeed. Of course, this includes a clause for an attempted crime, so it is prosecutable, though just barely.

     More importantly though, your post implies that this should be treated as a probation violation, which would be rather different from the bill as written.

This crime can succeed, in fact, it's probably more likely to succeed than not succeed - the only reason Ben got caught with the Populist was because his account got hacked and the information was discovered.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, I'm saying that we shouldn't make something a crime unless it can succeed. Of course, this includes a clause for an attempted crime, so it is prosecutable, though just barely.

     More importantly though, your post implies that this should be treated as a probation violation, which would be rather different from the bill as written.

This crime can succeed, in fact, it's probably more likely to succeed than not succeed - the only reason Ben got caught with the Populist was because his account got hacked and the information was discovered.

     I see what you're getting at, though based on the implication of Franzl's post as well as the circumstances under which it was proposed, I honestly doubt that it was intended to do what you think it will do. Reading it though, I see no reason why it wouldn't do what you suggest it would do.

     Looking back at Franzl's post, he does raise an interesting point that this could be prosecuted the same as using a sock to vote regularly. This makes it completely redundant as this can already be prosecuted under a statute that carries a stiffer maximum sentence.

[Franzl]

From what I can understand, this law is meant for people that are currently banned from voting, but attempt to do so anyway with their main account.

Example:

If Benconstine were to attempt to vote in the current Mideast election, that would be a criminal offense under this proposition....but currently, it would not be punishable at all.

Not that I believe Benconstine would try that....not at all.

But I do tend to support this legislation.