Voting Whilst Banned Bill (Law'd)

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Just to make it clear if I had not done so earlier, this bill is useless for punishing people who use socks to vote while banned for voting. A law already exists to do so with more teeth, & I intend to vote nay on this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Perhaps we could look at incorporating this as an amendment to the legislation banning the use of voting with a sock - that if someone votes with a sock while banned, the punishment is more severe than merely voting with a sock.

     What would you suggest for the punishment in such a case?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay, for the same reason as DWTL.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Congratulations on passing a completely pointless bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Theoretically, aren't ALL laws in Atlasia pointless?

     I meant a law that was pointless by Atlasia standards.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Law'd