Vetoed The Broke B Act

[Freeze28]

A
BILL
TO

Address the fine safeguard in relation to punishing criminals​

The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:



1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the “The Broke B Act”.
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act was authored by Tairo, with some changes made by Freeze28.
(4) This Act is proposed by Representative Freeze28
(5) This Act is Co-Sponsored by Senator LilNickiVert

2 - Reasons

1. With the safeguard on /fine, if a criminal does not have the necessary amount in their balance to be fined, they no longer go into the negatives.
2. Because of this safeguard, if a criminal cannot be fined, the government cannot take that money.
3. This act’s goal is to encourage players to pay their fine in a timely manner or face further jail time, instead of having to pay that fine.

3 - What to do with a broke person

(1) In the event an individual does not have the necessary balance to pay their entire fine, an officer shall fine the individual of all they currently have.​

​

(2) From here, the officer shall create an open charge for the individual to pay the remaining fine.​

​

(3) Officers should inform the individual in jail of their remaining fine that will be taken from them within the next 30 days.​

​

(4) In relation to the Open Charge Act, if a player cannot be fined the remaining balance within 30 days, they will instead undergo their jail sentence related to the fine once more.​

​

(5) If a player is permanently banned before these 30 days are up, a warrant may be obtained in order to attain the remaining fine amount.​

5 - Notes on the matter

(1) When jailing a player who was unable to be fully fined within the 30 days they were given, they must not be jailed for the same reason they were originally jailed for in order to avoid confusion.​

​

(2) This failure to pay shall not be documented on the individual’s criminal record.​

 

[Westray]

Veto

This bill is hereby vetoed.

While I recognize with the nature of the bill, there are a few key issues with it in its current form.

First of all, the bill is not an amendment to an existing law or the constitution, therefore it is not properly formatted. The green colour coding only applies if it is an amendment. For creating a new law process altogether as aimed in this bill, the colour of the text should remain consistent. The bill also skips a section 4. The Speaker of the House shared the same concern about a severe colour coding mistake.

Additionally, there are some ambiguities surrounding this bill. While I had discussed a few with the sponsor of this bill directly, after discussing with my advisors I am still troubled by some of the clauses. To point out my concerns:

In section 5.1 it states "(1) When jailing a player who was unable to be fully fined within the 30 days they were given, they must not be jailed for the same reason they were originally jailed for in order to avoid confusion." - in order to jail someone, the Department of Justice must provide a reasoning both lawfully and plugin-wise. This bill cites that individuals can't be jailed for the same reason they were originally jailed for, yet does not specify what the reasoning would be alternatively.

Consequently, there are some loopholes and potential issues that can be caused in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

For 3.4, it explicitly references the Open Charge Act, however does not specify what would happen if that specific law was repealed. Essentially, if the Open Charge Act is repealed or changed, what happens to this bill? Having acts rely on each other without specification of a scenario in which one act no longer applies can be problematic.

For 3.5, it mentions a new warrant however does not specify further the term or process of this warrant. How would this warrant be used to obtain fine amounts? Is it like the court debt recovery where the department is able to seize properties and assets? There are some questions left up to ask.

Therefore, with such considered, much of the concern comes down to ambiguity and some potential issues that could arise at the moment. I appreciate the nature of the bill however in good conscience cannot sign it in its current form.

I would recommend that the respective Representative considers proposing an alternative version of their bill that addresses these concerns. This could potentially include deciding to amend the Open Charge Act rather than creating a whole new act, and or providing more detail on some of the processes outlined.

 

[Freeze28]

I totally get that and agree, I should have clarified and bettered the bill before just posting it after Taro sent it to me, but I do have one question: If the speaker already had concern about color coding, why did he not get in contact with me in the draft stage?

 

[Westray]

I totally get that and agree, I should have clarified and bettered the bill before just posting it after Taro sent it to me, but I do have one question: If the speaker already had concern about color coding, why did he not get in contact with me in the draft stage?

Thank you, I appreciate your understanding Mr. Representative.

I am not sure in regards to your question. You would have to reach out to the Speaker's office. I have noticed a few bills with the colour coding issue. If it is not an amendment, it doesn't need to be green.

 

[Freeze28]

Thank you, I appreciate your understanding Mr. Representative.

I am not sure in regards to your question. You would have to reach out to the Speaker's office. I have noticed a few bills with the colour coding issue. If it is not an amendment, it doesn't need to be green.

I see, and I didnt know that, so thanks for telling me!