NationStates Jolt Archive

category: social justice
strength: strong
Proposed by: Armed Nation of Calazar

The proposal calls for nations with crime rates higher than moderate to be controlled by monetary methods.

Any persons of suspicious background currently living in nations with crime rates higher than moderate (but not including moderate) will have a 2% added income tax that goes directly into the police force of that nation.

ONLY people SUSPECTED OF HAVING BROKEN LAWS may be taxed. The suspect must be given a lie detector test to see if they have actually broken the laws that they are suspected of breaking.

Money obtained from this act may ONLY be used by the police force when the economy is not strong.

This act will effectively cut down on crime AND add to the economy of nations. When crime goes to moderate or below moderate, this act will immediately stop being enforced.

Any nations caught stealing money from this act by charging innocent people of crimes will be ejected from the UN.

Here are the things I saw, in no real order:

Well, first off, the National Sovereignty people are going to have a party with this. Second, the UN can't impose taxes on individuals, that contradicts the UN Taxation ban resolution. Three, you don't give any sort of definition for a "moderate" crime rate. Four, resolutions can't boot people from the UN. Five, you seem to want to charge suspects, rather than those actually convicted. And six, lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable. So much so that their results aren't admissible evidence in Kedalfax, Audland, The Sheridan Islands, and many other NSUN nations. (Not to mention the RL USA)

Sorry, but this one isn't going to make it. Good luck next time, though!

The delegate from The Sacred Orb takes two steps backward watching as the delegate from Calazar's proposal disintegrates. :eek:

"The proposal calls for nations with crime rates higher than moderate to be controlled by monetary methods."

This is illegal. The UN has no right to impose taxes as thsi right is only held by the individual nations. Theres a resolution on this.

"Any persons of suspicious background currently living in nations with crime rates higher than moderate (but not including moderate) will have a 2% added income tax that goes directly into the police force of that nation"

a) how would you define suspicious behaviour? diff countries have diff justice systems, and burdens of proof also vary. To impose this in a resolution would call for uniformity in justice systems.
b)Some countries have 100% income tax.
c) Why police? why not crime prevention/rehab/courts systems that also play there parts in reducing a nations crime rate.

"ONLY people SUSPECTED OF HAVING BROKEN LAWS may be taxed. The suspect must be given a lie detector test to see if they have actually broken the laws that they are suspected of breaking."

a) i say again, diff countries have differing systems of justice etc.
b) Lie detectors (polygraph im assuming) aren't conclusive. many rl countries aren't allowed to use lie detector evidence in court. and they can be misleading. the stress of being polygraphed can make you look like a liar, and guilty people can control their heart rates to look innocent.

"Money obtained from this act may ONLY be used by the police force when the economy is not strong."

a) where does money go otherwise, if the economy IS strong? surely the justice system is the fairest place for this tax to go.
b) again, its illegal for the un to tell the countries how to spend its money.

"This act will effectively cut down on crime AND add to the economy of nations. When crime goes to moderate or below moderate, this act will immediately stop being enforced."

a) Surely 2% would not be sufficient to increase the economy. The figure would need to be bigger.
b) It will not act as a deterrent, especially to white collar crime, where the profits of crime would exceed the 2% tax.
c) Does the game mechanic measure moderate, or is it subjective whether crime is high or low? Im not sure.
d)If the act stops being enforced, surely the crime rate would rise again?

"Any nations caught stealing money from this act by charging innocent people of crimes will be ejected from the UN."

a) Fair enough, but surely tougher sanctions would be needed on those nations.
b) And if the money is going to the police the central government surely would not profit?


And on a philisophical point, justice and crime prevention is always local and national, and criminal justice is always the right and responsibility of the nation, barring international law. Theories of punishment also vary, depending on the socio economic trends at the time. The ambassador of the Gaffa Territories recently embarked on a fact finding mission of that wonderful area of expertise and would delightfully share all this with the world...

I found another illegality in this idea.

The proposal calls for nations with crime rates higher than moderate to be controlled by monetary methods.

It's attempting to only affect certain nations.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Twice over, in fact:

Money obtained from this act may ONLY be used by the police force when the economy is not strong.

One could also argue that this proposal is mandating a punishment, and is therefore in breach of the Fair Sentencing Act. It's currently sufficiently poorly drafted that it gets away with it, instead sailing perilously close to contravening Fair Trial, but a tidied up version in line with what we perceive the author's intent to be would be highly likely to fall foul of the FSA.

It's attempting to only affect certain nations.More importantly, it's a metagaming violation. The National Spotlight is a game construct.

ok, its poorly constructed and in turn weve spotted a tonne of problems with the guys act, but lets ignore it now.

"Any nations caught stealing money from this act by charging innocent people of crimes will be ejected from the UN."Why do people insist if you break a rule they toss you out? How is this going to stop anyone from breaking rules? The NSUN is already a minority so tossing one out moves them one step closer to be a bigger minority... do you realy want that and think it will help tossing anyone out.... suppose you get to a point they all have to be tossed out?

i was only quoting what was in the proposal text

Thanks for the suggestions. This was my first proposal, and i didn't really expect it to make it in anyways. I appreciate the suggestions.

no more comments, please.:)