Justice Reform Open Debate

Patrick Barber — 26/08/2022

@Assembly Member

The Chancellor has made a request that the Assembly discuss creating a proposal to control corruption. His initial comments are as follows:

@Chancellor @Oskar Luchens (NUP)

Assembly Members

I wish to raise to the floor of this body the topic of the corruption that continues to plague our civil service at every level. Last year alone we lost 150 million florins as a result of kickbacks. When attempts were made to investigate these missing fund, the assembly members that led the inquiry committee themselves were also suspected of corruption and "failed to discover" evidence to implicate these cases. This is unacceptable for a modern state like Kodiak. We must course correct these actions.

As Chancellor, I intend to submit a proposed Resolution to this body that will encompass the following points.

-Establishes an Anti-Corruption Task Force within the Ministry of Law and Oder (20 Million)

-Establishes a new branch of The Ministry of Justice with closed martial courts for cases against the Civil Service

-Enables Wire Tapping by Police forces with Judicial Warrant

-Criminalizes untraceable wealth (15 Million)

-Defines Government Corruption as a State Felony

There is no specific proposal text to discuss, this is a policy question put to the Assembly as a committee of the whole.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 26/08/2022

Generally speaking the PPK does not support a discussion revolving around surveillance of citizens of our republic.

However, PPK recognizes that individuals in government are public servants, subject to more scrutiny. I would like to propose a hardline view that this would only ever apply to public servants of Kodiak.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

I agree we need to do something about the corruption, but wire tapping our citizens is too much,corruption should've already been a felony, no wonder we had much more corruption. A taak force is good and all but how can we be sure that even they won't accept kickbacks too? Overall, an important step to reduce corruption and save money, all it needs is little rework and it's got my support.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

I feel my collages are thinking about the wire tapping thing all wrong first if some one is to be wire taped it will first need a court order and second these will not be for normal citizens it will probably be low and high level civil servants and government officials who are suspected of corruption this is in my opinion pretty Reasonable

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

I have a different opinion of wire tapping than you, while I can agree that wire tapping can be used against suspected officials, I ask for it to be a valid and a good reason, hoping that the wire tapping doesn't spread to ordinary citizens.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

I understand I think as long as theirs a clause in the bill some where about this being specific ly for civil servants and government officials and no one else that would be good

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

Don't you think wire tapping civil servants is too much? They are employed by the government, meaning it would be better to only wiretap government officials, unless evidence provides a valid reason for wire tapping a civil servant.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

I mean the thing is government officials aren’t the only ones who are corrupt if we want to wipe out corruption we can’t just go after gov officials civil servants can do a lot of bad when corrupt

So no I don’t think at all it’s too much if they are suspected of corruption then they will treated the same as everyone else

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

But I don't think wire tapping should be aimed mostly at civil servants, possibly the ACTF to watch over civil servants, some people might see wire tapping as a bad thing, reducing our reputation.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

Who said we were going to focus mostly on civil servents this will go after any civil servant or government officials who are suspect of corruption and can get a court order to wire tap that person if they aren’t corrupt they have nothing to fear

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

But why focus on civil servants at all? Let the ACTF handle the civil servants and wiretap the government officials.

Unless its neccecery to wiretap a civil servant for extra information

Gustave Bernier — 26/08/2022

Keep in mind Oskar is only talking of wiretapping a civil WITH a judicial warrant :bread\_turtle:

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

Well that makes stuff better

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

In any case If we are to create a task force to take care of corruption then why not hit two birds with one stone and take out government corruption and civil corruption

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

We will create a task force, its in the proposal

But what if civilians realise we are wire tapping that much?

It wouldn't be good on us

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

Why would they care first of all it doesn’t effect them the only push back would be from corrupt government officials and civil servants and it’s not like we are going up to just any body and saying hey you yeah you your corrupt so we’re wire tapping you it would be for those who are highly suspected of corruption and as I said earlier HAVE A COURT ORDER

Reifyrm Visdvk — 26/08/2022

Heimdallr makes excellent points.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

Whats the point of the task force if we are going to wire tap everyone having suspicion of corruption by the court

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

To weed out corruption that’s the point and wire taping gives us vary good information and proof so when the time comes we can arrest and prosecute the suspected person and again if they aren’t corrupt they have nothing to worry about

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

Okay so the court decided whos suspected higly of suspicion, we wiretap them for information and what if they arent? We wasted time

Again what about the task force?

Are they the one wire tapping?

Of course, wire tapping gives information

I agree to that

But if we are going to wiretap anyone suspected just to gain information while the task force sits down and gets paid might need a rework

Your point are much better, i cant deny it

But if a person isnt corrupt and gets wiretapped, wasted equipment

And using the arguement "if they arent corrupt they dont have to worry" is not a good arguement

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

The task force will go about investigating and prosecuting the suspected people the wire taping with the warrant will most likely be carried out by the task force and law enforcement and the warrant will also be procured by the task force and wasted equipment do you think the equipment to do wire taping in like one time use and yes I do emit that “if they aren’t corrupt they don’t have to worry” isn’t the best argument but it is the legitimate truth

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

And if the suspected realises hes being wire tapped and avoides any attempts, is he found innocent?

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

Wire tapping is the least we can do to find proof and information and most likely we must Survey the person and their bank accounts

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 26/08/2022

The task force can just investigate without the nees of wiretap

Id only allow wiretapping if its absolutely neccecery

Anyways gotta go

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

We could but wire taping with a warrant can make it much easier to find information and proof we can’t give these people any brakes

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 26/08/2022

We ought to identify other means of investigation as well, regardless of the existence of wiretapping. (I'll have an explore of what our modern governments tend to do BEFORE they go to the extreme of spying and come back to the assembly as well, but it will have to wait until the weekend).

I do agree that corruption must be dealt with harshly.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

Wale I agree there are other forms to be tired it still doesn’t change the fact that it is vary effective and vary useful to put in to use with a warrant and why not just use all methods at the same time as I said before no breaks we don’t want to give them any wiggle room

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 26/08/2022

It's a matter of correct response, wire tapping does not simply affect the accused but also everyone around them, their families and the innocent. We should have a proper 'arsenal' or 'toolbox' if you will for dealing with corruption that does not require all means to be used if they do not have to.

There must also be tools that ALLOW evidence to be obtained that would lead to such a judicial warrant. The courts must not simply give a warrant simply because they are asked.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

What court would give you a warrant just because we asked if we do have a reasonable suspension that they are corrupt and some legitimate proof then they will give us the warrant and wale we would be wire tapping everything in reason we would not be leaking anything that doesn’t have to do crimes committed by the accused or corruption

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 26/08/2022

Exactly, no court would nor should they escalate immediately to the most invasive methods possible. There needs to be judicial process that allows the building of a case. We need other methods to will support the use of the more invasive methods in such a way that the reasons for being granted a warrant is airtight.

To get a warrant - you need a basic foundation of evidence to support the suspicion that a felony has been committed. You do not want to have a situation where you have no means of obtaining that evidence without the tools that such a warrant gives you.

A stronger case also would in theory justify the use of more invasive procedures that will be upheld in court.

And honestly, it could also turn out that we don't even need to go that far if the evidence is good enough, which would be ideal for everyone I think.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

I think you misunderstand me I’m not say we need to use wire taping and the first response all ways but it does give us a significant opportunity to prove to the courts that they are corrupt but first I must ask what evidence would you find significant enough for a warrant

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 26/08/2022

Then I've misunderstood your arguments in response to earlier statement, because I am not saying that we shouldn't have wiretapping as an option, just that we need to ensure if we get there the Anti-Corruption Task Force has already been able to build a case and we have a situation where wiretapping and other invasive means are aimed properly and well. So I guess we're in agreement that wiretapping should be an option.

Evidence wise we could discuss this all day, but it would be at the discretion of the ruling judge whether it gives enough justification. It would need to establish a pattern of suspicion that there is corruption, for example where funds are distributed and their relations to the suspect, the suspects dealings within and outside government - such as with known other suspects, groups that are under suspicion by the government, suspiciously timed business dealings.

We could go on forever, but I don't think we ought to. The key idea is that we need other ways of corroborating evidence first in order to ensure that if the Anti-Corruption Task Force moves to more extreme measures they are properly able to with due process. (OOC: I'm more concerned about methods being available, than what evidence is required as I believe that goes too low-level for the RP, anyway, as I said I will probably do some research on how RL governments deal with these things before they take the more extreme steps).

Another thing that has come to mind unrelated to the current topic, is that we need to ensure that all parts of the civil service and government can support whistle-blowing - and ensure this is anonymous and protected. Though it ought to be an offence if it is false and deliberately misleading.

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

I would generally agree we do need to support whistle blow but as to building proof is harder servileness of meeting can only go so far and we can generally get more information threw wire taping another option could be seizing documents and electronics from the person

But then theirs the argument of a warrant

heimdallr (PPK) — 26/08/2022

Well in any case have to go

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 26/08/2022

Valid arguments from all.

To be clear, there would be an established system of courts to handle wiretapping requests in the event the police thought that it would be needed. Wiretapping is not intended to be a blank check. There may be instances where evidence is going to be specifically tied to phone conversations. Other times, the information could be obtained instead from digital exchange records or other means. Phone records and conversation might be necessary for unaccounted wealth cases in order to establish intent. Or in a corruption case, did an individual willingly accept a kickback and use it for personal gain?

Patrick Barber — 26/08/2022

as far as I'm aware, most wiretapping jurisdictions require clear and specific evidence for why, must be approved by a judge, and must be time limited, both in the scope of the wiretap, and in the time information is allowed to be stored.

Klaus Mikaelson — 26/08/2022

a judge can be just as corrupt as any other official, bought and paid for all the same.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 26/08/2022

Indeed they can be. However to address this, we must pass laws that enable greater transparency of the government to the public. This would better identify corruption and force it more underground. Indeed this fight with corruption is only beginning. But we must start the action now and make incremental improvements in the future. We have had multiple Chancellors pledge to fight corruption. But none has put forward anything to challenge the status quo. I seek to change this. And I believe been the members of this body we could design such a resolution. I seek the committee to suggest additional measures, alternative measures or to discredit the legal arguments.

Joshua Lopez - Slatium — Yesterday at 00:40

I see, thats better

Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — Yesterday at 05:05

If they haven't done something wrong, why should they be worried?

Klaus Mikaelson — Yesterday at 05:05

said every tyrant, tyrannical state or would be police state, ever.

heimdallr (PPK) — Yesterday at 05:11

In all fairness if we wire tap them with the warrant we would eather find proof of corruption or weird messages

Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — Yesterday at 05:12

Well if the government's not corrupt its not a problem. Unchecked surveillance is one of the few authoritarian practices I support.

Which the government is so 🤷‍♂️

The governments corrupt

Not authoritarian

Klaus Mikaelson — Yesterday at 05:13

it's your government now.

Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — Yesterday at 05:13

And I meant only part of it

Klaus Mikaelson — Yesterday at 05:13

maybe the Chancellor should propose his own bill instead of asking others to make one up for him.

then we can see what he actually wants to do.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — Yesterday at 09:38

The rough outline of my own bill is in the top post. This discussion is meant to identify new considerations among the assembly members.

OOC I also hope this will bring out new ideas for other members to write counter bills so we can have a more dynamic game instead of the chancellor having all the momentum.

Klaus Mikaelson — Yesterday at 09:40

Rouge outline? It's little more than a bullet point list that one puts together before writing a bill. If writing and presenting a bill is a 10 step process, you've dumped step one onto the floor and said "you all take a look at this"

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — Yesterday at 09:43

I would argue an outline is exactly bullet points.

The main policies that would be enacted are listed. The only lacking portions are the typical fluff language that brings it together.

I certainly welcome the KWP to propose a counter strategy to showcase to members the alternative to the NUP strategy.

Klaus Mikaelson — Yesterday at 09:43

typically, when members of the KWP propose a bill, they actually, you know... propose a bill.

fluff language? if the Chancellor quite on drafting and proposing his very first piece of legislation as leader of the government, I fear what this term will bring.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — Yesterday at 09:53

To the opposition party's point of how to propose a bill. Indeed I'm more than familiar with the process. Given that 41% of the bills passed in the previous term bear my name on them in include both the bills that are currently being voted for. Indeed, between the Anti-Corruption, SAFE Act, Education Reform Bill, and Amendments to the Labor Act. I would say that my efforts are quite dedicated. It is not surprising to this Government that the opposition would be opposed to an image of the NUP seeking collaboration and co-writers to bills ahead of unilateral actions.

Klaus Mikaelson — Yesterday at 09:55

Given the number of bills with the Chancellors name on them from the previous term, I would have thought he could write this one as well. He apparently knows how.

Either way, I am concerned that some of the above discussion feels less about security for the nation and more about control.

Patrick Barber — Yesterday at 10:03

I believe the member retains the right to be cynical of the process requested by the chancellor. Concerns about a single discussion likely should not be dismissed simply because the chancellor believes his other actions are of high value. We should try to keep to the topic - 1] is this an appropriate way to discuss this item, 2] are the items being discussed necessary, 3] how will these items be implemented if they are necessary

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — Yesterday at 10:10

Indeed this discussion should not feel like a security policy discussion, we are attempting to control the amount of corruption that we as of yet have no meaningful laws to combat. To put in place laws that impose harsher restrictions and definitions of corruption.

John Edwards [KWP] — Yesterday at 13:13

Why have closed martial cases? Surely we should be open and transparent?

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — Yesterday at 13:16

The case for closed courts on corruption is due to the history of the people's confidence in the government. Long, drawn out court cases highlighting our corruption cases may further damage people's confidence in the government. However to limit the public disclosure to the result of a case instead and shield them from the proceedings will better protect the government from public outcry to court rulings.

John Edwards [KWP] — Yesterday at 13:21

But when it gets out that the government is doing all their corruption cases behind closed doors, the mistrust from the public will be even greater. Lack of information breed's more mistrust than providing information.

Second point, why martial? Civilians should not be subject to martial cases.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — Yesterday at 13:27

I would tend to agree and suggest that closed courts would harm public trust. There is something good to be said for justice to not only be done - but seen to be done. Especially when it comes to public confidence, and I would think that being seen to not only take corruption seriously but show that the trials are also done in a manner that can be trusted is a huge benefit to public confidence of a ruling.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — Yesterday at 13:33

On the second point, just realized that. copy pasted from the wiki's policies. Meant to alter that name to be civil. Closed Sessions being the main item.

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — Yesterday at 13:34

To both your point and Mr Edwards', I fear the effect of Fake News, being what it is already, would be further exasperated by open trials which may also be influenced by public perceptions.

Patrick Barber — Yesterday at 16:07

This debate is concluded.

It will remain here for 24 hours before it is archived.