[Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Moderator: Senior Lead Admins

Locked
MiniYoda
Gangster
Gangster
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by MiniYoda » Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:07 pm

But for older cases the new penal code is not relevant based on the constitutional arguments.

But I also have my problems with the requirement to stop. In my point of view it's not proportional. It is in 90 percent of our cases here in ls-rp not necessary that drivers have to stop. We have to point out our needs and common, proved procedures. There is no need for a restricted interpretation. So is the change really constitutional? I think not, because here in ls-rp it's not necessary to limit the freedom in this way. The old interpretation worked well.

User avatar
Laos_Macen
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 3892
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
Ingame name: Laos_Mason

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Laos_Macen » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:44 pm

The term "Yield" in the road law entry refers to the process of yielding (abiding by) traffic control devices, not the act of yielding (checking for incoming traffic) at traffic control devices.

Traffic control devices have various meanings depending on their form and function. The description for that entry clearly notes the need to stop.

It has been already revised in the penal code update I'm working on, but this case in particular lacks standing.

MiniYoda
Gangster
Gangster
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by MiniYoda » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:00 pm

So this definition is clever. But at the moment there is no space for this (wording) interpretation, would you agree?

There is also no other law in ls-rp which supports this interpretation (systematic interpretation).

I rly have my problems with an interpretation related to simple (not constitutional) US law.

User avatar
Laos_Macen
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 3892
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
Ingame name: Laos_Mason

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Laos_Macen » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:22 pm

MiniYoda wrote:So this definition is clever. But at the moment there is no space for this (wording) interpretation, would you agree?

There is also no other law in ls-rp which supports this interpretation (systematic interpretation).

I rly have my problems with an interpretation related to simple (not constitutional) US law.
The courts don't have to be the sole body making decisions about whether or not we should be stopping at roads. We have an entire state legislature full of legal and illegal faction members who can propose a change to this policy with a simple voting majority.

MiniYoda
Gangster
Gangster
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by MiniYoda » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:39 pm

Laos_Macen wrote:
MiniYoda wrote:So this definition is clever. But at the moment there is no space for this (wording) interpretation, would you agree?

There is also no other law in ls-rp which supports this interpretation (systematic interpretation).

I rly have my problems with an interpretation related to simple (not constitutional) US law.
The courts don't have to be the sole body making decisions about whether or not we should be stopping at roads. We have an entire state legislature full of legal and illegal faction members who can propose a change to this policy with a simple voting majority.

That's right, but we both know that there is always a chance to change an interpretation (and law) in court. The lawgiver / state legislature should create acts and laws. But this takes time - that's why our courts created so much law. They can react quicker.

We have the same problem here:

You - as lawmaker - thank you, you rly do a good job - are not so quick as we lawyers are. Cortez is right to change the interpretation and the state legislature cannot act in this special case, because there is the legal principle that measures should not have retroactive effects.

The lawmaker only can react --> You saw that there is a problem with the interpretation. As long as the legislature don't support the interpretation of the court, they can change the law.

This discussion reproduce problems we also have in rl. I rly like it.

User avatar
Lolita
Revelare pecunia!
Revelare pecunia!
Posts: 999
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:14 am
Ingame name: Plaintiff
Contact:

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Lolita » Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:16 pm

Laos_Macen wrote:The term "Yield" in the road law entry refers to the process of yielding (abiding by) traffic control devices, not the act of yielding (checking for incoming traffic) at traffic control devices.

Traffic control devices have various meanings depending on their form and function. The description for that entry clearly notes the need to stop.

It has been already revised in the penal code update I'm working on, but this case in particular lacks standing.
Yep this is the issue. Yielding to the traffic device is letting the traffic light control your movement which we don't use ig. So, the interpretation then reverts back to yielding to traffic already in the roadway that you are attempting to enter.

Yielding to traffic is more practical and works for the purpose of traveling ig, but I sense a more complicated and widely interpreted version is on the horizon.

User avatar
Laos_Macen
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 3892
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
Ingame name: Laos_Mason

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Laos_Macen » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:23 pm

Lolita wrote:
Laos_Macen wrote:The term "Yield" in the road law entry refers to the process of yielding (abiding by) traffic control devices, not the act of yielding (checking for incoming traffic) at traffic control devices.

Traffic control devices have various meanings depending on their form and function. The description for that entry clearly notes the need to stop.

It has been already revised in the penal code update I'm working on, but this case in particular lacks standing.
Yep this is the issue. Yielding to the traffic device is letting the traffic light control your movement which we don't use ig. So, the interpretation then reverts back to yielding to traffic already in the roadway that you are attempting to enter.

Yielding to traffic is more practical and works for the purpose of traveling ig, but I sense a more complicated and widely interpreted version is on the horizon.
It's mostly referring to white lines, stop signs, yield signs, etc. I don't see anyone attempting to enforce traffic signals but the state legislature or admins can settle that since I can't tell people to ignore / follow traffic lights.

User avatar
Arivere
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:06 pm
Ingame name: Adriana_Cardenas
Location: In the clouds

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Arivere » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:12 am

So in essence, it was the wording of the law that failed, you did not break the law as it was written, instead they changed the wording and denied you, funny.

DETECTIVE ADRIANA CARDENAS
Santa Clara Valley Station Detective Bureau
Image
Los Santos County Sheriff's Department — "A Tradition of Service"

User avatar
Delanto
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Delanto » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:27 am

Vakarian wrote:So in essence, it was the wording of the law that failed, you did not break the law as it was written, instead they changed the wording and denied you, funny.
It's about interpretation of the law. As it's written it is justifiable but unclear to the server's population so it's being rewritten.
Image
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown

User avatar
Lolita
Revelare pecunia!
Revelare pecunia!
Posts: 999
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:14 am
Ingame name: Plaintiff
Contact:

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Lolita » Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:59 pm

Delanto wrote:
Vakarian wrote:So in essence, it was the wording of the law that failed, you did not break the law as it was written, instead they changed the wording and denied you, funny.
It's about interpretation of the law. As it's written it is justifiable but unclear to the server's population so it's being rewritten.
There shouldn't be much interpretation of traffic laws. We already know that yield and stop are different, so why leave them up to interpretation? It should be written as: Failure to Stop at Crosswalks. Honestly there are like 3-4 separate traffic codes under that one yield law. The confusion is that they are packaged together.

User avatar
Delanto
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Delanto » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:36 am

Lolita wrote:There shouldn't be much interpretation of traffic laws. We already know that yield and stop are different, so why leave them up to interpretation? It should be written as: Failure to Stop at Crosswalks. Honestly there are like 3-4 separate traffic codes under that one yield law. The confusion is that they are packaged together.
I agree, which is why it's good they're being updated in the penal code revision.
Image
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown

MiniYoda
Gangster
Gangster
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by MiniYoda » Fri May 01, 2015 7:23 pm

@Delanto


Do you rly think it's constitutional? I think it is only required that the driver must be "prepared to stop". Otherwise it's not proportionaly.

Maybe in rl it's important that people stop. But we have our own legal and social positions in ls-rp. Related to our world the requirement to stop is only required for high frequented streets. But the most streets aren't high frequented.

--> The "stop requirement" restricts the freedom of action inadequately.


The new rule should descripe that there are two requirements: When you have to stop, when you have to yield.

User avatar
Delanto
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Delanto » Fri May 01, 2015 7:54 pm

MiniYoda wrote:@Delanto


Do you rly think it's constitutional? I think it is only required that the driver must be "prepared to stop". Otherwise it's not proportionaly.

Maybe in rl it's important that people stop. But we have our own legal and social positions in ls-rp. Related to our world the requirement to stop is only required for high frequented streets. But the most streets aren't high frequented.

--> The "stop requirement" restricts the freedom of action inadequately.


The new rule should descripe that there are two requirements: When you have to stop, when you have to yield.
What does it mean to be prepared to stop? To slow down or something? If you just slow down, you're still rolling through the intersection and if someone IS coming, it's too late. And why is it such a huge deal to stop for 3 seconds while you check traffic so you don't get hit? Requiring that is not unconstitutional
Image
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown

MiniYoda
Gangster
Gangster
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by MiniYoda » Sat May 02, 2015 9:21 am

I studied (perfect since two days^^) law in Germany and in Germany (and in the Europe Union) the proportionality principle is one of the most important restriction.

It includes the "Less Restrictive Alternative Doctrine" to ensure a proportionate balance.

Definition:
"Organs may at time require Member States to adopt the measure which is the least burdensome on an individual persons' rights but is equally eapable of achieving the same legitimate objective."

In our case:

Our legitimate objective is road safety.
The question: Is it really absolutely essential that cars stop completely at every intersection (=holding line, signs, etc.)?
I don't think so! Cars can roll slowly, too. In this situation drivers are also able to realize the situation and to stop when it is necessary (=prepare for stop). We achieve the same legitimate objective with the "yield interpretation" and the "stop interpretation".


It's also a possibility to create stop signs in case of increased danger.

The "stop alternative/interpretation" forces drivers to stop at every intersection, although in the majority of cases it's not needed. That's just a possibility for the state to make more money.


Conclusion:
The stop interpretation violates the Less Restrictive Alternative Doctrine and the proportionality principle.

In Germany and EU this law would be unconstitutional.


-->
Does LS-RP law includes the Less Restrictive Alternative Doctrine / proportionality principle?

User avatar
Delanto
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto

Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Delanto » Sat May 02, 2015 8:36 pm

I'm not familiar with European law, just American and this server bases its laws on that as well. So that doctrine doesn't really apply here - it's up to San Andreas state how the Penal Code and therefore road law is written. Having people roll through is going to be problematic - which car has to stop then if both can slowly roll through? What about blind intersections? How slow do you have to be going? How does one measure the speed and determine if it's "too fast" for the slow roll? Stopping takes 3 seconds and its safer. Plus not everyone had to stop, only those with a white yield line, those on the major roadways won't have to stop
Image
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown

Locked

Return to “Laws & Acts of San Andreas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users