[Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
Moderator: Senior Lead Admins
-
- Gangster
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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.
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.
- Laos_Macen
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 3892
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
- Ingame name: Laos_Mason
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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.
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.
-
- Gangster
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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.
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.
- Laos_Macen
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 3892
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
- Ingame name: Laos_Mason
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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 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.
-
- Gangster
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
Laos_Macen wrote: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 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.
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.
- Lolita
- Revelare pecunia!
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:14 am
- Ingame name: Plaintiff
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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.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.
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.
- Laos_Macen
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 3892
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
- Ingame name: Laos_Mason
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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.Lolita wrote: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.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.
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.
- Arivere
- 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
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
Los Santos County Sheriff's Department — "A Tradition of Service"
- Delanto
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
- Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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.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.
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown
- Lolita
- Revelare pecunia!
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:14 am
- Ingame name: Plaintiff
- Contact:
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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.Delanto wrote: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.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.
- Delanto
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
- Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
I agree, which is why it's good they're being updated in the penal code revision.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.
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown
-
- Gangster
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
@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.
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.
- Delanto
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
- Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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 unconstitutionalMiniYoda 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.
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown
-
- Gangster
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:25 pm
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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?
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?
- Delanto
- Wannabe Don
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:35 am
- Ingame name: Jonathan_Delanto
Re: [Discussion/Questions] San Andreas Penal Code
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
clown money made mafia - don clown j. delanto
hiring consigliclown
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users