[Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Moderators: Head of Factions, Lead Admins

danielswe
LS:RP Tester
LS:RP Tester
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by danielswe » Wed May 11, 2016 7:15 pm

[PC CHANGE] [Reckless Driving]

What should be changed: Adding driving without the lights on after 21:00.

Why: At 21:00 (( server time )) it goes from sunset to almost pitch black and some people don't have the lights on after 21:00.


OR

[PC ADD] [Driving Without Headlights]

What should be added: It should be a citation of $500 if someone drives a vehicle (pedal bikes excluded) after 21:00 without the headlights and rear lights on.

Why: At 21:00 (( server time )) it goes from sunset to almost pitch black and some people don't have the lights on after 21:00.



[PC CHANGE] [Failure To Abide To A Traffic Control Device]

What should be changed: Remove the reasonable stop part and make it so people must come to a full stop for at least three seconds, regardless if there's any traffic or not.

Why: I personally don't like the reasonable thing, because people can come up with loads of reasons they came to a resonable stop when they get pulled over for not coming to a resonable stop in the police officer's eyes. So it would be less confusing by just removing the reasonable stop altogether.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION

User avatar
Georgi
I love banitsa
I love banitsa
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:10 pm
Ingame name: Rikki K . Vitaly R

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Georgi » Sat May 28, 2016 11:32 am

danielswe wrote:
[PC CHANGE] [Reckless Driving]

What should be changed: Adding driving without the lights on after 21:00.

Why: At 21:00 (( server time )) it goes from sunset to almost pitch black and some people don't have the lights on after 21:00.


OR

[PC ADD] [Driving Without Headlights]

What should be added: It should be a citation of $500 if someone drives a vehicle (pedal bikes excluded) after 21:00 without the headlights and rear lights on.

Why: At 21:00 (( server time )) it goes from sunset to almost pitch black and some people don't have the lights on after 21:00.



[PC CHANGE] [Failure To Abide To A Traffic Control Device]

What should be changed: Remove the reasonable stop part and make it so people must come to a full stop for at least three seconds, regardless if there's any traffic or not.

Why: I personally don't like the reasonable thing, because people can come up with loads of reasons they came to a resonable stop when they get pulled over for not coming to a resonable stop in the police officer's eyes. So it would be less confusing by just removing the reasonable stop altogether.


By not using headlights in the night you're automatically endangering people around you and other vehicles, including yourself. It kind of falls under Reckless Driving, but needs to be officialy stated in it. Supporting.
Image

User avatar
Ignoto101
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 9:05 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Ignoto101 » Sun May 29, 2016 10:40 pm

[PC ADD] [Principle of Legality]

What should be changed: Add a definition for the Principle of Legality. Example shown below:

(15)01. Principle of Legality
  1. A person may be found guilty of an offense only on the basis of an act that has
    been specifically criminalized in law at the time of its commission.
  2. The punishment and other sanction under criminal law shall be based on law.

Why: I believe certain legal principles and prerequisites of criminal liability should be codified in the law so as to raise awareness in regards to these principles and to give them proper legal standing.

User avatar
Ward
Mafia
Mafia
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Ward » Tue May 31, 2016 1:36 am

[PC ADD] [Violation of Court Order]

What should be changed: Add a crime specific to people violating no-contact, restraining, or other protection orders put forth by the court.

If a court order is violated it should extend the time of the court order. If the respondent assaults the petitioner it should be a felony.

Why: Contempt of Court is the only applicable crime right now and it's a very small misdemeanor. It would be better to have a specific statute that outlines the penalties of violating a court order.

Adorn.
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 6381
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Adorn. » Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:21 am

[PC CHANGE] [(1)01 Intimidation and (1)02 Assault]

What should be changed:

(1)01. Uttering threats
Any person who knowingly conveys, utters or causes a threat to be placed on another person to
  1. cause death or harm to any person
  2. destroy any person's property
  3. cause death or harm to any animal that is of any person's property

Why: This removes the issue of debating if there was enough distance to decipher between assault and intimidation. This could be stacked depending on the number of people were threatened but not stacked with any of the Assault charges.


[PC CHANGE] [(1)02 Assault]

What should be changed:

(1)02. Assault (Level 1)
Any person who attempts to or applies intentional force, indirectly or directly, against another person without their consent.

(1)03. Assault Cause Bodily Harm (Level 2)
Any person who applies intentional force against another person causing that person to suffer serious injuries from their actions.

(1)04. Assault with a Weapon (Level 3)
Any person who attempts to or applies intentional force against another person with the use of a weapon.

Why: This gets rid of the word battery and replaces it with a familiar term to which is more understandable. It also provides clear and concise levels of assault in order to reduce confusion and unintentional errors.
Image

User avatar
BLACKnife
Mafia
Mafia
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:56 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by BLACKnife » Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:00 pm

[PC CHANGE] [Failure To Pay A Fine ↑]

What should be changed:
(4)02. Failure To Pay A Fine ↑
A person who fails to pay a fine or court ordered fee within clearly stated and allotted time period.
Typically most fines carry a 3 day payment period unless stated otherwise by the issuer.
A person CAN be given the opportunity to pay all fines in lieu of being arrested when being approached.
This charge may not be stacked for each fine that is unpaid at the time of arrest.
- Penal Code (4)02 is a misdemeanor punishable by 15 minutes imprisonment. This falls under Officer Discretion

Change the law that the officer HAVE to give people the opportunity to pay their tickets. If they claimed to NOT having enough money, the arrest may happend.


Why: Well, some people have the actual money to pay the fine, in addition, 98 percent of the officers decide to NOT let people pay the tickets. Myself have a misdemeanor charge for the rest of my life and stops me from applying for any jobs. Because I couldn't pay 500 dollars because "The officer decide not to". I think, and I think many will that its suppose to be changed.
Last edited by BLACKnife on Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Characters: show
Tyler_Ruthledge: ALIVE currently living at 9200 Hoover hood.

Joseph_Dunn: ALIVE currently got kicked out of RSA and doesn't know what to do with himself.

platinum021mc
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:55 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by platinum021mc » Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:43 am

Ward wrote:
[PC ADD] [Violation of Court Order]

What should be changed: Add a crime specific to people violating no-contact, restraining, or other protection orders put forth by the court.

If a court order is violated it should extend the time of the court order. If the respondent assaults the petitioner it should be a felony.

Why: Contempt of Court is the only applicable crime right now and it's a very small misdemeanor. It would be better to have a specific statute that outlines the penalties of violating a court order.

Contempt of Court shouldn't even be a misdemeanor, the punishment should be at the judge's discretion like in literally every other jurisdiction on Earth. Whoever made the penal code literally copy pasted this from the California Penal Code, but was too daft to be able to apply it here.

Why the hell would a court order be extended if they violated it????? They issued the court order for a set amount of time because the judge (or justice, which is how it works in this backwards system) felt like that was a good enough time.

User avatar
Ward
Mafia
Mafia
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Ward » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:30 am

platinum021mc wrote:Why the hell would a court order be extended if they violated it????? They issued the court order for a set amount of time because the judge (or justice, which is how it works in this backwards system) felt like that was a good enough time.


Temporary restraining or no contact orders are extended all the time if violated. Clearly, if the respondent violated the order, then the "felt like good enough time" wasn't good enough time. Why wouldn't a violation restart the clock on the expiration date? Makes sense to me...

Happens in real life. Either restarted, extended, or made to expire in 2099 (permanent, essentially.)

User avatar
Keldric
Wannabe Mafia
Wannabe Mafia
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:50 pm
Ingame name: Evan Strickland
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Keldric » Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:33 pm

Keldric wrote:
[PC CHANGE] [(11)10. Driving Under The Influence (DUI)]

What should be changed:
1. A person who drives a vehicle or operates heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol at or above the legal limit of 0.08 percent BAV
2. A person who drives a vehicle or operates heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol at or above the legal limit of 0.08 percent BAV - This is the same as 1.
3. A person who drives or operates heavy machinery under the influence of awareness-altering drugs, regardless of whether those drugs are being used under a prescription. - This should not be limited to heavy machinery. A motor vehicle is just as dangerous as heavy machinery when someone is operating it under the influence.

Why: I've stopped several people who have been under the influence of marijuana, but marijuana isn't measured by blood alcohol content, neither is being under the influence of any type of prescription drug or controlled substance. I also believe that if you're under the age of 21, the legal limit should be 0.02 and while operating a commercial vehicle(semis, trucker vehicles, etc), the legal limit should be 0.04


UPDATE: Suggesting the new DUI law look like this, for less confusion of my original post.
[PC CHANGE] [(11)10. Driving Under The Influence (DUI)]

What should be changed:
1) DUI Less Safe - Alcohol
- A person commits the offense of DUI less safe alcohol when that person being in physical control of any moving vehicle drive under the influence of alcohol to the extent it was less safe for that person to drive.

2)DUI Less Safe - Drugs
- A person commits the offense of DUI less safe drugs when that person being in physical control of any moving vehicle drive under the influence of drugs or prescription drugs to the extent that it is less safe for that person to drive.

3) DUI Per Se
- A person commits the offense of DUI per se when that person being in physical control of any moving vehicle has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams or more at any time within three hours after driving, during driving, or after the driving ended.
- If the driver is in physical control of a commercial vehicle(semis, heavy machinery, transport vans, etc) the amount of alcohol present in the drivers blood, breath or urine may not exceed 0.04
- If the driver is under the age of 21, the amount of alcohol present in the drivers blood, breath or urine may not exceed 0.02

Why: Extends the DUI law because there's many times I've stopped people being DUI and going off-road, nearly rolling and nearly killing a whole sidewalk but when I do a breathalyzer, they say that they blow 0.07 knowing that the legal limit is 0.08.
Image
Deputy Sheriff III Evan Joseph Strickland
San Andreas Sheriff's Department

platinum021mc
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:55 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by platinum021mc » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:17 am

Ward wrote:
platinum021mc wrote:Why the hell would a court order be extended if they violated it????? They issued the court order for a set amount of time because the judge (or justice, which is how it works in this backwards system) felt like that was a good enough time.


Temporary restraining or no contact orders are extended all the time if violated. Clearly, if the respondent violated the order, then the "felt like good enough time" wasn't good enough time. Why wouldn't a violation restart the clock on the expiration date? Makes sense to me...

Happens in real life. Either restarted, extended, or made to expire in 2099 (permanent, essentially.)

I'm not sure why this would be required to be put into law, though.

User avatar
Ward
Mafia
Mafia
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Ward » Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:30 pm

platinum021mc wrote:I'm not sure why this would be required to be put into law, though.


So it can empower cops and judges to make specified arrests instead of vaguely applying a general misdemeanor, with consequences that actually affect the violator?

platinum021mc
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:55 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by platinum021mc » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:47 am

Ward wrote:
platinum021mc wrote:I'm not sure why this would be required to be put into law, though.


So it can empower cops and judges to make specified arrests instead of vaguely applying a general misdemeanor, with consequences that actually affect the violator?

No, what I meant was I wasn't sure why you would need to specifically put into law that the judge can extend the order. Judges should have complete discretion with the type of punishment for contempt of court.

User avatar
Ward
Mafia
Mafia
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Ward » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:05 am

platinum021mc wrote:No, what I meant was I wasn't sure why you would need to specifically put into law that the judge can extend the order. Judges should have complete discretion with the type of punishment for contempt of court.


Except those arrests rarely end up in court. Instead it's just being booked in city jail for five minutes or whatever if a cop sees an orders being violated.

User avatar
Laos_Macen
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 3922
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
Ingame name: Laos_Mason

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Laos_Macen » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:16 am

this isn't a discussion thread.

This is not the place to discuss people's suggestions. Please only post to make suggestions.

User avatar
Ms.Licther
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 770
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:52 pm
Ingame name: Susan Licther
Location: The Queendom of Arendelle

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Ms.Licther » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:26 am

[PC CHANGE/] [13)02. Tax Evasion]

What should be changed: A person, officer, or employee of an organization that fails to pay any appropriate fees or taxes liened against themselves or an agency they are an executive to.
A person who intentionally avoids or attempts to avoid tax or fee payments to the state.
This does not apply for fees that would fall under (4)02. Failure To Pay A Fine.
This charge may only be authorized by the Attorney General or a warrant by the Chief Justice.

Why: Tax evasion is a struggling matter when it comes to CITY and Bureau of Licensing. Business owners often advertise and conduct business activity without a valid business registration. This counts especially for escort agencies who operate without adult entertainment license. The problem occurs when licensing officials take action against these individuals. DOJ (Attorney General/Chief Justice) is not always reachable to authorize the charge, so business owners who tax evade easily get away. If this point of authorization from DOJ is removed or changed to something more efficient, it will make life much easier for licensing officials and hopefully decrease the amount of tax evaders in L.S.
Main Character: Susan E. Licther
15th Governmental Administration Participation (Underhill)

"I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay, simple acts of kindness and love."
Gandalf the Grey

Locked

Return to “Laws & Acts of San Andreas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests