POLL: Criminal Justice Reform Advisory Office


The Joshernaut-NinWin1 administration is currently considering the formation of the Criminal Justice Reform Advisory Office via Executive Order. This Office would serve as a primary function to provide a new insight on criminal justice reform, prison sentences, community service regulations, as well as a move towards rehabilitation within our state as opposed to long prison sentences. Specifically, they will shine a light on what implementations would/would not work in gameplay and provide an in-depth view of the dynamic between law enforcement and criminals. This Office would be comprised of X individuals- X of whom are criminals, and X of whom are bar certified individuals. We hope to create sweeping criminal justice improvements with the assistance of the individuals whom would be affected most by these changes.

Would you approve of the implementation of the Criminal Justice Reform Advisory Office (CJRAO)?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure

0 voters

1 Like

Do you plan to replace this? Criminal Rehabilitation Act


an new insight on sentences, community service and long prison sentences. so it is just a committee that discusses the topic and thats it?

I dont really see the need then. Not like yall can control what judges sentence nor prison sentences without having the other branch do something (cant really control judges, legislature so so)

only real thing you can control is prosecution by state into these crimes but isnt that already determined if the doj prosecutes x person or not?

again, implementations that are largely out of your control?

shrug confusing vibe from this

shark tired so who knows

again, so it just

We are hoping to gain new insight from this advisory office. We typically hear from the same voices on criminal justice reform, and these individuals are typically ones who have not been in the shoes of those with which their work directly affects. This advisory office will primarily serve to keep the administration up to date on current events and issues between law enforcement/criminal dynamics, as well as current criminal justice reformation policies and their effectiveness.

I’d say that this would be legally questionable to have the criminals appointed to it because of:

I would agree with a lot of what you’re noting! We want this advisory office to serve to keep our administration informed as to current criminal justice reformation policies from the view of those with whom are affected, as well as future implications in our justice system which may not fairly impact criminals within this state. I understand how it may be redundant to some, however, I believe in it’s viability and it’s importance in creating meaningful change.

If our administration decided to move forward with this advisory office, we would certainly take note of the aforementioned bill and executive order before making any implementations or official formations. I appreciate you bringing up this concern!

1 Like

Well they could be guests… but added to the chats/given extra speaking abilities so that they aren’t formally appointed but aren’t like a lay person just watching (they wouldn’t be formally appointed but aren’t just totally left out and forced to be spectators).

Good luck with your committee.

Not necessary in my point of view to any substantial degree but I don’t mind. (I’m also not sure why we aren’t just giving these “duties” to the Pardon Board?)

bad things:

  • useless committees
  • needless bureaucracy
  • what would effectively be a state-sponsored lobby group

if you want insight, you arent going to get it from a committee of people you could literally just ask for their opinion once and get all the same insight from at once. if you want insight, polls and discussion boards (like this post, for instance!) are going to be much more effective than a meaningless committee.

you’re effectively looking to create a group with only the purpose of lobbying to yourselves and to congress the ideals of, what, like 6 people who are on the committee? all of which are probably going to have an inherent bias for the highest degree of reform as who else would be interested in sitting on a reform committee than someone who wants reform?

this is just a plain bad idea and i cannot identify a single upside to it


I agree with Skye’s judgement on this. Also considerably annoyed that something like this is being suggested without even the slightest consideration for the DOJ or current BREC. Making another program and pushing the burden on “bar certified individuals” isn’t going to improve anything and comes off as a cheap political game.


what’s with all the committees lately? iirc the DOJ still exists and is under the EB, is it not?


For once, me and Skye agree on something. I see this as useless as useless gets and I run DoD. The issue is this wouldn’t be a office that sets up community Service regulations or whatever whatever from what I read this is just a Focus Group made to look like an Advisory Board.


The area I’ve quoted is what is wrong with this. For as much as I love you Nin, this is just needless bureaucracy. The courts handle sentencing times well, and regarding gameplay issues, the development team have full say and control over that matter. There is literally 0 reason for this, either as a temporary board, or as a full blown bloody office.
First a dismissal of a secretary because of Josh’s incompetence and now this filler office, do I smell the scent of bad leadership in FS, but it just can’t be…

ok idk what all that means but


Why are all of these administrations creating new boards or committees for everything? They’re most of the time useless, and are for the results of trying to solve a non-existent problem. They’re not achieving anything different or gaining you anything more than you already have without them. :man_shrugging:


I truly appreciate everyone’s feedback and criticisms. This communication is key to ensuring what our administration accomplishes works toward the good of the entirety of the community. We do not want to establish this office if it gives the impression of unnecessary bureaucracy. With a poll that represents a strong split in opinion among 66 voters, our administration will certainly re-evaluate the implementation of this office.

Thank you all for participating!