[Proposal] Criminal Procedures Act

[McChimp]

---

Criminal Procedures ActProposed by: McChimpPreamble

In order to allow the citizenry of Lazarus to pursue justice for criminal offences committed against them, this constitutional law lays down the procedures by which a fair conclusion might be brought about.


Section 1. Criminal Rights, Responsibilities and Powers

(1) Any citizen may petition the Court of Lazarus to begin a criminal case by posting a public accusation against another player. Public accusations must follow any requirements established by the Court of Lazarus by majority vote.

(2) The Court of Lazarus shall maintain a publically available Criminal Library of court procedures, amending it by majority vote.

a. Only court procedures which explicitly state as such within their text may result in a verdict.
b. The Criminal Library shall contain exactly one procedure for rehearing cases which have been appealed. This procedure must result in a verdict.
c. The Criminal Library may not be amended during a criminal case.

(3) The accuser and the defendant may each choose someone to act on their behalf during a criminal case. They may replace the person representing them at any time.

(4) The Justices serving on a criminal court may issue a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" by majority vote.

(5) Having found a player guilty, the Justices serving on a criminal court must determine a lawful sentence by majority vote.

(6) Those who have been sentenced may make a public appeal to the Delegate to review their sentence. The Delegate may initiate a rehearing by a criminal court in order to obtain a new verdict and sentence should they see reasonable cause to do so.

a. Rehearings shall follow the procedure described within the Criminal Library.
b. Rehearings shall be conducted by three temporary Justices appointed by the Delegate. These Justices must not have handled on the case being appealed and shall have no other court responsibilities or powers. Their appointments shall not be subject to Assembly confirmation.
c. Rehearings shall be conducted publicly unless the Justices serving on them determine that their contents are sensitive by majority vote.

(7) Sentences will be implemented in-game by the Delegate and on the forum by one or more members of the admin team. Every government official in Lazarus is responsible for reporting any violation of a court-imposed sentence that they learn of.


Section 2. Criminal Procedure

---

I would be grateful for thoughts and suggestions. The constitution does not include a criminal court and I think Lazarus ought to have that capability if not an entirely separate institution.[/hr]

 

[Cormac]

I don't think we need a criminal court, to be honest. They're usually lulzy and fail to actually convict obvious criminals.

 

[McChimp]

1-1-G:
"Should a Justice of the Court of Lazarus be otherwise involved in the proceedings or implicated by them, they must recuse themselves. In this event, the Delegate must appoint a temporary Justice to take their place in the Criminal Court. This shall be the sole duty of the temporary Justice appointed: they shall not participate in any other responsibilities of the Court of Lazarus."

EW raised some concerns about the temporary justice being undemocratically appointed. Having the Justice elected would delay the court from making a ruling until the assembly could agree on somebody, which could be forever. Given that this Justice's powers will be limited only to a single court case, I think it's harmless and necessary for the court to avoid the problems it used to have.

The constitution does say that law may determine the procedures by which temporary justices may be appointed (5-1), so it is constitutional for this law to say that in these particular circumstances one may be appointed as such.

 

[Roavin]

First, what Cormac said, second plz no adversarial systems, they rarely rarely work well in NS.

 

[McChimp]

First, what Cormac said, second plz no adversarial systems, they rarely rarely work well in NS.

I don't think it's so much a matter of whether we need a criminal court as whether we want one. In making a criminal court a temporary duty of the constitutional Justices, I think I've made it a fairly slimline thing.

I'd be interested in details about what is wrong with adversarial systems.

 

[Sheepshape]

First, what Cormac said, second plz no adversarial systems, they rarely rarely work well in NS.

I don't think it's so much a matter of whether we need a criminal court as whether we want

It shall be considered a criminal act to commit treason.

To commit treason is to wilfully damage or subvert the state created by the Twelfth Mandate of Lazarus by word or deed or to wilfully violate the endorsement cap.

Those found guilty of treason must be ejected and banned, stripped of citizenship and henceforth denied citizenship.

To commit misrepresentation is to knowingly lie in order to gain citizenship.

To pervert the course of justice is to wilfully violate the procedures set forth by Article I of this law in order to prevent a just ruling being made, to knowingly lie in a Criminal Court or to violate a punishment resulting from a court ruling unlawfully.

To commit vexatious litigation is to make repeated, unmeritable criminal accusations about a citizen or group of citizens.

To conspire to commit a criminal act is to plan a criminal act with the intention of committing it, to attempt to commit a criminal act or to incite others to commit a criminal act.

Intention again is a tricky beast. If I just plan a crime for the fun of it, can you prove I seriously intended to carry it out? This also falls into the somewhat silly situation of defining a crime planned and attempted by one person as a "conspiracy". I generally prefer something like defining any attempt to commit one of the defined crimes as "attempted" crime, also itself a crime, and to define conspiracy as planning with others or inciting others to commit a crime, but not the actual attempt to do so.

 

[McChimp]

I haven't seen many alternatives that work well, though. Trial by Delegate works fine until the Delegate uses it to start banjecting dissenters because "treason!" Mediator systems can't always force people to show up and talk it out. I'm certainly open to us trying a different approach, though, and I am going to hold off on offering suggestions on your procedural section until this question is established.

Third, I think it's a really bad idea to enshrine court procedures in a law, let alone a law with constitutional force. Require a ruling within five weeks? What if a trial is still going on? And insisting that someone be found guilty or not guilty because someone else is being difficult? That's a gross miscarriage of justice either way. The law should lay out who will run trials and how they will be chosen - leave establishing solid procedures to the people selected to serve. (This is harder if it's done by Not Standing Judges, and is a reason I'm against the required appointment of temporary judges regardless of the situation.)

Broad first. To start with, I think defining crimes should be in an entirely separate document from establishing trial procedures. If laws are not going to be contained within a single document, I strongly believe it is critical to keep them streamlined and simple to categorize. If I wanted to make an index of laws, I should easily be able to say if it is for "Trials, Criminal, Procedure" or for "Crimes" or for "Appointment of Temporary Justices" or what have you. It is bad to have to index one law in multiple spots.

Second, I don't think that the crimes should be constitutional law. They simply don't need to be. Regular law is perfectly sufficient to create a robust criminal code, and if a simple majority of citizens think a certain thing should or shouldn't be a crime, that seems perfectly good enough to me for a change to be made. It shouldn't take a higher majority than that.

I don't think you need to say that it's a criminal act to do all of these things every time. I think it's fine to start off with "The following are defined as criminal acts in Lazarus:" and then just jump straight to your definitions.

I think I shall split the two laws. When I've done that, I'll include something along those lines in the preamble.

"damage or subvert" is pretty broad. You might think I'm willfully damaging the state by proposing a bill that changes how elections work, because you think it will disenfranchise voters. I might think you're willfully subverting the state by voting against it, because not passing it leaves our borders wide open to foreign subversives. Realistically, we'd both be silly if we charged one another with a crime.

I'll comment on this because it's first, but I oppose all use of required punishments. Specifics of a case matter, and I strongly feel the court should have discretion to determine appropriate sentences. Mandating a sentence really ties their hands, and could lead to verdicts of not guilty if they feel the required punishment is far too harsh.

I think it's too specific to define as in order to gain citizenship. "Misrepresentation" isn't a great word if that's what you want to cover, and it doesn't include other areas of committing fraud. I would probably prefer to call it something like Gaining Citizenship by False Pretenses, and define it as making a false statement in a citizenship application. That removes the requirement that it be knowingly, and removing the minimum penalty means that a court could say "yeah you shouldn't have said your nation was Sheepship when it's Sheepshape; we sentence you to seven days of no sheep avatar." (THE HORROR.) Or it could just dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it was as silly as that.

I'll replace this with a broader fraud law. Misleading executive officials perhaps. A broader range of sentences and the court being able to mediate instead of prosecute ought to solve issues regarding simple mistakes.

Okay so a few things. Violating the procedures would be best described as obstruction of justice, lying in court is perjury, and the last bit reads like it's a crime to violate an unlawful ruling of the court.

I see no reason to split what is essentially a catch-all crime for subverting the courts into three separate crimes. There's something neat about having a law making criminal subversion of the executive, judicial and legislative branches. I think I'll write another one for subverting the assembly-perversion of democracy or something like that. Seeing as those are the basic moral misconducts behind each of those types of crime, it would make sense that they have the same sentences, too.

I don't think it's necessary to have all of these be criminal. If someone is banned for a year and comes back early, just ban 'em again. There's no need to put them on trial for it. If they gain citizenship under a new name, try them under False Pretenses instead. Criminalize perjury, and make an official abusing their powers to violate court procedures a general Misconduct crime. It doesn't need to be separate from a different official abusing their powers in a different way.

This seems unnecessary. Just let the court decline to hear a case. Problem solved.

I might rename it, but I think that a single criminal act catching attempts, conspiracy or solicitation and ensuring that they are punishable in the same manner as the crime they attempted, solicited or conspired to commit is sensible. There's no need to split it up.

 

[McChimp]

I have reworked this drastically, removing the criminal code section and changing the court procedure so that it is in the hands of the Justices on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Sheepshape]

Okay, the new version is very different! I think this is improved but still have many (many D: ) thoughts to add. Also I would still be game for trying out a non-adversarial system if anyone wants to draft one of those.

Any citizen may publically accuse another citizen of committing a criminal offence defined by law and thus petition the Court of Lazarus to begin criminal procedure.

This is fine. I think public declaration of charges is important for transparency. I would suggest rephrasing it as

Any citizen may petition the Court of Lazarus to begin a criminal case by posting a public accusation against another citizen. Public accusations must follow any requirements established by the Court.

I added the second sentence because it's not great for "I ACCUSE IMKI OF VARIOUS CRIMES" to be a valid basis for criminal trial; the court should have a role in establishing what information needs to be presented in the statement to be able to proceed.

I would also suggest considering whether only citizens should be allowed to bring charges, and whether only citizens should

Any citizen within a criminal court not serving as a Justice on that court may choose to be represented by another.

This is awkward, but I think I understand what you mean. How about:

The accuser and the defendant may each choose someone to act on their behalf during a criminal case. They may replace the person representing them at any time.

Citizens may be issued a sentence authored by a permanent Justice of the Court of Lazarus appropriate to their criminal offence in accordance with law if they are proven guilty by testimony within a criminal court and the sentence is confirmed by a two thirds vote lasting three days of the Justices serving on that criminal court.

This seems oddly phrased. Like it's covering stuff it really doesn't need to cover. And it's not impossible for all 3 justices to be temporary and thus unable to sentence someone given how it's phrased now. How about this instead:

The Court will determine a verdict and a sentence by majority vote.

Since the court is three people, a majority is the same as a two-thirds majority - the extra definition isn't required. Leave authorship up to the court.

Those who have been sentenced may make an appeal to the Court of Lazarus to review their sentence and replace it with another sentence confirmed by a two thirds vote of the permanent Justices of the Court of Lazarus lasting three days if:

• Any of the Justices who confirmed their sentence have been found guilty of a crime that calls into question their will to rule justly.
• Any of those who testified against them have been found guilty of a crime that calls into question their will to testify truthfully.

This seems problematic, particularly because it doesn't institute a time limit. If I'm convicted of, idk, treason, 3 years after declaring you guilty of, let's say, being a monkey, is that grounds to challenge your conviction?

I would prefer a slightly different system for appeals. Restrict it to something like "if new evidence regarding their guilt comes to light", and let them petition the Delegate for a rehearing. If the delegate approves, then nobody who was on the court that heard the case can serve on the appeals court. So, if it's been 2 years and the justices are different, you can use the basic court. If it's a week later, the delegate would appoint 3 temporary justices to hear the appeal if granted. Alternatively, if you're concerned about having able and available people to serve, let the Delegate decide who will rehear the case without worrying about whether they were on the court that previously heard it.

It shall be the duty of the Delegate to ensure that sentences are carried out in full.

I don't think the Delegate alone is quite enough. I would suggest instead something like this:

Sentences will be implemented in-game by the Delegate, and on the forum by one or more members of the admin team. Every government official in Lazarus is responsible for reporting any violation of a court-imposed sentence that they learn of.

This takes care of a case where the delegate isn't an admin, and also requires others to not sit quietly if they find out that someone who was banned has returned (for example).

On to Criminal Procedures!

Should a Justice of the Court of Lazarus be unable to handle a criminal case, their powers and responsibilities regarding that case shall be taken up by a temporary Justice appointed by the Delegate. That temporary Justice shall bear none of the other powers, rights or responsibilities of the Court of Lazarus.

• Justices must recuse themselves from a case they are otherwise involved in or implicated by.
• Justices must participate in all votes regarding a case if they are to continue handling it.

I don't like how this bit is ordered. Subordinating the recusal and voting bits seems odd. I suggest, instead, something like this:

1) Criminal cases will be heard by the Court of Lazarus.
2) Any Justice serving on the Court must recuse themselves from ruling on any case where they are the defendant, the accuser, a representative of either party, or where they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner. A justice who is unavailable to hear a case due to a temporary absence will also be considered recused.
3) If one or more Justices is recused from a case, the Delegate will appoint temporary Justices to serve in their place. These appointments are not subject to Assembly confirmation.

Also, might be worth considering letting the Justices appoint a temporary justice, rather than having the delegate do it, unless all 3 justices have recused themselves.

After a week has passed, the Justices serving on the case at hand shall decide by two thirds vote lasting three days whether or not to dismiss it.

I don't think a week is required. Some things are so frivolous that the justices can just wave their hand and say no.. I think we can just say "A case may be dismissed by majority vote. A dismissal does not prevent charges from being brought against the same defendant another time."

I added the second clause because I think it's good to establish with clarity that dismissing charges isn't permanent - it's not impossible for a court to be politicized such that they dismiss legitimate charges against someone they like, and this would allow the charges to be brought again once those justices are out of office.


Ooh... this is tricky. I think asking the justices to write their own procedure every time is going to be a mess. Everyone has different ideas of how trials should be run, and that can lead to some really unfair treatment. I think it would be better to simply say that criminal cases will follow procedures established by the permanent members of the court, and just put the onus on the court to make those procedures exist.

I also don't think a weeks' notice for a trial is necessary. The court can give a week's notice to a defendant that a case has begun, that's fine, but a week before a trial can begin seems extraneous.

After the notice period is complete, the criminal court shall convene within the public court area of the forum and the court procedure shall begin.

 

[McChimp]

I have redrafted again.

I have hopefully found a more manageable balance of case-by-case flexibility and practicality and included Sheep's suggestions regarding appeals, formatting, enforcement, voting and timing.

 

[Milograd]

First, I want to note that I intend to abstain on the majority of votes moving forward. Even if they involve my own ideas. I do not have a nation in Lazarus, and simply wish to provide my input on things. So I will do so.

Idea: For civil disputes, we determine two judges from a pool of available volunteers by lottery. The two judges have three days to reach consensus about an outcome.

If they do not agree on every detail after three days, a coin is flipped, and the winner of the coin flip gets to decide the outcome without input from the other judge. The community can vote to overturn the decision made by a single judge with a 60% vote, and the decision of two judges with a 75% vote. Or something.

I think this would be much more entertaining than an actual court system. Furthermore, writing a law that maximizes the feasibility and merit of such an unusual system would be a rewarding challenge.

---

Additionally, I do not believe that crimes like conspiracy/attempting to coup/raiding Lazarene colonies/espionage should be a crime. I say this not in my own self-interest (I have no stake in the game), but because I think it'd help us retain high-quality players, maintain goodwill in the community, and keep things spicy. Instead, discipline should only involve preventing offenders from repeating their actions. So if someone is caught sharing private intelligence, for instance, they should be allowed to remain a Lazarene, but be stripped of their access to classified forums.

If they still want to contribute in a community where everyone is salty at them, then they should be allowed to look pathetic doing so. On the other hand, if there isn't a ton of salt in their direction ... then they shouldn't be banned to begin with. No?

Try to tart your way to the delegacy? You get a lower endocap.
Try to give away intel? You don't get access anymore.
Try to rig a vote? You lose your voting privileges.

Of course, we can also go with this thread's original proposal. It doesn't sound as fun to me, but then again "fun" isn't what most people look for in a judicial system.

 

[McChimp]

I could always introduce trial by combat in a video game selected by the judges, too.

Isn't there something to be said for not letting known traitors kick around? Besides, if they've already broken one endocap why would they pay attention to a lower one?
I'd be prepared to accept allowing them some kind of legacy masking allowing them to continue to converse with the community.

If you'd like penalties to be like that, you could propose a criminal code including them.

 

[Cormac]

This seems like a good time to point out that we already have a flexible system in which the Delegate and the CLS can decide penalties for disruption of the community, and if 3/4 of the Assembly finds those penalties too harsh, it can overturn them.

The system we already have in place is far preferable to a rigid system of strictly defined crimes and penalties. A system that never works out well in any Feeder or Sinker. Feeder and Sinker courts are dysfunctional hot messes when it comes to criminal trials.

 

[McChimp]

This seems like a good time to point out that we already have a flexible system in which the Delegate and the CLS can decide penalties for disruption of the community, and if 3/4 of the Assembly finds those penalties too harsh, it can overturn them.

The system we already have in place is far preferable to a rigid system of strictly defined crimes and penalties. A system that never works out well in any Feeder or Sinker. Feeder and Sinker courts are dysfunctional hot messes when it comes to criminal trials.

The unique feature of an NS region as opposed to any other online community is the realistic political system in which players can participate. We could replace the constitution, the Assembly and the court with a single administrator and the mods he/she selects. That would be efficient and effective. It would also be dead boring.
In the spirit of Lazarus being distinguishable from a minecraft server, each citizen must be able to pursue justice for criminal offences in a similar manner to how they would IRL. The role of the CLS should be limited to the requirements imposed by game mechanics as much as possible.

At the very least this bill will prove that the Assembly is able to democratically challenge a major feature of the constitution, which was undemocratically imposed. It shall be a test of the kind of region that is being built here.

 

[Devi]

Isn't there something to be said for not letting known traitors kick around? Besides, if they've already broken one endocap why would they pay attention to a lower one?

To an extent. It really depends on the nature and context of the treason, not to mention the motives behind it.
As for breaking endocaps, it's pretty much common sense that punishments for violations grow stronger in repeat offenses.

 

[McChimp]

[quote="Devi" pid='2181' dateline='1532986317']
[quote="McChimp" pid='2166' dateline='1532963240']Isn't there something to be said for not letting known traitors kick around? Besides, if they've already broken one endocap why would they pay attention to a lower one?[/quote]

To an extent. It really depends on the nature and context of the treason, not to mention the motives behind it.
As for breaking endocaps, it's pretty much common sense that punishments for violations grow stronger in repeat offenses. [/quote]

That works, I suppose. Either way it's a thing for the Criminal Code to decide, not this.

 

[Milograd]

[quote="Cormac" pid='2169' dateline='1532974927']
...

 

[Sheepshape]

Typo:

c. Rehearings shall be conducted publicly unless the Justices serving on them determine that their contents is are sensitive by majority vote.

I don't really have any additional feedback that I haven't already given. I do not believe I can vote in favor, though, as long as it remains a "constitutional law". I feel strongly that that status is not necessary.

 

[McChimp]

Alright, then.
l motion to vote.

 

[Cormac]

Seconded.