Welcome to Lazarus

Please register to view all features
Register

Lazarene forum

Introduce yourself and learn about the forum here

[Discussion] Criminal Code Act (September 2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
At Constie's suggestion on Discord, I've grouped the offences into tiers (I am not using misdemeanours and felonies because generally, people in common-law states have no idea what they are).

LEGAL CODE​


Tier 1​

(1) Treason(2) Sabotage

Any person who engages in conduct with the intention of interfering, destroying, or rendering unserviceable a public infrastructure, shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) EspionageTier 2[/align]

(4) Foreign interference

Any person who:
(a) engages in conduct on behalf of, or in collaboration with, a foreign entity; and
(b) whose conduct influences the processes of the Government;
shall be guilty of an offence.

(6) BlackmailTier 3[/align]

(7) Conspiracy

Any person who engages in conduct and does so for the intention of preparing or planning to commit an offence, shall be guilty of an offence.

(8) Contempt of Court(10) Vexatious proceedings

Any person who:
(a) instigates or pursues judicial proceedings without reasonable ground; or
(b) engages in conduct which is an abuse of judicial proceedings;
shall be guilty of an offence.

(11) Fraud

Any person who, by dishonesty or deception, obtains an advantage or causes disadvantage to a person, shall be guilty of an offence.

(12) Defamation

Any person who communicates to a third party information concerning a person, with the intention of causing harm to that person, shall be guilty of an offence.
 
Roavin;2873 said:
treadwellia;2871 said:
Roavin;2869 said:
Contempt of Court, Identity Fraud, Blackmail, Vexatious Charges
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Quoting TSP law:
Click to expand...


Ew. No. No TSP definition of Vexatious Charges.

There is a reason why TSP got rid of that law. It's pretty much a shallow "tit-for-tat" revenge law.
 
There is no criminal court, though. Who would enforce this?
 
Version 3

Criminal Code Act (September 2018)Proposed by: Amerion ​

Preamble

In order to make provision for the maintenance of public law and order, this Act shall codify the general principles of criminal responsibility in Lazarus.

Section 1. Tier 1 offences

(1) Treason

Any person who:
a. engages in conduct with the intention of illegally removing or altering:
i. the Mandate;
ii. the Government; or
iii. the Delegate;
b. levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against Lazarus;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment of an indefinite banishment.

(2) Sabotage

Any person who engages in conduct with the intention of interfering, destroying, or rendering unserviceable a public infrastructure, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion which may extend to an indefinite banishment.

(3) Espionage

Any person who has access to information contained in a restricted area and communicates, in part or in whole, that information to a person who, or an entity which does not have access to the restricted area, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion which may extend to an indefinite banishment.

Section 2. Tier 2 offencesSection 3. Tier 3 offences

(1) Fraud

Any person who, by dishonesty or deception, obtains an advantage or causes disadvantage to a person, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 4 month banishment.

(2) Contempt of Court

Any person who:
a. intimidates or insults a person in a sitting of the Court;
b. intentionally interrupts the proceedings of the Court; or
c. disobeys a direction of the Court;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2 month banishment.

(3) Unlawful disclosure

Any person who:
a. conceals current or previous affiliations extending to no less than 12 months prior in a public declaration;
b. conceals current or previous aliases extending to no less than 12 months prior in a public declaration; or
c. engages in conduct with the intention of attaining multiple accounts in a public infrastructure;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2 month banishment.

(4) Vexatious proceedings

Any person who:
a. instigates or pursues judicial proceedings without reasonable ground; or
b. engages in conduct which is an abuse of judicial proceedings;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2 month banishment.

(5) Defamation

Any person who communicates to a third party information concerning a person, with the intention of causing harm to that person, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2 month banishment.

(6) Conspiracy

Any person who engages in conduct and does so for the intention of preparing or planning to commit an offence, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2 month banishment.
 
Espionage: the punishment should take into account the offender's intent.

Foreign interference: This should only be an offense if there was intent. Otherwise it's way too easy to abuse.

Defamation: Okay, this one must be changed. Let's take Constie. I have absolutely no issue with Constie (and indeed, when I coup Balder in 2021, he will succeed me as Delegate). That being said - Constie has done stuff in-game I don't agree with. Now suppose Imki is considering appointing Constie to do FA, and I disagree that Constie is the right person for the job. I would then write Imki and say "hey, I don't think Constie is a good idea, consider thing X Y Z he did in the CU". This would already trigger the defamation rule. I'm expressing an opinion and a verifiable truth, but that would already be intent of "harm", because I wrote Imki with the intent of her considering somebody else for FA than Constie. Bam, I'm guilty. Obviously, that's absurd.

And generally (though less importantly), I don't particularly like the layout of the law. Let me sleep on it for a day for a layout that (in my personal opinion) is better.
 
Constie;2899 said:
I think Conspiracy should be moved up to tier two
Click to expand...

I had thought of that but it occurred to me that if Conspiracy was to be made a Tier 2 offence then Conspiracy to commit a Tier 3 offence would warrant a punishment greater than one mandated by the offence itself - which is illogical.

Roavin;2900 said:
Espionage: the punishment should take into account the offender's intent.

Foreign interference: This should only be an offense if there was intent. Otherwise it's way too easy to abuse.

Defamation: Okay, this one must be changed. Let's take Constie. I have absolutely no issue with Constie (and indeed, when I coup Balder in 2021, he will succeed me as Delegate). That being said - Constie has done stuff in-game I don't agree with. Now suppose Imki is considering appointing Constie to do FA, and I disagree that Constie is the right person for the job. I would then write Imki and say "hey, I don't think Constie is a good idea, consider thing X Y Z he did in the CU". This would already trigger the defamation rule. I'm expressing an opinion and a verifiable truth, but that would already be intent of "harm", because I wrote Imki with the intent of her considering somebody else for FA than Constie. Bam, I'm guilty. Obviously, that's absurd.

And generally (though less importantly), I don't particularly like the layout of the law. Let me sleep on it for a day for a layout that (in my personal opinion) is better.
Click to expand...

Nods

I'll wait for your proposed layout.

In the meantime, I'll tighten up the language used.
 
Roavin;2900 said:
Espionage: the punishment should take into account the offender's intent.

Foreign interference: This should only be an offense if there was intent. Otherwise it's way too easy to abuse.

Defamation: Okay, this one must be changed. Let's take Constie. I have absolutely no issue with Constie (and indeed, when I coup Balder in 2021, he will succeed me as Delegate). That being said - Constie has done stuff in-game I don't agree with. Now suppose Imki is considering appointing Constie to do FA, and I disagree that Constie is the right person for the job. I would then write Imki and say "hey, I don't think Constie is a good idea, consider thing X Y Z he did in the CU". This would already trigger the defamation rule. I'm expressing an opinion and a verifiable truth, but that would already be intent of "harm", because I wrote Imki with the intent of her considering somebody else for FA than Constie. Bam, I'm guilty. Obviously, that's absurd.

And generally (though less importantly), I don't particularly like the layout of the law. Let me sleep on it for a day for a layout that (in my personal opinion) is better.
Click to expand...

In regards to the following, I've made some edits which have been highlighted in green:

(3) Espionage

Any person who has access to information contained in a restricted area and knowingly communicates, in part or in whole, that information to a person who, or an entity which does not have access to the restricted area, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion which may extend to an indefinite banishment.

(1) Foreign interference

Any person who:

a. knowingly engages in conduct on behalf of, or in collaboration with, a foreign entity; and
b. whose conduct influences the processes of the Government;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding an 8 month banishment.

(5) Defamation

Any person who communicates to a third party information concerning a person, with the intention of causing harm to that person, shall, unless proven otherwise, be guilty of an offence.

A person may prove the defamatory imputations:
a. are significantly true: or
b. is a matter of opinion rather than a statement of fact.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2 month banishment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amerion;2894 said:
The general assumption is that the Court, being the sole judicial authority would rule on matters pertaining to criminality. Insofar as enforcement is concerned, that would likely fall under the purview of the Delegate and the relevant administrators of our public infrastructures (Forum & Discord).
Upon reading the Mandate, I see that we shall have to amend it to extend its jurisdiction as it has not been clearly laid out.

In my opinion, I am leaning towards simply stating in the Mandate that all judicial matters are under the jurisdiction of the Court including, but not limited to, etc.
Click to expand...

Having discussed this in the discord, I think that it's actually the part of the mandate about the Delegate that needs to be amended.
At least as I have seen the criminal court procedure envisioned so far, the court would lead an inquiry into which citizens enter evidence (either by choice or compulsion), the court reports to the delegate and then the delegate makes a judgement and enforces the punishment.
As the mandate currently stands, the delegate would then require a majority of the CLS to approve of a punishment. It seems a little OTT to me to require the cooperation of three different institutions to bring justice about, let alone the damage that actually does to the power of the criminal system.

So one way to do it would be to add a section granting the delegate the power to enforce lawful punishments if presented with compelling evidence by the court.

It could then be made criminal to refuse to give evidence if compelled to by two justices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have several thoughts but until quoting is fixed I'm struggling with getting them to show up properly. <_<

One quick one though, I think Espionage is too open. Under that definition, the Delegate releasing information from a private executive area to the Assembly would be espionage.

I suggest looking at TNP's language on espionage as a starting place on how to improve this clause:

"6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against."

So basically, the people in charge of a particular section of the forum can sanction the release of information - that could be declassification, or reporting to the legislature, or providing evidence in a trial, or sharing important military intel with an ally, etc. And it doesn't include sharing publically visible information on the TNP forum with outsiders, since they could access that information simply by checking the site. But a minister sharing private legislative discussions with a non-citizen would qualify, because the minister doesn't have power in the legislature and the outsider would have to hack someone's account to access that same information. Plus, TNP doesn't criminalize spying on random regions (just some specific allies), whereas the language you have now could plausibly be broad enough to apply to any espionage anywhere.
 
Sheepshape;2985 said:
I have several thoughts but until quoting is fixed I'm struggling with getting them to show up properly. <_<

One quick one though, I think Espionage is too open. Under that definition, the Delegate releasing information from a private executive area to the Assembly would be espionage.

I suggest looking at TNP's language on espionage as a starting place on how to improve this clause:

"6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against."

So basically, the people in charge of a particular section of the forum can sanction the release of information - that could be declassification, or reporting to the legislature, or providing evidence in a trial, or sharing important military intel with an ally, etc. And it doesn't include sharing publically visible information on the TNP forum with outsiders, since they could access that information simply by checking the site. But a minister sharing private legislative discussions with a non-citizen would qualify, because the minister doesn't have power in the legislature and the outsider would have to hack someone's account to access that same information. Plus, TNP doesn't criminalize spying on random regions (just some specific allies), whereas the language you have now could plausibly be broad enough to apply to any espionage anywhere.
Click to expand...

Noted with thanks. I'll soon amend it.
 
Criminal Code Act (September 2018)Proposed by: Amerion [/align]

Preamble

In order to make provision for the maintenance of public law and order, this Act shall codify the general principles of criminal responsibility in Lazarus.

Section 1. Tier 1 offences

(1) Treason

Any person who:
a. engages in conduct with the intention of illegally removing or altering:
i. the Mandate;
ii. the Government; or
iii. the Delegate;
b. levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against Lazarus;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment of an indefinite banishment.

(2) Sabotage

Any person who engages in conduct with the intention of interfering, destroying, or rendering unserviceable a public infrastructure, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion which may extend to an indefinite banishment.

(3) Espionage

Any person who has access to information contained in a restricted area and knowingly communicates, in part or in whole, that information which has not been legitimately sanctioned for distribution by the relevant authority, to a person who, or an entity which does not have access to the restricted area, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion which may extend to an indefinite banishment.

Section 2. Tier 2 offencesSection 3. Tier 3 offences

(1) Fraud

Any person who, by dishonesty or deception, obtains an advantage or causes disadvantage to a person, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 4-month banishment.

(2) Contempt of Court

Any person who:
a. intimidates or insults a person in a sitting of the Court;
b. intentionally interrupts the proceedings of the Court; or
c. disobeys a direction of the Court;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2-month banishment.

(3) Perjury

Any person who, in a sitting of the Court and having taken an oath relating to a matter before the Court, makes any false statement on that matter, and knowing the statement to be false, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2-month banishment.

(4) Unlawful disclosure

Any person who:
a. conceals current or previous affiliations extending to no less than 12 months prior in a public declaration;
b. conceals current or previous aliases extending to no less than 12 months prior in a public declaration; or
c. engages in conduct with the intention of attaining multiple accounts in a public infrastructure;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2-month banishment.

(5) Vexatious proceedings

Any person who:
a. instigates or pursues judicial proceedings without reasonable ground; or
b. engages in conduct which is an abuse of judicial proceedings;
shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2-month banishment.

(6) Defamation

Any person who communicates to a third party information concerning a person, with the intention of causing harm to that person, shall, unless proven otherwise, be guilty of an offence.

A person may prove the defamatory imputations:
a. are significantly true: or
b. is a matter of opinion rather than a statement of fact.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2-month banishment.

(7) Conspiracy

Any person who engages in conduct and does so for the intention of preparing or planning to commit an offence, shall be guilty of an offence.

An offender is liable to punishment at judicial discretion not exceeding a 2-month banishment.

Section 4. Definitions

[/hr]
[/hr]
 
[cell]
(3) Espionage

Any person who has access to information contained in a restricted area and knowingly communicates, in part or in whole, that information which has not been legitimately sanctioned for distribution by the relevant authority, to a person who, or an entity which does not have access to the restricted area, shall be guilty of an offence.​
[/cell]

I also added a perjury section. I read Sheep's opinion that perjury could go under fraud but I think the general opinion is that lying to the Court falls under its own separate offence.
 
Under "Vexatious proceedings", who determines what is "reasonable ground"? Reason is entirely subjective. For a Christian, for example, God came as a man and forgave our sins, whilst I do not believe in that. For a Wolfist, La Resistance was the one planning a coup, not Funk. Others might disagree. And a corrupt judge can just claim "Vexatious proceedings" to refuse or close a case. Thus, I propose something like this:

...

a. instigates or pursues judicial proceedings without reasonable ground more than twice, under which the same case has already been ruled upon twice;
Click to expand...

If my advice is taken, I do suggest better wording, as I recognize that my writing skills might be poor in your eyes. And if I have misrepresented or missed anything, do tell.

Also, can we add crimes like "electoral manipulation" or "corruption", perhaps?
 

My understanding is that the Court will determine what constitutes vexatious proceedings. It is at their discretion.

As to your concern of a corrupt Justice, I imagine there will be safeguards put in place in a future judiciary bill.

Electoral manipulation and corruption seem to both fall under the definition of fraud, the latter more so than the former. However, I will do some research on electoral manipulation and see if the bill needs amending on this point.

Thanks for the suggestions! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top