Amerion;2894 Wrote: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. 

McChimp;2925 Wrote:

Amerion;2894 Wrote: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. 

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. 

Sheepshape;2985 Wrote: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.

Quote:...

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

Ryccia;3047 Wrote: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 ...

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

Quote:In order to make provision for the maintenance ofmaintain public law and order, this Aact shall codify the general principles of criminal responsibility incodifies criminal actions in Lazarus. No person may be found guilty of a crime not listed in this act.

Quote:(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.

Quote:Section 1. Treason
(1) Engaging in conduct with the intention of illegally removing or altering the Mandate, the government, or the delegate of Lazarus will be considered treason.
(2) Levying war against Lazarus, or taking any act to prepare to levy war against Lazarus, will be considered treason.

Quote:Section 2. Sabotage

(1) Engaging in conduct which interferes with, destroys, or renders any public infrastructure unusable will be considered sabotage.
(2) 'Public infrastructure' is defined as an area operated by the government or its associated authorities for use of the public, including, but not limited to, the region, forum, and Discord of Lazarus.
(3) Legitimate actions taken by moderators or administrators of Lazarene infrastructure will not be considered sabotage. The root administrator of the infrastructure in question has the ultimate word on what constitutes a legitimate action.

Quote:Section 3. Espionage
(1) Knowingly communicating information contained in a restricted area of Lazarus, in part or in whole, to a person or entity which does not have access to that restricted area will be considered espionage.
(2) The individual or government body responsible for a restricted area may sanction the distribution of information to another person or entity. Sharing information whose release has been sanctioned will not be considered espionage.
(3) 'Restricted area' is defined as a section of the regional forum or Discord to which the general public is not granted access.

Quote:Section 4. Foreign Interference

(1) Engaging in conduct on behalf of or in collaboration with a foreign entity in order to influence the processes of the government of Lazarus will be considered foreign interference.

Quote:Section 5. Bribery

(1) Offering, providing, or agreeing to provide a benefit of any kind with the intention of influencing a person in the exercise of that person's governmental duties will be considered bribery.
(2) Asking, receiving, or agreeing to receive a benefit of any kind with a promise that receiving that benefit will influence the exercise of one's governmental duties will be considered bribery.

Quote:Section 6. Blackmail

(1) Using damaging information against another person to force them to take or refrain from certain actions is defined as blackmail.
(2) When the blackmail or attempted blackmail is done using real life personal information, it will be considered an OOC administrative matter.

Quote:Section 7. Fraud

(1) Knowingly or recklessly making a false statement of material fact will be considered fraud.
(2) A material fact is one which can reasonably and plausibly be expected to affect an individual's future actions.

Quote:Section 8. Contempt of Court

(1) Intimidating or insulting an individual during a sitting of the Court, intentionally interrupting the proceedings of the Court, and disobeying a direction of the Court will be considered contempt of court.

Quote:Section 9. Perjury

(1) Knowingly making a false statement to the Court after having taken an oath to tell the truth will be considered perjury.

Quote:Section 10. Unlawful Disclosure

(1) Concealing current or previous foreign affiliations or aliases from within the most recent 12 month period in a public declaration will be considered unlawful disclosure.
(2) Engaging in conduct with the intent of holding multiple accounts in a public infrastructure will be considered unlawful disclosure.

1. Holding one account as a foreign ambassador and one as a citizen in order to maintain a separation of obligations, access, and identities.
   
2. The root administrator keeping the root admin account separate from the regular forum account so that they can share the login with multiple admins for maintenance.
   
3. Innocently forgetting that one created an account a while back and making a second one.
   
4. Engaging in investigative or undercover work for the delegate or admin team to follow up on reports of misconduct.
   

Quote:Section 11. Vexatious Behavior

(1) Knowingly instigating or pursuing judicial proceedings without reasonable ground, or engaging in conduct which is an abuse of judicial proceedings, will be considered vexatious behavior.

Quote:Section 12. Defamation

(1) Knowingly or recklessly making a false statement of material fact about an individual will be considered defamation.

Quote:Section 13. Conspiracy

(1) Preparing or planning to commit any offense in this code will be considered conspiracy to commit that offense.

Quote:Section Whatever: Misconduct

(1) Knowingly or recklessly violating one's citizenship oath, or any of the laws of Lazarus, will be considered misconduct.