07-19-2018, 10:48 PM
I have some questions and some suggestions.
First: Forgive me if this is obvious - I am new to Lazarus. What is the point of a constitutional law, as opposed to a constitutional amendment? Why not just... amend the constitution? It requires the same voting majority to do so.
I think #2 is problematic. What does it mean in practice to have the right to check proposed and extant law for compatibility with constitutional laws and the mandate? Can the Defender unilaterally say that laws are unmandatical? If not, if they have to take concerns before the court, it seems to me like that section is just pointing out that the Defender has the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen to try to make sure the laws are not in conflict.
(I did add in some restrictions - I think it also makes sense not to allow the Defender to be a defender or a witness to prevent major concerns about impartiality.)
(Also, this terminology is going to get confusing. How about Protector of the Law? Enforcer of the Law? Kinda depends on what kind of vibe you wanna go for.)
So firstly, I think these should be split out into a separate bill entirely. Mixing in criminal offenses with other parts of the law is a surefire way to lose track of what is where, what takes priority over what else, and what's actually not allowed. If you want these to have constitutional status, IMO, they should be in the constitution... but I don't actually see the point of having them be at that level. They're not any less criminal because they're regular laws.
Secondly, I'm not thrilled with these as written.
Treason: In the case of an absent root administrator, this would declare any non-root admin who has to close a forum (even temporarily) as having committed treason against Lazarus. That's hugely problematic. It also arguably would apply to anyone who reports a forum to their service provider for violating the provider's TOS, as that person will have willfully done things to disrupt access to that forum. That's one of the major weaknesses of COPS, too, and it's something most of us kind of handwave aside as inconvenient to deal with. Even aside from those problems, though... that whole first part isn't treason. I think the term Treason should be restricted to trying to take the delegate seat or conspiring to overthrow the government - you know, actual treason. Mixing up definitions differently than they're used IRL is a prime source of headaches in NS law and court matters. Trust me.
Voting Fraud: This is.. really vague. "Alter or establish the vote count of a vote of Lazarus in an untruthful manner" doesn't tell me what they've done. Is it voting fraud to convince people to join Lazarus and vote the way you want, if nobody lies about it? What about trying to convince regular citizens to vote a particular way by spinning a situation but not outright lying? I would argue that Voting Fraud should apply to 1) one person voting under multiple aliases, 2) somebody who is running a vote or election deliberately misstating the tally of votes, either during the vote or after it has closed, or 3) joining Lazarus using falsified information (e.g., not disclosing who you really are) in order to sway the result of a vote.
I also saw a few typos in there - availability and citizenship are misspelled a couple times.
First: Forgive me if this is obvious - I am new to Lazarus. What is the point of a constitutional law, as opposed to a constitutional amendment? Why not just... amend the constitution? It requires the same voting majority to do so.
(07-19-2018, 04:33 PM)Old Hope Wrote: The Defender of the Law shall have the responsibility and the non-exclusive right to:
1.scan the forums for possible violations of the Criminal Code
2.check any and all proposed and extant law with the compatibility with the constitutional laws and the Mandate 12 of Lazarus
3.open court cases against potential criminals
4. open court cases for potential contradictions between passed ordinary laws, constitutional laws, and the Mandate 12 of Lazarus.
I think #2 is problematic. What does it mean in practice to have the right to check proposed and extant law for compatibility with constitutional laws and the mandate? Can the Defender unilaterally say that laws are unmandatical? If not, if they have to take concerns before the court, it seems to me like that section is just pointing out that the Defender has the same rights and responsibilities as every other citizen to try to make sure the laws are not in conflict.
Quote:The Defender of the Law shall have the right to be the Accuser in criminal cases until they decide not to be the Accuser, unless they are accused themselves.This seems awkwardly phrased. How about, "The Defender of the Law may choose to act as the Accuser in any criminal cases except those where they are the accused, a defender of the accused, or a witness in the case."
(I did add in some restrictions - I think it also makes sense not to allow the Defender to be a defender or a witness to prevent major concerns about impartiality.)
(Also, this terminology is going to get confusing. How about Protector of the Law? Enforcer of the Law? Kinda depends on what kind of vibe you wanna go for.)
Quote:In criminal cases, the Accused may select someone to defend them(the defender), with consent of the defender.The phrasing on this is a bit off, and I don't like parentheses in laws most of the time. I'm also concerned that 4 days is pretty short - some people can only play on weekends, or there might be major holiday weeks where people are busy. I think it'd be problematic if someone could file charges when they know someone won't be around in order to get them tried in absentia. I think there's a neater way to do this:
In criminal cases, when the Accused does not respond in a timely manner, the court shall ask for someone to be the defender of the Accused. This shall take at minimum 4 days.
If no one wants to defend an absent Accused after 7 days, the Accused shall be tried with the defence in absentia.
Quote:1. Anybody accused of a crime may select someone to represent them in the case.
2. If the Accused does not respond to charges filed against them within 7 days, the court will ask for volunteers to serve as a defender.
3. If nobody has volunteered to defend the Accused within 7 days after the court makes its initial request, the Accused may be tried in absentia.
4. At any time during a trial, an Accused may choose to defend themselves or replace their chosen defender.
5. A prospective defender must consent to serving in that role for the Accused. Neither the Accused nor the court may force someone to serve as defender.
Quote:III High Crimes
1. Treason
Anyone who willfully disrupts access to any Forum without being the root adminstrator or having permission of the root adminstrator, willfully helps someone to take, or attempt to take the delegate seat of the Nation States region Lazarus from its rightful owner, is guilty of treason.
The court shall remove citizienship from anyone guilty of treason permanently.
2. Voting Fraud
Anyone who willfully tries to alter or establish the vote count of a vote of Lazarus in an untruthful manner shall be guilty of Voting Fraud.
The court shall remove citizienship from anyone guilty of Voting Fraud.
IV Other crimes
Other crimes may be established by constitutional law.
Other crimes may also be established by a single Criminal Code as ordinary law.
So firstly, I think these should be split out into a separate bill entirely. Mixing in criminal offenses with other parts of the law is a surefire way to lose track of what is where, what takes priority over what else, and what's actually not allowed. If you want these to have constitutional status, IMO, they should be in the constitution... but I don't actually see the point of having them be at that level. They're not any less criminal because they're regular laws.
Secondly, I'm not thrilled with these as written.
Treason: In the case of an absent root administrator, this would declare any non-root admin who has to close a forum (even temporarily) as having committed treason against Lazarus. That's hugely problematic. It also arguably would apply to anyone who reports a forum to their service provider for violating the provider's TOS, as that person will have willfully done things to disrupt access to that forum. That's one of the major weaknesses of COPS, too, and it's something most of us kind of handwave aside as inconvenient to deal with. Even aside from those problems, though... that whole first part isn't treason. I think the term Treason should be restricted to trying to take the delegate seat or conspiring to overthrow the government - you know, actual treason. Mixing up definitions differently than they're used IRL is a prime source of headaches in NS law and court matters. Trust me.
Voting Fraud: This is.. really vague. "Alter or establish the vote count of a vote of Lazarus in an untruthful manner" doesn't tell me what they've done. Is it voting fraud to convince people to join Lazarus and vote the way you want, if nobody lies about it? What about trying to convince regular citizens to vote a particular way by spinning a situation but not outright lying? I would argue that Voting Fraud should apply to 1) one person voting under multiple aliases, 2) somebody who is running a vote or election deliberately misstating the tally of votes, either during the vote or after it has closed, or 3) joining Lazarus using falsified information (e.g., not disclosing who you really are) in order to sway the result of a vote.
I also saw a few typos in there - availability and citizenship are misspelled a couple times.