[Proposal] Criminal Procedures Act

[McChimp]

---

 

Criminal Procedures Act

 

Proposed by: McChimp

 
Preamble

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

(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. Absent Justices will also be considered recused.

(3) If one or more Justices are recused from a case, the Delegate will appoint temporary Justices to serve in their place. These Justices shall have no other court responsibilities or powers. Their appointments shall not be subject to Assembly confirmation.

(4) The Court of Lazarus must notify the defendant that a case has been brought against them post-haste.

(5) The Justices handling the case shall decide by majority vote whether or not to dismiss it.

(6) Should the case not be dismissed, the Justices handling the case shall then select a court procedure described within the Criminal Library by majority vote and give notice that the Court will convene.

(7) A criminal court shall convene publicly unless the Justices serving on it determine that its contents are sensitive by majority vote.

---

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.

[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 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. 

They don't tend to work super well. Proof can be hard to come by, and intent is extremely difficult to establish unless someone tells the world "yeah I'm definitely defrauding people here". You have to argue "what reasonable people would think" and, well, being reasonable is generally a disqualifier for playing NS.

For example, you define treason as "willfully" defying the endorsement cap - what is willful? How do you prove it? Or for misrepresentation, how do you demonstrate someone "knowingly" lied for citizenship, and they weren't just forgetful one day?

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.

As for the crimes, I have some specific suggestions and concerns , as well as a few broader suggestions.

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.

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.)

As for specifics on crimes:
 

It shall be considered a criminal act to commit treason.

Okay so first of all, 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.
 

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.

Willful is hard to prove, and "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.
 

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

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.
 

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

I don't like the requirement of knowingly, and 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.
 

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.

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 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.
 

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

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

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]

They don't tend to work super well. Proof can be hard to come by, and intent is extremely difficult to establish unless someone tells the world "yeah I'm definitely defrauding people here". You have to argue "what reasonable people would think" and, well, being reasonable is generally a disqualifier for playing NS.

For example, you define treason as "willfully" defying the endorsement cap - what is willful? How do you prove it? Or for misrepresentation, how do you demonstrate someone "knowingly" lied for citizenship, and they weren't just forgetful one day?

Willful is hard to prove

I don't like the requirement of knowingly

If I just plan a crime for the fun of it, can you prove I seriously intended to carry it out?

 

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.)

I think that the adversarial system depends upon reasonable doubt and trusting the judges to determine where that line lies. I'd trust the Justices to accept the reasonable doubt that somebody might have typo'd their citizenship application but not accept the idea that somebody "forgot" a major, relevant proscription. I suppose I ought to actually enshrine that in the law, given that the court's ability to prosecute depends upon it.

Five weeks is ample time to organise a court case that lasts a week. It doesn't even require anybody to be in a discord room together at one time. They have whole days to post and whole days to respond and write statements. If the court could not rule guilty as a result of prolonged absence, people could simply not show up and they'd get off scot-free.

An alternative I would be happy to implement would be allowing the Justices themselves to select a suitable system on a case-by-case basis. That could help to avoid organizing a huge court case over a trivial matter-the court could simply opt to mediate instead of prosecute.
 

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.

Laws could be categorized by branch. This one, for example would fall under >Court>Criminal. Contemporary acts regarding assembly procedure would fall under >Assembly>Procedure. I don't see any benefit to centralizing a law for the appointment of temporary Justices-I can think of very few circumstances in which it would be necessary and their powers, as in this case, should be limited as is contextually appropriate. This really requires the procedure in those cases to be set out within context.
 

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 agree with this-I might split and reformat it into two different laws, the Constitutional one being for the procedure. I do believe that there ought to be a constitutional law establishing that criminal proceedings may actually take place.
 

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 make this more specific-the ICU or whatever it was the CU had had a list of actions that were treasonable, I'll do something like that.
 

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 may also introduce maximum sentences for most of the crimes. In the case of treason, though, I think the required weighty sentence is suitable. My own concerns about this section are the way in which it infringes on the duties of the CLS.
 

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.

I'll remove the section criminalising violating your sentence. It's unnecessary. I still think a system where laws are separated by which moral institution you're subverting: democracy, justice or order would be a good idea.
 

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

I'll add a vote amongst the involved Justices about whether the case is even worth it and remove this section.
 

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. 

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 be able to be charged. If only citizens can bring charges, then someone who was unfairly stripped of citizenship or denied from getting it would have no legal recourse. And if only citizens could be charged, someone could avoid a trial just by dropping citizenship.
 

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:

1. Any of the Justices who confirmed their sentence have been found guilty of a crime that calls into question their will to rule justly.
   
2. 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.

1. Justices must recuse themselves from a case they are otherwise involved in or implicated by.
   
2. 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.

Should the case not be dismissed, the Justices serving on the case shall then confirm a court procedure authored by one of their own number for that case by a two-thirds vote lasting three days and then give no less than one week’s notice that the criminal court shall convene.

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.

This clause can be struck if the previous clause is amended as suggested. Or, it can be changed to "Criminal cases will occur in public, unless the court determines by majority vote that a case contains sensitive material and needs to be conducted in private." [/quote]

[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.