Criminal Justice (Reform) Act

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Introduced by Al

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. 'The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.'

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I apologise for the slightly intimidating length of this bill, but if the object is wholesale revision of a major part of law, then there's no real alternative to being comprehensive. Existing criminal law in this little republic of ours is a mishmash of sketchily constructed (re-constructed actually) and law festooned with loopholes and bizarre technicalities, and confused and misremembered precedent. It is, to use a slightly irritating expression from a decade ago, not fit for purpose. The following examples should suffice: as the major purpose of our courts system has been constitutional law, over time it has been forgotten that the theoretical foundation of criminal law in this Republic is that of the Common Law. This has led to the hilariously Kafkaesque situation of civil standards of proof becoming the norm in criminal trials, a disturbing situation at the best of times, but outright horrifying when (as is also the case!) the grounds for appeal are exceedingly restricted. Additionally many of the criminal offences that we have in place are defined with absurd rigidity, rendering a vast number of potential abuses of our system legal via technicality. This new criminal code is designed to address all of this issues and more. It is simple, it is logical, and it is fair. It protects the rights of defendants and makes it easier to prosecute actual wrongdoers, while also making political trials exceedingly difficult. It is, I accept, dry and technical and rather tedious as legislation goes, but if we can't get the boring bits right, what hope for the exciting stuff?

[TNF]

The 'treason' section needs a lot of work, imo. I don't think that 'supporting rebellion' (which is extremely vague and subject to interpretation by a court of law) should be a criminal offense in any way, unless you're willing to support locking up otherwise law abiding citizens who have the wrong opinions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The treason section re-states existing law in a more coherent manner. Due to the technical nature of this enterprise I have tended to avoid serious innovation unless a glaring omission exists. But neither the current law nor this would criminalises the expression of any opinion: the Court tends to rule conservatively, and when the criteria for 'aiding a rebellion' is restricted to the intentional direction of funds, military aid or strategic advice, we can be fairly sure that an expression of support would not be included. My opinion (and certainly intent!) would be that it wouldn't even ban membership of a political party in favour of a rebellion.

[Blair]

Time to get out the reading glasses

I'll have a look at this later tonight, but I agree its good having it all in one mega bill

[Cranberry]

I won't say much on the legal and theoretical substance, since I understand that this bill is a novella in terms of re-wording, re-organising and re-arranging of existing legislation rather than an innovation in precisely this legal and theoretical substance, and also to relief us all from the pain that is to write, for me, and to try to decipher, for you, the string of words I usually put in here and that are at least intended to resemble a real language.

Quite to contrary, first of all, I want to congratulate and also thank Al for this, I dare say in lack of better words, phenomenal and also, I believe, quite arduous, work of his that is his bill. Atlasian criminal justice reform is overdue, and the law could not have hoped for a more competent gentleman to handle its reform.

I have to admit, I do not understand much of legal language, less even when such is in English, but all this looks quite good and fine for me, and I intend to support this reform.

Concluding, I would propose, in honour of Al's extremely massive work he put in this, to rename this act into something on the lines of "Al Sibboleth Criminal Justice Reform Act". Would my fellow Senators concur with this?

[Blair]

100% agree with the new name

[Senator Cris]

I'm reading it and I will able to post something about it tomorrow.

[windjammer]

I will get back to it tomorrow.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we really need punishments of this duration in a game like this?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have to admit, I do not understand much of legal language, less even when such is in English, but all this looks quite good and fine for me, and I intend to support this reform.

Not to criticize you or anything, but I would tend to view this approach as somewhat distrurbing. Someone plunks down a new rule book in front of you, and your default position is Aye until convinced otherwise?

I can assure you my vote starts off as nay until every concern is addressed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is this not an open invitation for abuse?

What is this "peace established in the constitution"? Absent treason, there is no other standards laid out thaT I can see. It is horribly vague and could be abused to silence political opponents ala Alien and Sedition/Espionage Acts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do we need this standard below melicious editing? And why does it require a two year ban from the game as a reasonable punishment?

And speaking of punishments, as Talleyrand said, what is the purpose behind such excessive punishments? At that level, your are talking complete seperation from the game. Practically a death sentence, for after five years the chances of return are slim to none, and even two years the chances are less likely.

The treason section re-states existing law in a more coherent manner. Due to the technical nature of this enterprise I have tended to avoid serious innovation unless a glaring omission exists. But neither the current law nor this would criminalises the expression of any opinion: the Court tends to rule conservatively, and when the criteria for 'aiding a rebellion' is restricted to the intentional direction of funds, military aid or strategic advice, we can be fairly sure that an expression of support would not be included. My opinion (and certainly intent!) would be that it wouldn't even ban membership of a political party in favour of a rebellion.

The Court tends to rule conservatively now, but there is no such guarrantee of such down the road.  "Fairly sure" and "my opinion" also seem rather weak for a basis to presume how a future court's response might differ from the Court's prior history.

[Cranberry]

I have to admit, I do not understand much of legal language, less even when such is in English, but all this looks quite good and fine for me, and I intend to support this reform.

Not to criticize you or anything, but I would tend to view this approach as somewhat distrurbing. Someone plunks down a new rule book in front of you, and your default position is Aye until convinced otherwise?

I can assure you my vote starts off as nay until every concern is addressed.

No, not all. It is just that firstly I believe that Al is quite competent at what he does, and secondly, there are nine other Senators of which certainly a few will have more knowledge than me on matters like that (not difficult), and will ask the right questions, so I can make my conclusions from them

[Adam Griffin]

There are several clauses of very loose-ended stuff added to this (perhaps purposefully) that could be taken to the extreme, depending on both the tone of the Justice Department and the Supreme Court at a given point in the future, as well as their opinions of the person in question.

Since I seemingly have a reverse Midas Touch effect with regards to legislation such as this, I will refrain for the time-being from giving specific examples for others to knee-jerk against, but the Senator from North Carolina is on the right track. 

[bore]

It's important to remember that maximum is by no means the same thing as definite. For example, treason currently has a lifetime ban on both voting and officeholding, but that wasn't even on the cards for most of the people tried during the disturbance recently, and even then, we have to remember that the president retains the ability to pardon whoever he wants.

I think we have to accept that a degree of vagueness is unavoidable, as every crime is unique and we simply can not cover all eventualities. That means we have to trust the court (as we do with the current rules) and the president.

When it comes to maximum sentences I'm pretty liberally inclined- I don't think that sentences should be too long in general, and, in pretty much every case which has come up over the last few years I would have preferred a more lenient or similar sentence. That said, when we put them in statute we have to have, as the maximum, the sentence that we would give for the worst variation of that crime. So, for maliciously editing the wiki, we would have the sentence for someone deleting every article on it, for example.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we really need punishments of this duration in a game like this?

We already have them. Snowstalker (for instance) is currently serving a life sentence.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How is this not an open invitation for abuse?

It is no more an open invitation for abuse than having a whole bunch of treason charges on the books. The purpose of the offence was to allow for the community to impose punishments for disruptive trolling, which currently it cannot do. It isn't an important element of this bill but I think it makes sense. I would also remind you of the new standard of proof demanded for all criminal trials: juries would now be specifically mandated to convict only if they believe that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt and that there is evidence of mens rea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The peace established by the formation of the State as a creation of the Constitution, of course. The selfsame Constitution that guarantees a right to freedom of expression and much else. There is no way that this offence could be interpreted by a court in the way that you're suggesting. And if that were to happen then it would be pretty cast-iron grounds for an appeal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's already a criminal offence perhaps? Again, in terms of offences I have only really innovated when there are loopholes. And on the second matter, it doesn't. The Constitution explicitly prohibits minimum sentences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The new maximum sentences are for the most part not all that much harsher than the ones currently on the books, and when you consider that it will be much harder for the prosecution to secure a conviction if this bill is passed, I think it represents a significant liberalisation. We can also be sure that judges will not automatically impose the maximum sentence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An absolute guarantee? No. Not absolute. That would be impossible. But I will point out two things. The first is that the Court is appointed by the Senate: you have complete control over its composition and ultimately judicial ideology. The second is that the Court is bound to a considerable extent by a decade of precedent, almost all of which points towards strict constitutional literalism.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Essentially this is all about process. I will give an example:

In order to convict someone under current Law all that the prosecution has to do is convince a jury that the defendant probably committed the crime. That's it. If the defendant wants to appeal, then they have to provide either new evidence or present evidence that there were procedural errors at the trial. No other grounds for appeal are permitted. My view is, and has been for a long time, that this is Kafkaesque.

In order to convict someone under this Bill, then the prosecution has much more work to do. They must be able to convince a jury that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime (the difference is immense), and not only that but that the defendant intended to commit the crime. If the jury isn't convinced of both points then they will be instructed to acquit. If the defendant wants to appeal, then suddenly there are far more options available due to the significant loosening of appeals procedure.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we really need punishments of this duration in a game like this?

We already have them. Snowstalker (for instance) is currently serving a life sentence.

Oh, I know.

I just think that it's generally not a good idea to impose life sentences in a game like this and we should consider reducing the maximum penalty. I think a maximum of two or three years should be fine.

[windjammer]

Al I have a question.
Would the president be able to pardon for everything, or just Crimes against Atlasia but not Acts of treason?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al I have a question.
Would the president be able to pardon for everything, or just Crimes against Atlasia but not Acts of treason?

The President can pardon anyone (other than himself) for any offence. As this power is enumerated in the Constitution it will not be affected by this bill (though in practice will continue to form an important part of the criminal justice system).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In terms of the repeated mention of "It already being done in current law", would no this "compilation" of existing law with noted revisions, be a perfect time to address problems with current law? Thus it is hardly a justification on its own for anything regarding this bill, since such is open to being altered, using this as a vehicle.

Could you site some examples of "trollish behavior" that is disturbing of the peace?

Then the question becomes would such justify sentences "potentially" () as long as this bill includes be they retained or new inclusions?

I did quickly pass over the latter sections when I posted that, but I would say, that relying on tougher evidentiary and prosecutorial procedure to weed out frivolous lawsuits fails to account for the frivolity of the charge itself, not to mention the disruptive effects that such have on a player, which whilst not as great as in real life (ie, legal costs), but certainly are critical just the same (time being number one expended resource)?


Yes, there should be tough sentences for crimes, but in my mind at least, the presence of a maximum sentence opens the door for such to be used and whilst I appreciate the need for flexibility, I also appropriate the dual concerns of the punishment fitting the crime and equality before the law, which dictate both reduced sentences and by extension less of an opening for arbitrary or at the very least inconsistent law enforcement.

[Senator Cris]

I echo the comments of Senators Talleyrand and North Carolina Yankee. A lifetime ban is too long for a game like this. Also the five years period is too big.

Personally, I'd like 2 years for all the Crimes against Atlasia and 3 years for the Acts of Treason. But first to present an amendment, I'd like to hear the opinion of the Senators.

[Talleyrand]

The other issue with acts of treason is that it's completely arbitrary as to whether they're real or not. We've had plenty of fake revolutions and insurrections over the years, but no one was tried for treason afaik until last year when Cranberry decided to make their actions real as SoIA. We need to tread carefully with things like that.

I think 2 years is generally a good maximum sentence for these things however.