Treason

This is a separate discussion for the question of whehther a treasonous offense should have a statute of limitation, what treason should be defined as, and even whether or not we want to address the issue.

There have been some comments about treason in the Statute of Limitations thread; however, a separate topic has been opened to probe the question further.

Personally, I would choose the last option: that treason shouldn't be codified as a statutory offense, but that every occasion should be judged individually without that formal charge.

Treason should be defined as not abiding by your pledge and intent in overthrowing or invading the Region.

Americanicus I:

Personally, I would choose the last option: that treason shouldn't be codified as a statutory offense, but that every occasion should be judged individually without that formal charge.

Click to expand...

In order for an offense to be an offense, it must be codefied to a certain degree. Traditionally, treason has been held as such a severe offense that its definition is fairly limited in any number of legal systems.

The problem with a case-by-case determination of treason is that it provides for a very broad, in fact too broad, definition of treason. If treason is defined by the court or by a prosecutor without a specific legal code to back it, then anything at all might be considered treason.

True, but I hope that we can avoid a situation where the term is bandied about too generally.

As for the statute of limitation, there should be a limit on how long you have to act before the action becomes so far in the past. I personally do not like the idea of someone black mailing someone else about a possible treason act in the pass.

Also I think the definition of treason has to be well definded and not open to interpretion.

Nuclearweapons:

As for the statute of limitation, there should be a limit on how long you have to act before the action becomes so far in the past. I personally do not like the idea of someone black mailing someone else about a possible treason act in the pass.

Also I think the definition of treason has to be well definded and not open to interpretion.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Having a statutory offense whose definition is 'fluid' (via non-definition) has the potential to become a very dangerous political weapon. General common law offenses like "fraud" and "breach of oath" etc., you can get away with no codification, but something like "treason" is so severe that it must have a very specific and carved in stone definition that cannot be twisted or otherwise agued. If the definition of treason is fluid or otherwise nebulous, people will be calling any critical statements of them, the government or anything else 'treason'. Perhaps the old "treachery act" ala the English system might be worth looking at as a base model? Or the US Constitutional definition of treason?

Romanoffia:

Perhaps the old "treachery act" ala the English system might be worth looking at as a base model? Or the US Constitutional definition of treason?

Click to expand...

This is not a bad idea..


The problem is, if the definition is too fluid, that is open to abuse, and similarly I feel if the definition is too "codified", that is also open to abuse, both by those who seek a loophole, as well as by those who may rush to judgment.

By narrowing the definition, loopholes tend to be avoided.