Definitions of treason and other crimes

Monte Ozarka

Monte Ozarka

TNPer
Fun fact: Did you know that the Constitution does not mention treason at all, and that the Legal Code only mentions it once in the final rendition of the NPA Code that was passed?

Since I am trying to find ways to avoid writing up a physics lab report, I tried to define various criminal acts in TNP, since apparently we have almost none fleshed out. Now, this is a working document, and I just wrote down the first four potential crimes that popped into my head. The big ones are treason, espionage, and sedition, of course. I don't think we've really had a problem with election fraud in the past, but I tossed that in there in the unlikely case that some unsavory characters decide to spam the population with the wrong dates for an election. Or something.

I did this largely to define "treason", which I reference in my Defining Duality bill. (Go read and comment on it!) A bit of clarification regarding the synergy between this bill and that bill: The stipulations of my other bill regarding treason take precedence and modify the basic definitions defined here. That way, on the off-chance that both of my bills get brought up to vote and both pass, we won't have competing definitions of treason.

More discussion! Um, it seems that treason and sedition are kinda similar the way that I worded it. Basically, I had Down with tnp in mind when I added in sedition. It's slightly different, in that it deals with the greater TNP populace as a whole. I dunno. Tell me what you think.

Also, the way that the articles for espionage are currently worded would make it illegal for our invader RA comrades to gather information here that is not freely accessible to RA (or higher status) members and use it elsewhere, i.e. LWU. The current wording also makes it illegal for the persons behind our cuddly-wuddly invader RA bunnies to infiltrate stuff like the NPA themselves. Oh well. I can't think of a way to get around that. In fact, I don't think that you can legally, even at this point. Constitution and whatnot. (Art. II, Sect. 1, Para. 3)

Have any suggestions as to what I should add/remove/reword?

Proposal:
Enumeration of Prohibited Acts

The following acts shall be illegal for Nations of The North Pacific, in both the NationStates region "The North Pacific" and on the off-site forum, unless specifically specified otherwise. Other laws subsequently passed that pertain to these crimes shall modify the articles herein.

Section 1: Treason
A - "Treason" is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allied groups and regions as governed by the Constitution.
B - Exceptions may be given to North Pacific Army and North Pacific Intelligence Agency members, with the consent of and notification by the Minister of Defense or NPIA Director, respectively, when on officially sanctioned missions.

Section 2: Espionage
A - "Espionage" is defined as the use of a Nation or Persona within The North Pacific for the purpose of gathering information for a group or region not officially sanctioned by the lawful government of The North Pacific as governed by the Constitution.
B - The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or has not attained Regional Assembly status would be unable to access it without circumventing real-life legal means.
C - Exceptions may be given to North Pacific Army and North Pacific Intelligence Agency members, with the consent of and notification by the Minister of Defense or NPIA Director, respectively, when on officially sanctioned missions.

Section 3: Sedition
A - "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt on the official forums or within the NationStates region "The North Pacific" to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution.

Section 4: Election Fraud
A - "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of voters or residents of The North Pacific with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
Click to expand...
 
Monte Ozarka:
Section 3: Sedition
A - "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt on the official forums or within the NationStates region "The North Pacific" to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
So...

There are ways to incite to revolt which are consistent with the Constitution?
 
Eluvatar:
Monte Ozarka:
Section 3: Sedition
A - "Sedition" is defined as an intentional attempt on the official forums or within the NationStates region "The North Pacific" to incite the Nations of The North Pacific to revolt in a manner not sanctioned by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
So...

There are ways to incite to revolt which are consistent with the Constitution?
Click to expand...
I dunno. If someone wanted to be an ass and try to make the TNP citizenry loudmouthed and exploit their right to free speech as a way of "fightin' tha man", they're free to. Just no armed revolt or something. It's like the real life difference between a protest and riot.

At least, that's my thought process at the time.
 
Fulhead Land:
Nation or persona?
Click to expand...
"The following acts shall be illegal for Nations of The North Pacific..."

Nations, nominally. Although, I have included charges of sedition, treason, and espionage in the list of crimes that my bill re:duality will not cover as part of duality. Note that these crimes only apply when committed against TNP itself or its treatied allies.
 
I think there are causes to revolt that would be valid under the consitution.

Corrupt ministry, evil delegate etc.

It doesn't say 'revolt against the democratically elected government', does it? We'd hardly want to stop ourselves fighting the next Pixiedance.
 
Vitrionia:
I think there are causes to revolt that would be valid under the consitution.

Corrupt ministry, evil delegate etc.

It doesn't say 'revolt against the democratically elected government', does it? We'd hardly want to stop ourselves fighting the next Pixiedance.
Click to expand...
It says "lawful" government.

And to be honest, the situation with Pixiedance was very different, in that the Constitution at the time was flimsy at best and exploitable at worst (as it was). We now have a far better defined document, and any official that goes astray can either be prosecuted under our current laws, or be due to our own long-term inattentiveness. Personally, I don't think the latter is going to happen anytime soon.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Monte here are the threads related to the formal discussion and votes on the earlier proposal to define treason. In both votes, a majority, but less than 60 per cent voted for the proposal.
FD Defining Treason
1st vote
2nd vote
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing me the materials, Grosse. However, I think one major difference between that previous piece of legislation and mine is that mine does not attempt to lay down penalties for these crimes. That I leave to the courts or to another daring RA member. Furthermore, (after a quick skim through the FD thread) it seems that much of the opposition came from the "suspension pending trial" part.

As I said, my current aim is to actually define some illegal acts. Punishment I leave to someone else.

*post-election bump*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top