SHELVED - Proposal to Criminalise Perjury

Chasmanthe

Chasmanthe

TNPer
here is v2
A Bill to Criminalize Gross Misconduct in Court:
1. A new Section 1.8 will be inserted to Chapter 1 of the Legal Code, and the current Sections 1.8-9 and their clauses will be renumbered appropriately.
Section 1.8: Court Misconduct
20. "Perjury" is defined as violating an oath or affirmation to tell the truth in Court proceedings.
21. "Contempt" is defined as willful disregard for decorum in court in violation of Court rules or instructions, and may be punished summarily.
Click to expand...
2. Any Sections of Chapter 1 of the Legal Code which are not with standard punctuation e.g. "Section 1.x: Description" will be corrected to the standard punctuation.
3. New clauses 2.8-9 will be inserted to Chapter 2 of the Legal Code, and the current clause 8 will be renumbered appropriately.
8. Perjury may be punished by restrictions on basic rights or ejection and banning during a proportional sentence not exceeding 3 months in length.
9. Contempt will be punished by a ban from the Court not exceeding 1 month in length.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

During the day my mind wandered onto NS and I decided the Legal Code should include Perjury. The aim of this bill is to make it illegal to falsely swear a oath or affirmation to tell the truth.

I propose the following be inserted either as a new section 1.10 or combined into section 1.8 renaming that section to include perjury.

Proposed addition to Chapter 1:
"Perjury" is defined as swearing an oath or affirmation to tell the truth and making false statements in the same thread.
Click to expand...

Proposed addition to Chapter 2:
9. Perjury will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights and ejection if necessary for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
Click to expand...

I await your insights.
 
I agree perjury is a serious crime within the region of TNP. However, it should be made that initial charge of perjury is a temporary suspension, and that after the initial charge(second time and onwards), there be a long-term or even permanent suspension.
 
The Penal code defines penalties for 7 out of the 8 crimes. The rest are covered by this clause:

Penal Code:
1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.
Click to expand...

The specific penalties for specific crimes so far allow for discretion by the court. It was my thought that perjury be dealt with the same way, but do you think it should be more sophisticated than that?
 
Kingborough:
I think it is good as it stands. I second this and move that this be taken to a vote.
Click to expand...
To clarify - no one has motioned for this to be taken to a vote so I will wait for a second.
 
Under what conditions would lying warrant ejection? Suppression of basic rights isn't enough?
 
The court would have to decide that. I guess if the lying under oath prevented a treason conviction that could be serious offence in itself. Maybe the court will treat all perjury offences lightly for the sake of liberty. I think this amendment gives discretion to the court in exactly the same manner as it does for the other crimes.

The point I would make to justify this amendment is citizens may be more likely to tell the truth under oath if they are committing a crime by not telling the truth.

You may counter this by saying, if we are already in the situation where everybody tells the truth under oath, then why do we need to criminalise it? I don't have all the answers but I thought this proposal would either be an improvement or lead to a discussion.

If there is no support for it then don't put it to a vote, that would waste time.
 
I take it from the lack of posts here that the Regional Assembly does not currently favour criminalising perjury at this time.

If I'm wrong in that assumption, then feel free to completely change what I posted or submit a new proposal if that's how it works.
 
All right, here's a more detailed altered bill, if you'll accept this amendment:

A Bill to Criminalize Gross Misconduct in Court:
1. A new Section 1.8 will be inserted to Chapter 1 of the Legal Code, and the current Sections 1.8-9 and their clauses will be renumbered appropriately.
Section 1.8: Court Misconduct
20. "Perjury" is defined as violating an oath or affirmation to tell the truth in Court proceedings.
21. "Contempt" is defined as willful disregard for decorum in court in violation of Court rules or instructions, and may be punished summarily.
Click to expand...
2. Any Sections of Chapter 1 of the Legal Code which are not with standard punctuation e.g. "Section 1.x: Description" will be corrected to the standard punctuation.
3. New clauses 2.8-9 will be inserted to Chapter 2 of the Legal Code, and the current clause 8 will be renumbered appropriately.
8. Perjury may be punished by restrictions on basic rights or ejection and banning during a proportional sentence not exceeding 3 months in length.
9. Contempt will be punished by a ban from the Court not exceeding 1 month in length.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I do not believe that 1.8.21. would cover the submission of fatuous complaints. Can you expand it to cover such please?

Also, do we really need to get people to swear an oath to tell the truth in court, or can we simply skip that stage?
 
Given that there is no general presumption of truthfulness, nor is there such even in the RA Oath, I'd say that hell yes we need such an oath.

As to criminalizing a false complaint, the problem with putting it in the criminal code is that it then requires an entire ridiculous trial proceeding in order to prove. If the justices follow my advice regarding court rules, and integrate such an issue there (such as in US FRCP Rule 11) then the matter can be dispensed with summarily, on the theory that an individual submitting a document to the court places themself at the mercy of said court. And frankly, the whole thing wouldn't be necessary if the AG's office had been able to retain proper discretion.
 
I also believe a clause regarding judicial misconduct should be included. In general, I believe there should be three broadly defined 'misconducts':

a - the witness
b - the attorneys
c - the court

If there is no presumption of truthfulness, is there a presumption of the reverse? Hmm...it seems like an oath should be required.
 
I have amended the OP (v2) with Eluvatar's proposal. My original post (v1) is in the spoiler.

I think that further discussion will very much be needed to decide what is reasonable and acceptable.
 
punk d:
If there is no presumption of truthfulness, is there a presumption of the reverse? Hmm...it seems like an oath should be required.
Click to expand...
A presumption of truthfulness would be absurd. That would make testimony factual purely because someone says it. Are you suggesting that you believe that there is a presumption of truthfulness in this case, and that the prosecution need not establish the veracity of testimony provided the defense cannot conclusively disprove it?
 
Gaspo - this is not the courtroom. I don't always wear the AG's hat. LOL. And further, there are more cases on my plate than the one we're involved in.

I'm just trying to get at what should be presumed when witnesses give testimony, if anything. I think an oath that leaves open the door for perjury is, overall, very good because it should act as a deterrent against witnesses tempted to lie.
 
Speaker Hat:

This thread has been open since 15th November. I will give it one full month, until 15th DECEMBER, to be in submittable shape or to be shelved.
 
punk d:
Gaspo - this is not the courtroom. I don't always wear the AG's hat. LOL. And further, there are more cases on my plate than the one we're involved in.

I'm just trying to get at what should be presumed when witnesses give testimony, if anything. I think an oath that leaves open the door for perjury is, overall, very good because it should act as a deterrent against witnesses tempted to lie.
Click to expand...
I'm not debating in court. This is basic legal theory, dude. Statements aren't magically true just because they haven't been disproven. Determination of truth is an affirmative proof process; not an absence-of-negative-proof process. I'm fine with an oath, I'm just saying that the idea that there currently exists a presumption of truthfulness would be very dangerous to the legal process, and even under an oath, witness testimony alone is rarely sufficient to prove the truth of a fact being asserted, in most circumstances.
 
7 days left until this is shelved. Is the current version (v2) worth doing? I like it, but I would not be happy for this to go to a vote unless there is some support for it. If we're not close to a consensus by Monday I will ask the speaker to shelve it.
 
I would add language to specify the contempt punishment as being a ban from serving as an advocate in the courts. The current wording could be ruled unconstitutional, as on its face it may be interpreted to ban a punished entity from utilizing the courts for redress of grievances.
 
I appreciate the willingness of my fellow members to contribute to this idea, as demonstrated by their comments and suggestions. Thank you.

Bearing in mind flemingovia's comments, and the likelihood of rejection, I've decided this proposal lacks the sufficient support to pass.

Therefore I humbly request the speaker to shelve this proposal accordingly.

Apologies for the waste of time.
 
Eluvatar:
But then one could not be banned from writing frivolous complaints for the AG to execute.
Click to expand...
What I mean by what I said, is that let's say I'm held in contempt of court for something I say while defending someone. Fine, I can't stand up as an advocate in court. The wording as it stands currently is broad enough that it could be construed to prevent an individual from filing any legal actions.

And again, the core problem with that statement is the continuing existence of the stupid ruling obligating the AG to bring every complaint filed before the court. I'm thinking through legislation for how to fix that, I just don't have wording I like yet. The AG's office is pointless as a gatekeeper in its current form - it would be just as efficient to have complainants file directly with the court, and have the AG take over when a trial is opened. But I digress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top