Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill

[r3naissanc3r]

Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill

1. Chapter 1, Clause 1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

2. Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Clause 4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all criminal cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

For reference, I highlight below the changes to the Legal Code effected by this amendment, using BBCode annotation.

1. No citizen holding no public office may be punished criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all criminal cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.

---

The purpose of this bill is to solve two issues in our criminal law that have been recently identified.

The first is with regards to the first clause in the Criminal Law.

No citizen holding no public office may be punished for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

I believe that the intent of this clause is to grant citizens protection from being prosecuted for thing that are not defined as crimes. Yet, it does so in an odd way:

• It uses the term "punishment", which is ill-defined and could be used to prevent other types of cases being brought against citizens. For instance, most, if not all, forms of remedy against the defendant in a civil lawsuit are also forms of punishments. The way this clause is worded, one could only bring a civil case against a citizen who is not a official if they ask for no remedy at all.
• It grants this protection only to citizens who are not public officials, which appears to permit punishing officials (through either civil or criminal cases) for, well, pretty much anything.

My proposed wording addresses, I believe, both of these oddities.

The second issue is with regards to a provision in the legal code requiring the Attorney General to act as the Chief Prosecutor in all cases brought before the Court. The clause as currently worded makes no discrimination between criminal and other cases (reviews, civil cases), meaning that the AG is required to be the prosecutor in all of these; which is nonsense. The amendment fixes this, by specifying explicitly that the clause applies only to criminal cases.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I second this motion, Mr Speaker

*coughs*

 

[Kiwi]

I second this motion, Mr Speaker

Erm... it hasn't had a first yet...

I support the changes although I won't motion for a vote yet because I want others to discuss this.

 

[Lord Byron]

It grants this protection only to citizens who are not public officials, which appears to permit punishing officials (through either civil or criminal cases) for, well, pretty much anything.

That is how I've always read this legislation, and assumed it was intended as such. Which is why I have never run for public office. You think it needs changing?!?!

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

It grants this protection only to citizens who are not public officials, which appears to permit punishing officials (through either civil or criminal cases) for, well, pretty much anything.

That is how I've always read this legislation, and assumed it was intended as such. Which is why I have never run for public office. You think it needs changing?!?!

Nahhhh, he just wrote up a proposal to change it for practice.

 

[punk d]

I like the removal requiring the AG to prosecute all cases. In civil matters, citizens should have the choice for their own representative.

 

[Gaspo]

I like the removal requiring the AG to prosecute all cases. In civil matters, citizens should have the choice for their own representative.

If you read the court rules, you'll note that the Court already interprets the existing clause in this way. Given its location in the broader context of the criminal legal code, it is not deemed to apply to civil matters. While this change would clarify that fact, reading that sentence apart from its context is the only way to arrive at the conclusion you've reached, PunkD.

 

[Andrew]

I support it.

 

[Chasmanthe]

I agree that the AG should be responsible for bringing all criminal cases, not all civil cases as well.

I disgree with decriminalizing all government officials's violations of the legal code that are not in the criminal code.

We would be sending a message that government officials should feel more secure and not worry if they violate the odd law or whatever. Is that the message we want to send? Maybe it is. We already decriminalized sedition.

What remedy can violators of the legal code, who hold public office, expect to face if this amendment is made? Please tell me. Public criticism? Recall? I don't know which of those is more practical but TNP has already come under criticism in the past for trying to recall its officials.

I'm not saying that the amendment is the wrong thing to do, I just don't really understand the need to make the change, it effectively protects all popular government officials from remedial action by the AG's office, allowing them up to violate the law in a greater number of situations than they are currently allowed to without inevitable prosecution. It could be a good thing or not. It will encourage anyone who sees a law violation to bring a civil case themselves and not rely on the AG.

 

[Gaspo]

One of the big oversights in the legal code right now is that there's this empty hole of vague "oath violation" doctrine that binds people to obeying the Legal Code. It's on my to-do list to fix, when I'm not on the bench, but this bill is a step in the right direction, generally speaking. That "oath violation" doctrine has, and would continue to, suffice for purposes of prosecuting government officials, regardless of the passage of this bill, Chas. Your concern is reasonable but ultimately not a barrier to this moving forward.

 

[punk d]

I like the removal requiring the AG to prosecute all cases. In civil matters, citizens should have the choice for their own representative.

If you read the court rules, you'll note that the Court already interprets the existing clause in this way. Given its location in the broader context of the criminal legal code, it is not deemed to apply to civil matters. While this change would clarify that fact, reading that sentence apart from its context is the only way to arrive at the conclusion you've reached, PunkD.

You can argue that point, sure. The text I referenced is within everything that is ‘criminal’ so I suppose one could argue that in the absence of a civil definition within the law, the court is free to create a court rule. I’d rather a legal definition versus a court one, though.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I beg to move this bill to vote.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Is there a second?

 

[Hileville]

Second.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

This will be brought to a vote soon.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I disgree with decriminalizing all government officials's violations of the legal code that are not in the criminal code.

We would be sending a message that government officials should feel more secure and not worry if they violate the odd law or whatever. Is that the message we want to send? Maybe it is. We already decriminalized sedition.

What remedy can violators of the legal code, who hold public office, expect to face if this amendment is made? Please tell me. Public criticism? Recall? I don't know which of those is more practical but TNP has already come under criticism in the past for trying to recall its officials.

I'm not saying that the amendment is the wrong thing to do, I just don't really understand the need to make the change, it effectively protects all popular government officials from remedial action by the AG's office, allowing them up to violate the law in a greater number of situations than they are currently allowed to without inevitable prosecution. It could be a good thing or not. It will encourage anyone who sees a law violation to bring a civil case themselves and not rely on the AG.

Chas, not all violations of the law are meant to be crimes. It is the reason why we have both criminal cases and judicial reviews. Criminal cases are reserved only for those violations of law deemed severe enough to warrant conviction. The rest are left to be dealt with through judicial review, which may only result in annulment but not punishment. This is an important distinction to preserve. And this can be done in two ways: have crimes clearly enumerated, and everything else assumed to not be a crime; or vice versa. Given the severity of convictions for crimes, and the vast scope for violations of the law, I believe that the former both was the original intent of the clause we are amending, and is the desirable one.

In line with the above argument, the proper way to address your concerns Chas is to introduce clauses for new crimes that one may commit. One possibility is, as Gaspo pointed out, to turn violations of the various oaths (RA membership, office) into crimes. But, having a catch-all for all illegalities committed by officials to be regarded as crimes is not the right way to go about it.

---

With regards to the other argument, the AG's role in civil cases. I agree with Gaspo that even existing legislation does not force us to require that the AG be the plaintiff's representative in all civil cases. However, the law does require the AG to "prosecute" civil cases, whatever that nonsense may mean. I also assume that it was on these grounds that the current AG saw it appropriate to assume the role of "Court prompter", for lack of a better term, in the single civil case that has appeared before the Court. So, the law should be amended to have this fixed.

 

[Eluvatar]

It might be advisable to criminalize gross misconduct in office, defined as willful misuse of an office's powers in an illegal manner and in pursuit of interests other than those of TNP.

Thoughts?

 

[Gaspo]

The problem I have with this change is that it's only a part of what actually needs to happen, and doing just this without doing the rest of it will make things worse in the interim, rather than better.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Gaspo, I am not entirely sure whether by "this" you mean the bill, or Elu's proposed addition to the criminal code, though I am going to assume it is the former.

I think an addition to the criminal code along the lines of what Elu suggested would address both your and Chas' concerns. I would personally be in favor of criminalizing gross misconduct.

I would also have no issue with including an amendment to that effect to the bill, if that is OK with the Speaker (seeing how this bill is already on its way to a vote).

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I was about to move this to a vote, but since an amendment has been suggested, I'll give some time for Zyvetskistaahn to withdraw his motion to vote, to allow for modifications to the bill, or for Hileville to withdraw his second.

 

[Hileville]

I withdraw my second due to the proposed amendment.

 

[Gaspo]

My objection is that, frankly, more complete overhaul is needed, and doing it tiny bit by tiny bit creates the very real potential for a more broken situation along the way. Sweeping reform is needed, not bit-by-bit work, as pertains to the Criminal Code.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill

1. Chapter 1, Clause 1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

2. Chapter 1, Section 1.8 and Chapter 1, Section 1.8, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are renumbered as Chapter 1, Section 1.9 and Chapter 1, Section 1.9, Clause 21 respectively.

3. A new section of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, that shall be numbered as Chapter 1, Section 1.8, is hereby created and shall read as follows,

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
20. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the wilful misuse of an office's powers in an illegal manner or in pursuit of interests other than those of The North Pacific

4. Chapter 2, Clause 4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby struck from the Codified Law of The North Pacific and Chapter 2, Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 are renumbered as Chapter 2, Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively.

5. A new clause of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, that shall be numbered as Chapter 2, Clause 8, is hereby created and shall read as follows,

8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and/or the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

6. Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Clause 4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all criminal cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.

Would this be a more appropriate version of the bill to move to vote?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No citizen holding no public office may be punished for criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

Section 1.1: Treason
2. "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 allies as governed by the Constitution.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Osiris and Equilism.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "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 and the Bill of Rights.
7. The information gathered must be of a nature that a person that has not registered on the official forums or attained public office would be unable to access it without cracking technical security measures.

Section 1.3: Fraud
8. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens 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.
9. ?Fraud? is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Section 1.4. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming
10. "Crashing" is defined as any unauthorized action which could cause a forum to go out of service or lose information, including the deletion of posts, the deletion of a forum, spamming, or any other act of such kind.
11. "Phishing" is defined as any attempts to gain access to off-site property controls or passwords by deception, especially by posing as administrators or moderators for any unauthorized use.
12. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
13. "Spamming" is defined as any action by non-region nationals to waste space or cause shock on any off-site property or regional message board to make it unusable.
14. Spamming includes any attempts to force a DOS error on forums and any attempts to flood the RMB of a region which is not that nation's normal abode.
15. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.

Section 1.5: Proxying
16. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.
17. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.

Section 1.6. Adspam
18. Recruitment for other regions on the Regional Message board may be regulated or prohibited by Delegate Decree.

Section 1.7. Conspiracy
19. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
20. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the wilful misuse of an office's powers in an illegal manner or in pursuit of interests other than those of The North Pacific

Section 1.89. Exceptions
201. Exceptions for treason, espionage or proxying may be given to members of the military and intelligence services with the consent of the Delegate and the appropriate Minister when on officially sanctioned missions for the purposes of preserving regional security.

Chapter 2: 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.
2. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
4. Sedition will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights and ejection and banning if necessary for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
54. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
65. Proxying may be punished by ejection and banning, the removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration.
76. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.
87. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.
8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and/or the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

Chapter 3: Judicial Law

1. These procedures will govern the Judiciary.

Section 3.1: The Attorney General
2. The Attorney General will be elected during Judicial Elections.
3. The Attorney General must not have been convicted of any crime in the North Pacific.
4. The Attorney General will serve as Chief Prosecutor in all criminal cases brought before the Court of the North Pacific.
5. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see to completion any proceeding they are prosecuting.
6. If the original Attorney General is unable to complete a pending case, the successor Attorney General will take over as prosecutor and complete the pending proceedings.
7. The Attorney General may request expedited judicial review of any executive action by any official.

This is how (I think) the law would be changed should this bill be passed.

Gross misconduct has been introduced as an offence following Eluvatar's suggestion as has a punishment for said offence, the punishment is somewhat limited as it would, presumably, be brought to trial with other offences like violation of an oath in the case of "an illegal manner" or treason for "pursuant of interests other than those of the north pacific"

Renumbering is just to allow for the current layout of the code to be maintained and the punishment for sedition is removed as sedition is no longer a crime.

Thoughts?

 

[Chasmanthe]

I think your suggestion is excellent.

 

[Eluvatar]

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
20. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the wilful misuse of an office's powers in an illegal manner or in pursuit of interests other than those of The North Pacific

My suggestion had an and where you have an or. I proposed that grosse misconduct be activities which are illegal and for an improper purpose. You are proposing to prohibit activities which are illegal or for an improper purpose.

I submit that this would allow for a greatly expanded level of litigiousness. I also submit that that would be bad for TNP.

Edit: added relevant quote.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Perhaps and/or would work better, it allows for either as well as both

 

[Chasmanthe]

Perhaps and/or would work better, it allows for either as well as both

It's got to be and or or. It can't be and and or.

Using or:

This is bad because it means somebody could face prosecution merely for acting illegally. Also they could face prosecution merely for using their office in pursuit of interests outside of The North Pacific.

Using and:

If somebody is doing both, then they will be prosecuted. This may seem less strict but it's probably good enough.

 

[punk d]

"And" is more straightforward but more difficult to prove. "Or" opens the door for tons of litigation and if the recent months are any indication, we'll see a lot of litigation.

I would prefer using "And" because misconduct should be something that's clearly identifiable and not based on the mood of someone(s) who disagrees with a decision an official makes. If we had the Or clause today, i would not be surprised if someone wouldn't have already hit BW with the charge of misconduct. I might be pessimistic, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Gaspo]

The problem with "and" is that there are a fuckton of things I can think of people doing which are not technically illegal but are absolutely against the best interests of The North Pacific. it's also incredibly hard to prove someone's intent or underlying motives - they may seem apparent to a reasonable person but that is not a legal standard. Apparent guilt is not relevant in a criminal proceeding, and conclusively proving mental state is essentially impossible unless a person lays it out quite plainly for you, in which case they'd be admitting to their motives and so forth and could very well be subject to the existing treason law. "Or" doesn't necessarily create additional litigation - it might, but not necessarily - because it's still an element that has to be proved. You have to prove that the person either did something illegal, or did something in TNP to further non-TNP interests. I'd make sure to define "actions in violation of the principles and terms of the Bill of Rights, or in violation of a currently-binding Oath of Office" as illegal, somewhere, because otherwise you don't really change anything, as the underlying act (say, refusing to do one's job or directing the NPA based on external orders) would not necessarily be illegal.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Perhaps the "oath of office violation" definition would be better, the oath of office already includes a requirement to uphold the constitution which in turn upholds the bill of rights.

Why is and/or not acceptable? It is used at other points of the legal code, albeit not the criminal code. At the moment I lean toward or myself (hence my using it).

 

[Eluvatar]

In this context, and/or means or. Or is unacceptable. It'd be better to drop the portion about extra-North Pacifican interests entirely.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
20. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's sworn oath of office either wilfully or through negligence

Would this be better?

After all the oath of office is more specific than misuse in an illegal manner and includes acting in the best interests of the North Pacific

 

[Eluvatar]

That's.... a very different proposal.

Criminalizing inaction is a whole new ballgame.

 

[Gaspo]

In this context, and/or means or. Or is unacceptable. It'd be better to drop the portion about extra-North Pacifican interests entirely.

Do you have a reason why "either doing something illegal or acting in TNP for outside interests" is so unacceptable?

 

[Eluvatar]

You're proposing to criminalize any action by any TNP official which is "in pursuit of interests other than those of The North Pacific." This would introduce vast ambiguity into our criminal code and create either a serious chilling effect or disrespect for the law. One could lay criminal charges against an Attorney General for prosecuting someone of the opposite R/D alignment, one could lay criminal charges against the Delegate for signing any treaty, and create unnecessary disorder. My examples barely scratch the surface of the consequences.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to criminalize, at least as a first step, only such actions which are both willfully illegal and taken to further outside motives. Alternatively we could criminalize willfully illegal acts and forget about motives. Criminalizing legal acts taken in the (not necessarily exclusive) interest of something besides TNP is a recipe for disaster, however.

 

[Gaspo]

Ah but Elu, it has to be *willful*. There's a "mens rea" (state of mind) intent requirement there. What you're suggesting is that any action which furthers outside interests, will be criminal. That's not true. It'll be criminal if it intentionally furthers outside interests. The problem with using "and" is that nothing is illegal unless it benefits someone outside the region. That's not right, either.

Would you be alright with language such as "or which place the interests and benefits of others outside the region, above those of The North Pacific." So, for example, prosecuting along R/D lines would be illegal (as, frankly, it should be - enforce TNP's laws, keep the petty R/D bullshit out of it) because it would place the interests of one's R/D involvement, above anything else. It wouldn't criminalize, say, a government official admitting TNP made a mistake, which therefore diminishes our reputation in favor of others. That's a part of doing someone's job. The problem with *and* is that it's a meaningless law that is overly narrow in its possible applications.

Let's look at an example, to illustrate. Suppose that Asta were, in fact, a valid candidate for Justice, but was removed from the ballot anyways. That'd be a violation of the EC's obligations, but wouldn't be subject to this law, because it wouldn't *willfully* benefit an outside organization. It's still a serious issue, the exact kind of issue we're writing a law to prevent, and yet it would not be applicable.

 

[Eluvatar]

Ah but Elu, it has to be *willful*. There's a "mens rea" (state of mind) intent requirement there. What you're suggesting is that any action which furthers outside interests, will be criminal. That's not true. It'll be criminal if it intentionally furthers outside interests.

I'm far from sure that intentionally furthering interests other than those of the North Pacific should be something for criminal prosecution if it does not involve violation of the law.

The problem with using "and" is that nothing is illegal unless it benefits someone outside the region. That's not right, either.

Hence, I believe I would be fine with dropping the part about interests other than those of The North Pacific, and criminalizing simply willful misuse of powers in an illegal manner.

Would you be alright with language such as "or which place the interests and benefits of others outside the region, above those of The North Pacific." So, for example, prosecuting along R/D lines would be illegal (as, frankly, it should be - enforce TNP's laws, keep the petty R/D bullshit out of it) because it would place the interests of one's R/D involvement, above anything else.

How would you defend yourself against charges that you were prosecuting Ravania to advance your anti-R/D interests? Do you understand why I don't want that "or" in there?

It wouldn't criminalize, say, a government official admitting TNP made a mistake, which therefore diminishes our reputation in favor of others. That's a part of doing someone's job. The problem with *and* is that it's a meaningless law that is overly narrow in its possible applications.

Given that I expect I'm fine with applying just the first part but not okay with applying just the second, I suggest dropping the second part.

Let's look at an example, to illustrate. Suppose that Asta were, in fact, a valid candidate for Justice, but was removed from the ballot anyways. That'd be a violation of the EC's obligations, but wouldn't be subject to this law, because it wouldn't *willfully* benefit an outside organization. It's still a serious issue, the exact kind of issue we're writing a law to prevent, and yet it would not be applicable.

To be fair, "organization" isn't in the text.

 

[SillyString]

This sadly stalled out, so I'd like to bump it forward again. I've made some minor tweaks based on the discussion to the draft Zyvet wrote - Gross Misconduct was changed, and mention of the AG was removed as there is a comprehensive bill to address the AG's office coming up soon.

Amendments to Chapter 1 of the Legal Code

1. Chapter 1, Clause 1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows,

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.

2. Chapter 1, Section 1.8 and Chapter 1, Section 1.8, Clause 20 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific are renumbered as Chapter 1, Section 1.9 and Chapter 1, Section 1.9, Clause 21 respectively.

3. A new section of the Codified Law of The North Pacific that shall be numbered as Chapter 1, Section 1.8 is hereby created and shall read as follows,

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
20. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's sworn oath of office, either willfully or through negligence.

4. Chapter 2, Clause 4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby struck from the Codified Law of The North Pacific and Chapter 2, Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 are renumbered as Chapter 2, Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively.

5. A new clause of the Codified Law of The North Pacific that shall be numbered as Chapter 2, Clause 8 is hereby created and shall read as follows,

8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

As this was introduced under the old rules, it requires only a motion and a second to proceed to vote. I am not motioning it myself, at the moment, because I'd like to give people a chance to comment first.