TNP v Rav

Abbey

Abbey

TNPer
What are your thoughts? I'd like to hear what you two think before I form a firm opinion myself.
 
At first glance, I believe the Prosecution has provided enough evidence to prove treason.

I am a little unsure about espionage because of the "for the purpose of gathering" clause of the Legal Code. I'm not 100% sure Ravania was a member of the TNP's defense forces for the purpose of gathering information and passing it to the UDL or any other group or region.

I need to think about that one with respect to the evidence submitted.
 
The Defence makes a good argument re: the wording of the espionage law. Did Ravania gather information *for* the UDL under the guise of a loyal TNP resident, or did he just share information that was already gathered. The evidence points to the latter, but the wording of the seems to suggest the former must be necessary to stand as espionage.

That being said, Prosecution Exhibit A shows him saying he'll organise it into a PDF, and then he posts the link. He used his position to gather information FOR the people in the UDL who wouldn't otherwise have access. They asked for screenshots, they asked for proof/more information, and Rav willingly obliged. Regardless of whether or not he was thinking, he still used his TNP nation to gather info for the UDL, and I think the Espionage laws cover that.

As for the treason charge... While I agree that providing classified information is and should be classed as providing material support, I'm not convinced by the evidence or arguments put forward that it was done *for the purpose of* undermining/overthrowing the lawful government. While Unibot did try and use the information to his advantage, it was after the fact, and I see no evidence that shows Rav did it SO Unibot would use the information.

I can see an argument that the reason for providing the logs was to show there was disharmony in the Government surrounding the decision and that people weren't happy with the Acting Delegate's decision and that this constitutes the Government being "undermined", but I think that's a very liberal definition of undermined and, in the context of the piece in the Legal Code, not the definition we should be applying.

So, my two cents are that I think espionage has been proved, but treason has not.
 
I'm with Sanc here. Espionage - the evidence and the law is preeeetty clear there. He was using his persona in TNP (at that point) to gather private information - and he was doing so willingly and putting it into a more convenient form for the UDL.

I don't think Treason has been proved, though. It hasn't been shown that it was provided for the purpose of undermining the Government, not even close. It was shown to make the Government look silly, but not undermine - that's a lot more serious, a lot more intention and malice behind it that just hasn't been shown.

I'll write something formal up in the space of the next half hour or so unless anybody's got any comments.
 
Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

arms.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Ravania, the Court rules as follows:

Ravania is found Guilty on the charge of Espionage.

Ravania is found Not Guilty on the charge of Treason.

Reasoning:

On the charge of Espionage, the Court felt that the Prosecution showed sufficient evidence that information was being gathered intentionally by Ravania in order to share with people who did not have the authority to see that information. The Court rejects the Defence's argument that Ravania's actions did not satisfy the requirement of gathering information, as the Court feels that the prodiction of a pdf file was sufficient to be included in a more normal definition of “to gather”.

On the charge of Treason, the Court felt that the Prosecution did not show, sufficiently, that the information was provided for the purpose of undermining the legitimate government of the region. Exposing disharmony, perhaps, but for this to count as “undermining” it would require an incredibly loose definition of “to undermine”, which the Court feels would be innappropriate. Treason, with the associated harsh penalties, calls for a stricter definition with much more intent that was shown by the Prosecution.

Sentence:

The Court orders that Ravania's voting rights be stripped for a period of 6 months. This means that, should Ravania join the Regional Assembly during the next six months, they will have no right to vote.
 
That's the word. And good point. Fixed.

EDIT: I missed the full stop too.

Any other issues or is this good to go with one hour left?
 
Although adjourning usually means to close with the intention of reopening.

Maybe you could just leave out "this Court is adjourned" altogether. Sentence has been issued, it's obvious it's over.
 
I think you all have convinced me regarding espionage.

But I still believe treason is even clearer.

I think his intent based upon the evidence provided was to get the UDL to act in a manner against TNP or at minimum seek to use UDL higher ups to influence TNP policy.
 
The evidence given to us doesn't show that. It just shows him venting in the UDL room before then gathering the proof, proving espionage, to show the people there. It doesn't show us saying "hey guys, look at this, let's get back at TNP".

Treason isn't being shown anywhere.
 
I'm fine with the ruling, but I tend to agree with Gaspo (miracles happen) that he was able to prove treason.

But, The sentence was light. Wish we would have discussed this prior to sentencing. The sentence would probably 'allow' Rav to join the military today.

Had no time to read all of this yesterday...grr. No one's fault, but wrong day to have an all day meeting.
 
We can't ban Rav from rejoining the military. Penal code says only sentences we can give for Espionage is restrictions on voting or freedom of speech.
 
Yes, me and Abbey both checked the Penal Code before the sentence was issued.
 
We cannot sentence anything other than: 3. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
 
I don't like that about the penal code for this type of crime. Obviously, would need a change to the Penal Code.
 
Then motion for a change. As it stands, we have to apply the law.

I know, how silly.
 
Why you feel the need to be sarcastic and coy with me in nearly all of our interactions escapes me.
 
Further discussion on this is not helpful nor appropriate since verdict and sentence have been issued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top