Perjury Act

[plembobria]

Section 1.
The following shall be added to Section 3.3 of the legal code:

• Any nation testifying before the Court shall swear the following oath:

"I, [username], do solemnly swear that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under pains and penalties of perjury."

Section 2.
The following shall be added to Chapter 1 of the legal code:

• "Perjury" shall be defined as willfully deceiving the Court, after taking an oath or affirmation before an authorized judicial officer.

Section 3.
The following shall be added to Chapter 2 of the legal code:

• Perjury will be punished by the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

 

[Flemingovia]

Well done. You win the romanoffia prize for cut and pasting from United States law. The prize is that you get to sing this song:

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JzyhZ39BX3s[/video]


Now, on a more serious note, how do you enforce this

Perjury will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

Without breaking this:

each nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region.

In general I would say that I find the penalties clause too draconian and open to abuse.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Also, wouldnt lying to the court fall under the general crime of "fraud" which is already in our criminal code?

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

 

[Romanoffia]

Also, wouldnt lying to the court fall under the general crime of "fraud" which is already in our criminal code?

12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Possibly, but Perjury covers an intentional deception by falsehood or omission made for the benefit of and for the perjurer.

The TNP fraud statute specifically says: "made for some benefit or to damage another individual" and does not cover benefit to the individual committing the act of fraud.

So, under the current Fraud law, one can fabricate false evidence and lie through one's teeth for one's own benefit and it is in no way, shape or form fraud because it does not benefit or damage another individual.

 

[SillyString]

The TNP fraud statute specifically says: "made for some benefit or to damage another individual" and does not cover benefit to the individual committing the act of fraud.

So, under the current Fraud law, one can fabricate false evidence and lie through one's teeth for one's own benefit and it is in no way, shape or form fraud because it does not benefit or damage another individual.

Grammatically, it does, actually. This can be seen in treeing out this part of the sentence in question.

If we assume that "another individual" is applicable to both conditions, the sentence would tree out as follows:

"made (for some benefit) [or] (to damage) another individual"[note]Note that parentheses represent optional elements of a sentence at the discretion of the speaker, while brackets may or may not be mandatory depending on the surrounding structure. That is, the "or" is not tied to either clause in particular, but if one removes either of the conditions surrounding an "or" the "or" must also disappear. It is an element of uncertain necessity, but not choice.[/note]

Were this to be an acceptable possible reading, we would be able to remove "or to damage" and the sentence would remain grammatical - as "another individual" continue to apply to the former condition. However, doing that here, we see "made for some benefit another individual", which is in no way grammatical. The structure would need to be roughly parallel ("made to benefit or to damage another individual", for example, or "made for some benefit or some damage to another individual") in order for this to work[note]Astute readers will note that the latter construction contains both possible readings, as the first noun clause can stand either on its own or with a depending target. The former construction, on the other hand, contains two verb clauses which both require a depending target and is unambiguous in meaning - and therefore better.[/note], and so the correct parsing of the sentence is that "another individual" is a dependent component of damaging. That is, the correct tree is:

"made (for some benefit) or (to damage another individual)"

So fraud covers, roughly, any benefit of any kind to any person, but not self-damage.

 

[Romanoffia]

Now that would work to cover 'perjury' quite nicely.

 

[SillyString]

Uh... what would?

 

[Romanoffia]

Changing the dependent clause at the end of the law which limits damage or benefit to 'another' individual so as to clarify the law.

 

[plembobria]

Since the bill is apparently useless. I have edited part of it to make it more fun. I move for a vote.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Changing the dependent clause at the end of the law which limits damage or benefit to 'another' individual so as to clarify the law.

SillyString pointed out that grammatically the law does not have that limit already when it comes to who benefits.

 

[Lord Nwahs]

I think this honestly would benefit for a bit more informal debate. Motion to vote denied.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Isnt this thread digging? It hasnt been commented on in over a month?

 

[Lord Nwahs]

Isnt this thread digging? It hasnt been commented on in over a month?

I guess there's a reasonable interest in reviving this thread.

However, it clearly needs more debate.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I find the proposed punishment to be a completely inappropriate insult to a valued member of our community. I hope the proposer will think better of it.

 

[Romanoffia]

I find the proposed punishment to be a completely inappropriate insult to a valued member of our community. I hope the proposer will think better of it.

Does that mean r3n doesn't have to dress up as Elvis for the ceremony?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

So there wont be any shotgun weddings? Darn.

 

[JhawnathinJ]

Ya know what?
This bill is chill.
Ima be real slick and vote Aye.




Actually

:n2d

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I find the proposed punishment to be a completely inappropriate insult to a valued member of our community. I hope the proposer will think better of it.

Does that mean r3n doesn't have to dress up as Elvis for the ceremony?


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yeah, I agree with COE. I'm not really seeing how this was viewed as being amusing......

That said, I'd be supportive of r3n if he wanted to dress up as Elvis and start officiating marriages.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Oooooh McM can dress as cupid!

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I have no issue dressing up as Elvis. But that's beside the point.

As COE said, the current punishment for perjury is very inappropriate and should be removed immediately.

 

[plembobria]

I find the proposed punishment to be a completely inappropriate insult to a valued member of our community. I hope the proposer will think better of it.

COE, you have no sense of humor. I think very highly of SS. That said, I will edit the bill once more.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I can see some serious problems trying to prove intent. If someone believes they are being truthful, how is that perjury? Simple words on a screen are not sufficient.

 

[Romanoffia]

I can see some serious problems trying to prove intent. If someone believes they are being truthful, how is that perjury? Simple words on a screen are not sufficient.

Perjury is specifically defined as "the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation" in which instance one would not really have to prove intent, but could actually apply the Principle of The Reasonable Man. In applying this principle to establish a reasonable level of proof of intent, one would have to determine whether or not the act of perjury was materially sufficient by virtue of whether or not it was reasonable for the average person to believe something to be true or not based upon rational evidence.

For instance, if someone testifies to the truth of a fact to which they could have not possibly have witnessed, or knowingly makes a false claim before the Court, motive and intent would be moot.

This latter case would be especially true in TNP legal matters precisely because rarely, if ever, has anyone approached a court case or trial using the combined principle of means, motive and opportunity as a test.

On the other hand, perjury could be construed as 'fraud' per se in any instance.

 

[plembobria]

Should I move for a vote or withdraw the bill?

 

[Flemingovia]

Personally, I am still not feeling the love.

 

[Syrixia]

I support this suggestion from Plembobria, but we should not remove one's right to speech, etc etc. Instead we should simply ban them from the forum or the RMB for a short time. If that's too strict for you all or the opposite, then feel free to comment on this post.

 

[Andrew]

Should I move for a vote or withdraw the bill?

Depends on what you think mate.........

 

[plembobria]

Should I move for a vote or withdraw the bill?

Depends on what you think mate.........

I think not.

 

[Syrixia]

Should I move for a vote or withdraw the bill?

Depends on what you think mate.........

I think not.

Neither. We should continue the debate until we can get a clear vision of what we're voting for. Right now many are still suggesting tweaks to the law you proposed.

 

[Eluvatar]

While we're at it it might be a good idea to add penal guidelines for Fraud.

 

[Romanoffia]

While we're at it it might be a good idea to add penal guidelines for Fraud.

Something perhaps that doesn't drive someone from the region but seeks to reform them?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I can see some serious problems trying to prove intent. If someone believes they are being truthful, how is that perjury? Simple words on a screen are not sufficient.

Perjury is specifically defined as "the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation" in which instance one would not really have to prove intent, but could actually apply the Principle of The Reasonable Man. In applying this principle to establish a reasonable level of proof of intent, one would have to determine whether or not the act of perjury was materially sufficient by virtue of whether or not it was reasonable for the average person to believe something to be true or not based upon rational evidence.

For instance, if someone testifies to the truth of a fact to which they could have not possibly have witnessed, or knowingly makes a false claim before the Court, motive and intent would be moot.

This latter case would be especially true in TNP legal matters precisely because rarely, if ever, has anyone approached a court case or trial using the combined principle of means, motive and opportunity as a test.

On the other hand, perjury could be construed as 'fraud' per se in any instance.

Roman, you are making a facially false assumption that you can divine someone's intent just from the words used. You cannot disprove that someone believes that what they said is true without other evidence to prove a contradiction in a prior statement as to the same topic under the same circumstances and state of facts.

The proposed definition is flawed, or at least, the way you are trying to use it is. Either way, this is a bad bill and should not become part of the criminal code in this form.

 

[Romanoffia]

I can see some serious problems trying to prove intent. If someone believes they are being truthful, how is that perjury? Simple words on a screen are not sufficient.

Perjury is specifically defined as "the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation" in which instance one would not really have to prove intent, but could actually apply the Principle of The Reasonable Man. In applying this principle to establish a reasonable level of proof of intent, one would have to determine whether or not the act of perjury was materially sufficient by virtue of whether or not it was reasonable for the average person to believe something to be true or not based upon rational evidence.

For instance, if someone testifies to the truth of a fact to which they could have not possibly have witnessed, or knowingly makes a false claim before the Court, motive and intent would be moot.

This latter case would be especially true in TNP legal matters precisely because rarely, if ever, has anyone approached a court case or trial using the combined principle of means, motive and opportunity as a test.

On the other hand, perjury could be construed as 'fraud' per se in any instance.

Roman, you are making a facially false assumption that you can divine someone's intent just from the words used. You cannot disprove that someone believes that what they said is true without other evidence to prove a contradiction in a prior statement as to the same topic under the same circumstances and state of facts.

The proposed definition is flawed, or at least, the way you are trying to use it is. Either way, this is a bad bill and should not become part of the criminal code in this form.

Were that the case, nothing could be proved at all in the TNP legal system because everything that occurs is simply in the form of someone using words.

Under your definition, anyone can hurl any manner of damaging and false accusations against anyone, and because those accusations are purely in the form or words, no intent can be proved no matter how hateful or incorrect the accusations are.

And besides, if we removed the tool of slander/libel/perjury from TNP, then most people would be utterly stripped of any political impetus or ability. (That was parody, not to be taken seriously).

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I can see some serious problems trying to prove intent. If someone believes they are being truthful, how is that perjury? Simple words on a screen are not sufficient.

Perjury is specifically defined as "the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation" in which instance one would not really have to prove intent, but could actually apply the Principle of The Reasonable Man. In applying this principle to establish a reasonable level of proof of intent, one would have to determine whether or not the act of perjury was materially sufficient by virtue of whether or not it was reasonable for the average person to believe something to be true or not based upon rational evidence.

For instance, if someone testifies to the truth of a fact to which they could have not possibly have witnessed, or knowingly makes a false claim before the Court, motive and intent would be moot.

This latter case would be especially true in TNP legal matters precisely because rarely, if ever, has anyone approached a court case or trial using the combined principle of means, motive and opportunity as a test.

On the other hand, perjury could be construed as 'fraud' per se in any instance.

Roman, you are making a facially false assumption that you can divine someone's intent just from the words used. You cannot disprove that someone believes that what they said is true without other evidence to prove a contradiction in a prior statement as to the same topic under the same circumstances and state of facts.

The proposed definition is flawed, or at least, the way you are trying to use it is. Either way, this is a bad bill and should not become part of the criminal code in this form.

Were that the case, nothing could be proved at all in the TNP legal system because everything that occurs is simply in the form of someone using words.

Under your definition, anyone can hurl any manner of damaging and false accusations against anyone, and because those accusations are purely in the form or words, no intent can be proved no matter how hateful or incorrect the accusations are.

And besides, if we removed the tool of slander/libel/perjury from TNP, then most people would be utterly stripped of any political impetus or ability. (That was parody, not to be taken seriously).

The point you are missing Roman, is the issue of intent. Words alone cannot show the intent behind the words.

If this means that some types of conduct cannot be proven as a criminal offense within TNP law, well, you do have to prove intent for any type of criminal offense, that is, one has to show that the person intended to commit that specific crime. One cannot assume the intent behind the words, the intent has to be shown and proven.

That is the weakness with this proposed definition of a crime of "perjury," and some of the current criminal code provision may in fact suffer from the same flaw. But this is the flaw with this proposal nonetheless.