Reforming the Penal Code

[Eluvatar]

Back in 2012 when I put together the Revamped Legal Code I included the addition of a penal code almost as an afterthought. To be sure, I gave some thought to the relative severity of the crimes in the criminal code, but I don't think that limited amount of thought or discussion needs to stand for all time.

In the several convictions we have seen since, the penal code has had, in my impression, a fairly idiosyncratic role.

This is the current 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. 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.
5. 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.
6. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.
7. 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 the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

There are a few aspects I would like to improve on, and seek input toward:

1. The penal code refers throughout to 'basic rights' without defining the term. The Court has not, I think, had trouble understanding that this means rights of speech, voting, participating in government, access to petition et cetera. However I think that the word choice, sans definition, requires a deeper understanding of our system to parse than is perhaps necessary for this law. Like the Criminal Code, I think the Penal Code should be as accessible as practicable to any nation in our region. Perhaps some other simple word or phrase would be clearer, or perhaps a definition that references the Bill of Rights might work.

2. The clause on adspam is redundant with section 7.3: Onsite Authority, which authorizes the summary ejection or banning of recruiting nations or site rule breakers (i.e. flamers). I surmise we should remove it from the penal code.

3. The penal code says nothing on duration of sentences, not even as guidelines or suggestions, except that punishments for Espionage and Gross Misconduct must be finite (while punishments for Treason, COPS forum destruction crimes, or 'Proxying' may be indefinite). We've seen a few convictions and sentences at this point, and some have strong opinions on what those sentences should have looked like. I think we could add a little bit more specificity. If only as "between one and twenty four months" or something.

PS: I've deliberately avoided drafting a bill for this yet. Indeed, I'd welcome anybody who wants to write a bill in TNP taking this subject and drafting one, particularly if they haven't before. I intend to be here to help if anybody does so

 

[Kaschovia]

Chapter 2 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:

1. "Basic rights" is defined as the rights established within the Bill of Rights for All Nations of the North Pacific.
2. 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.
3. Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
4. Espionage will be punished by the suspension of speech and/or voting rights for a Court-determined duration of 1 - 24 months.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 the suspension of voting rights for a Court-determined duration of 1 - 24 months.

I have taken into account all of Elu's suggestions for improvements and drafted the above amendments. We have to start somewhere, so if there are any issues with the amendments I have suggested, please make it clear what they are and why so the idea can develop.

 

[SillyString]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the Court being able to impose punishments that strip someone of any right listed in the BoR - and in fact, I'm actively uncomfortable with the idea of most of them being revoked. They're pretty varied so I'll break it down a little.

Right the First: Sovreignty
This right is, in some sense, more basic than us, more fundamentally true than this government. Under no circumstances should the Court order a nation to decide issues in a certain way, or mandate that they be in or not in the WA, and in no way would such an order be directly enforceable - only indirectly, by removing someone who refused to comply, or imposing additional punitive measures.

Right the Second: Expression
This is a tough one. It's probably the closest any of these rights get to being sensibly restrictable. Yeah, if you get convicted of a serious crime, you might lose some of your speech access. But... how much?

Should the Court be able to restrict what you say? Probably not. What about where you say it? Maybe, depending on the situation, but that might more reasonably be a function of other penalties (e.g., if you lose your citizenship, you no longer get to post in citizen-only areas). I'm not really coming up with a reasonable situation where "You can post anywhere but in the RP area" (or wherever) is a sensible response.

Free press? "You can't have a newspaper, or right for one, if convicted" would be odd.

Free expression of religion? "You can't/must be flemingovian if convicted" is probably even more odd.

Right to assemble and petition for redress? I don't think the government stops being accountable to someone just because they've been convicted of a crime. We might not like hearing what they have to say, but I don't think that should be a factor.

Right the Third: Voluntary Participation
Definitely not a strippable right. The Court cannot force someone to involuntarily participate in the government. I guess it COULD require that someone be in (or not in) the WA in order to participate? That'd be an exceedingly odd requirement, but doable and enforceable. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Right the Fourth: Freedom of Endorsement
Like above, this is one where the Court COULD require it, but I don't see how it'd make tons of sense to do so. Require someone convicted of treason to endorse the legal delegate at all times, or lose citizenship? Forbid them from endorsing co-conspirators? I dunno, it's a bit.. iffy.

Right the Fifth: Protection from Abuse
Definitely not one the Court should be able to waive. I can't think of any circumstances when it would be appropriate to say that government officials are freely permitted to abuse their powers against a particular nation. As for the right to request recall... I guess that's one you could block, but it's another one I'm struggling to see a purpose for.

Right the Sixth: Double Jeopardy and Self-Incrimination
These are definitely ones that the Court should not be able to strip. Even being convicted of a crime is not an appropriate circumstance under which someone should be able to be convicted of the same crime again, or subjected to summary punishment, nor be forced (not that we can force it) to give testimony against themselves.

Right the Seventh: Fair Trial
This is very similar to the above, and should not be an appropriate approach for punishment. All nations, even prior convicts, should retain the right to a fair trial, to retain someone to defend themselves, to be presumed innocent, and to receive a fair and proportionate punishment if convicted.

Right the Eighth: Protection from Banning
This one is a bit turned around, in that it takes away the freedom to ban, rather than granting rights more directly. So it's not so much that a nation could be stripped of this right, as that a government official could be granted the right to use the powers of banning or ejection in otherwise illegal or unconstitutional ways.

That seems... unwise.

And like above, even a nation convicted of a crime should retain the right to judicial review if they are wrongfully banned.

Right the Ninth: Accountable Government
So, this one covers a lot of ground, but I think all of it falls into the category of "should not be subject to stripping". It makes no sense to say that one particular nation can be stripped of their right to accountable and democratic government - how would that even work? "It's okay to keep secrets, but only from THAT ONE GUY." Additionally, due process, fair treatment and protection, no ex post facto laws, and no bills of attainder all seem pretty fundamental. I don't think it'd be okay for the Court to say that, e.g., bills of attainder are fine against someone after they've been convicted.

Right the Tenth: Voting
This one is a smidge unusual. It doesn't actually grant anybody the right to vote - it says that anybody who has the right to vote is entitled to equal treatment and protection of their vote. So, the Speaker can't just decide to count some peoples' votes at half weight and others at double, and thereby skew the results of a legislative vote. So, this is another one I don't think the Court can reasonably strip. But I do think the court can strip the right to vote - something not laid out in the BoR.

Right the Eleventh: Emergencies
Yet another clause that's not phrased to give rights to nations, but to take it away from government officials. I'm also not sure how this one could be stripped by the Court - I guess it could say that government officials can suspend the law with respect to THAT ONE GUY?


---

I have more to say about what should be basic rights, but I have to leave work now so I'll write it later.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

On the subject of the extent of sentencing powers, I do think reference to the concept of "basic rights" is somewhat unhelpful. It is, for reasons outlined in the post above by SillyString, difficult to see a number of what are the most basic rights, those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, being restricted by any sentence (save that of ejection, which removes all rights as they are predicated on having a nation in the region). Further, it is a concept which clearly encompasses a wider range of rights than simply those in the Bill of Rights, the right to vote is granted by the Constitution to citizens not by the Bill of Rights to all nations, yet it has been (correctly, I would say) thought to have been one of those that the Court can restrict; so too has the right to stand for office been restricted, though it stems from the Codified Law, and the right to participate in public service through the NPA or as an ambassador, though these are without the written law entirely.

For that reason, I think that we would be better served if the law was express as to which rights it can be appropriately suspended. This may take the form, as it does now in relation to, say, Gross Misconduct by saying that a given offence can be punished by suspension of a given right or rights. Alternatively, it could be done through a clause classifying types of punishment which might be appropriate to certain levels of crime and then sorting the crimes into such that certain classes of crime are punishable by certain classes of punishment.

I do not think that minimum sentences are appropriate, however, I do think that most crimes ought to have a specified maximum in terms of duration rather than simply being of a "definite length" (though I do not think the Court has ever misused that power by setting a length that was inappropriately long though still definite). I would also think it might be useful for the Assembly to specify some guidelines as to sentences, or to create or empower a body or office to do so. Guidelines could specify appropriate ranges for crimes and different ways in which crimes may be committed, which may be particularly useful in relation to crimes like Gross Misconduct which can cover a wide range of criminal activity from breaching the law on the flag to severe abuse of government power. It might also be useful to specify whether there are factors which may justify the Court tending towards the upper end of a range, widespread use of the power of ejection in a coup may justify a higher sentence in relation to treason than if the couper had endeavoured to commit treason without "violence", or the lower (or going outside the range altogether).

It may be worth the Assembly considering whether to set up a specific arrangement to allow sentences to be delayed in when they commence (as was done by the Court in the tSRoNK case). Also, in relation to indefinite sentences, it might perhaps be worthwhile considering whether it would be appropriate to establish some mechanism by which they can be brought to an end, in whole or in part.

One final specific thing, the Code presently omits a specific punishment for fraud and election fraud, it would seem to me that the Assembly may want to devise an appropriate punishment for that rather than leaving it wholly within the Court's gift.

 

[Eluvatar]

SillyString is of course absolutely correct. Despite my aside, simply defining the rights which may be suspended in terms of the Bill of Rights is completely unworkable and inappropriate.

It seems clear we want definitions, and I agree with Zyvetskistaahn that we may want to define two or more classes of crimes (i.e. felonies and misdemeanors).

I'm loath to introduce more bodies with the ability to separately determine policy. Between the Regional Assembly, the Speaker, the Delegate, the Courts, and the Security Council, we have quite a few. Furthermore, this is a subject which we do not need regulation in finer detail than the Regional Assembly can provide, in my opinion.

I am inclined to agree that we do not need fraud and election fraud penalties to be less specified than for all other crimes.

Kasch, please let me know if you are interested in drafting a text that takes the above into account. I will gladly help you. (Or anyone else who wants a go at it).

 

[Sergio86]

Back in 2012 when I put together the Revamped Legal Code I included the addition of a penal code almost as an afterthought. To be sure, I gave some thought to the relative severity of the crimes in the criminal code, but I don't think that limited amount of thought or discussion needs to stand for all time.

In the several convictions we have seen since, the penal code has had, in my impression, a fairly idiosyncratic role.

This is the current 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. 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.
5. 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.
6. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.
7. 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 the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

There are a few aspects I would like to improve on, and seek input toward:

1. The penal code refers throughout to 'basic rights' without defining the term. The Court has not, I think, had trouble understanding that this means rights of speech, voting, participating in government, access to petition et cetera. However I think that the word choice, sans definition, requires a deeper understanding of our system to parse than is perhaps necessary for this law. Like the Criminal Code, I think the Penal Code should be as accessible as practicable to any nation in our region. Perhaps some other simple word or phrase would be clearer, or perhaps a definition that references the Bill of Rights might work.

2. The clause on adspam is redundant with section 7.3: Onsite Authority, which authorizes the summary ejection or banning of recruiting nations or site rule breakers (i.e. flamers). I surmise we should remove it from the penal code.

3. The penal code says nothing on duration of sentences, not even as guidelines or suggestions, except that punishments for Espionage and Gross Misconduct must be finite (while punishments for Treason, COPS forum destruction crimes, or 'Proxying' may be indefinite). We've seen a few convictions and sentences at this point, and some have strong opinions on what those sentences should have looked like. I think we could add a little bit more specificity. If only as "between one and twenty four months" or something.

PS: I've deliberately avoided drafting a bill for this yet. Indeed, I'd welcome anybody who wants to write a bill in TNP taking this subject and drafting one, particularly if they haven't before. I intend to be here to help if anybody does so

You can expand it as much as you want, you could add interpretations and concepts. I think its debatable how much is enough to make a conscious guideline on how to proceed when a crime is committed.

 

[Xyre]

I think we're on the right track here, but not quite there yet. I'll post more thoughts in the morning.

 

[Eluvatar]

In the absence of further thoughts, is there anyone interested in writing a bill? (With or without my assistance.)

 

[Synnaraka]

I propose the following Amendment to Chapter 2 of the Legal Code:

Spoiler

Chapter 2: Penal Code

Section 2.1: Available Sanctions
1. Criminal acts may be punished with the following sanctions or combination of sanctions:
a) Termination or suspension of voting rights
b) Suspension or permanent ban of running for public office
c) Suspension or permanent ban of forum access privileges
d) Ejection and banning from the Region[/list]

Section 2.2: Maximum Penalties
2. If found guilty of the following crimes, the maximum penalties are:
a) Treason will be punished by ejection and banning, and termination of forum access privileges for an indefinite period.
b) Espionage will be punished by the suspension of forum access for no longer than one year.
4. Crashing, Phishing or Spamming may be punished by ejection and banning, suspension of forum access privileges, and//or termination of forum access privileges for a period no longer than one year.
5. Proxying may be punished by ejection and banning, the suspension of forum access privileges, and/or the termination of forum access privileges for no longer than six months.
7. 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 the suspension of voting rights and suspension of eligibility to run for public office for no longer than 3 months.

Section 2.3: Review of Indefinite Sentences
1. Any nation subject to an indefinite forum or region ban is entitled to a maximum of three reviews of the indefinite ban. The reviews will be heard by the Judiciary.
2. Review requests will be sent via telegram to the Security Councilor indicated on the Region's page.
3. The first review may not be filed until one month after the initial conviction.
4. The second and third review may not be filed until three months after the ruling of the previous appeal.
5. If the decision of the third review is to uphold the indefinite sentence, the sentence will stand unless later overturned by the Judiciary.

While I don't know the history of past punishments within this region, I hope these proposed sanctions and lengths are acceptable. I chose to remove the language "removal of basic rights" because it was so broad, and could be interpreted as removing rights listed in the Bill of Rights, as stated by Zyvetskistaahn and Eluvatar. I've also written in a mechanism for indefinite sentences to be reviewed periodically. Finding a specific person to funnel these types of review requests to was a little difficult, but I felt the Security Councilor position made the most sense out of the people listed on our regional page.

This is my first time drafting legislation, so I welcome any and all feedback!

 

[SillyString]

I haven't reviewed the full text of your proposal, but just the Available Sanctions - since I realized I never posted my own thoughts on what punishments the Court should be able to impose.

I agree with all four on your list, and I have some additions. I would say that suspension and/or termination should be available for all of the following, though not all of the following may make sense as criminal punishments:

• The right to vote in the RA
• The right to vote in elections
• The right to serve as an elected official
• The right to serve as an appointed official
• The right to hold citizenship in TNP
• The right to hold residency in TNP
• The right to access the TNP forum
• The right to post on the TNP forum
• The right to post on the TNP RMB

This list would seem to deal only with rights (so to speak) that are laid out in the Constitution and the BoR, and not anything specified by the BoR. Intuitively, I like this split.

Now, it may or may not make sense to split some of these up, in practice, as I have done. Voting in the RA and voting in elections may make more sense as a package deal, "voting at all". Similarly, there may be no reason to sentence someone to "you cannot post on the forum for 3 months (but can still read it while logged in)" instead of "you are banned from the forum for 3 months".

And there may be others which don't make tons of sense in practice. The one about posting on the RMB, for example, would require monitoring of the nation in question, as well as potentially any/all known puppets, to ensure that they're not violating their punishment. It's not one we can enforce except after the fact - unlike, say, a forum ban.

 

[Eluvatar]

Last fall, Scorch and I put together a draft. Unfortunately, we let the draft accumulate dust for a few months. No more!

After some quick touchups in the last couple of days, I present to you a text for your rending pleasure!

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for 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, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, The East Pacific, and Balder.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful (intentional or reckless) deception of residents 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.
12. "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
13. "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.
14. "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.
15. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
16. "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.
17. 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.
18. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.

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

Section 1.6: Gross Misconduct
21. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

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

Section 1.8: Exceptions
23. 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. “Basic rights” is defined as voting rights, the right to stand for office, the right to participate in public service, and freedom of speech.
2. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court but this chapter may further specify the nature of a sentence that can be imposed.

Section 2.1: Felonies
3. Criminal acts considered to be felonies are Treason, Conspiracy (Treason), Espionage, Crashing, Phishing, Spamming, Proxying, and Gross Misconduct (willfully).
4. Felonies may be punished by ejection and banning, and the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the court sees fit.

Section 2.2: Misdemeanors
5. Criminal acts considered to be misdemeanors are Election Fraud, Fraud, Gross Misconduct (through negligence), and Conspiracy (anything but Treason).
6. Misdemeanors may be punished by the suspension of voting rights for a Court-determined duration of one to twenty four months.

Section 2.3: Gross Misconduct
7. Gross Misconduct, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, will also be punished by removal from office.

And also adding a section 3.4 to the Judicial Law:

Section 3.4: Reviewing a Sentence
18. Sentences exceeding 12 months may be reviewed after 12 months have elapsed at the request of the sentenced.
19. Review of a sentence will not result in a more severe sentence.
20. A standard procedure for reviewing sentences will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

Marking up of where this amends the Criminal Code will be provided Soon (tm).

With enormous thanks to Scorch, who has done most of the actual writing for this draft!

 

[Eluvatar]

As threatened promised this is the markup for Chapter 1:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for 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, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, The East Pacific, and Balder.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful (intentional or reckless) deception of residents 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.
12. "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
13. "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.
14. "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.
15. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
16. "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.
17. 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.
18. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.

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

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

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


Section 1.6: Gross Misconduct
21. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

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

Section 1.8: Exceptions
23. 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.

 

[Syrixia]

We'd be getting rid of the Delegate's power to regulate adspam? Why?

 

[Darcania]

We'd be getting rid of the Delegate's power to regulate adspam? Why?

It's not needed. Adspam is already regulated under section 7.3 clause 11.

 

[RPI]

I certainly plan throw my opinion into the ring on this. I plan to take some time to read the full text of this bill sometime tonight, so I'll jump in once I've read it.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I think the definition of treason could include ‘nation’ as well as ‘group’ and ‘region’ in order to be more specific and cover more eventualities.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Presently, the standard, in respect of the mental element of fraud and election fraud, is the same. This is because "willful" has been interpreted to be the same as "intentional" and that intention includes recklessness. However, the proposal slightly alters the definition of election fraud so as to insert after "(intentional or reckless)" after "willful".

It seems to me that, while making the use of the word willful clearer, it also potentially changes the meaning of "intentional" in relation to fraud, in that by separating intention and recklessness in relation to willfulness it may be said to, by implication, separate out recklessness from intention more broadly.

I do not have a particularly strong feeling on this matter, but I would like to be clear as to whether that is an expected consequence of the proposer? I would like to ask also as to why such an alteration is not made to Gross Misconduct, which also utilises the willfulness standard?

 

[Eluvatar]

We may want to introduce actual definitions and use them consistently.

In Gross Misconduct, "willful" is used in contrast to "through negligence". In Fraud, the word "intentional" is used, while in Election Fraud (currently) "willful" is used.

Election Fraud is intended to make misleading statements about elections more dangerous, legally, by reducing what needs to be proven to convict. If there is no difference in the needed intention to mislead, there is at least a lower standard for motive. (Election Fraud does not require a motive to be criminal.)

Adjusting this word usage may be out of scope for this bill, however. This bill would not particularly suffer for the removal of the inserted parenthetical.

 

[Eluvatar]

If we were to include touching up the Criminal Code in this bill, then I would try to systematize how we describe intent. I think it'd be appropriate to distinguish intent:

1. Intent to commit a specific act for a specific purpose, which is prohibited. (i.e. "for some benefit or to damage")
2. Intent to commit the act which is prohibited. (i.e. malice, malfeasance)
3. Acting without specific intent in an irresponsible manner which has a specific result and is prohibited. (i.e. recklessness, misfeasance)
4. Failure to act when required to (i.e. nonfeasance).

Do these four general categories make sense? Any suggestions for words to use for them? Should I start a new topic for this?

 

[Emmonak]

Let me have a go:

An Act to repeal and re-enact the penal code.
Be it enacted by the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific:
1. This Act shall be called the "Penal Code Reform Act, 2018."
2. Chapter 2 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific is hereby repealed.
3. (1) In this Act:
"banning" means banning from the region and suspension of the right to post on the forums on the region, and includes suspension for a term extending two months beyond the end of the period of banning;
"Class 2 felony" means any felony not being treason;
"felony" means any offense punishable by banning;
"misdemeanor" means any offense not a felony;
"recklessly" means failing to pay attention which a reasonable person would have paid, and thus resulting in an unlawful act being carried out;
"negligently" means omitting to do something which the actor has a legal obligation to do;
"suspension" means suspension of voting rights and the right to be a candidate for public office;
"willfully" means with intent to commit an act, whether or not the actor knew it was unlawful, and includes "intentionally".
(2) Any offense referred to in this Act is the offense of the same name as described in Chapter 1 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific.
4. The Court may impose only the following punishments upon a person who violates Chapter 1 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific, either for a limited time or indefinitely:
(a) ejection or banning from the region;
(b) removal of the right to vote;
(c) removal from a particular public office, and of the right to stand for election thereto; and
(d) suspension of the right to post on the forums of the region:
Provided that all "indefinite" sentences shall expire after five years, unless the Court determines that the offender continues to pose a risk to the region:
And provided further that the Court shall never impose a sentence for an offense greater than is shown corresponding thereto in the following sections.
5. Any person who commits treason shall be punished by banning indefinitely.
6. Any person who conspires to commit treason shall be punished by banning for two years.
7. Any person who commits espionage shall be punished by banning for twelve months.
8. Any person who commits crashing, spamming, or phishing shall be punished by banning for six months.
9. Any person who willfully commits gross misconduct shall be punished by banning for four months.
10. Any person who commits proxying shall be punished by banning for one month for each proxy used to gain an advantage or to circumvent a disadvantage, provided that the total shall not exceed three months.
11. Any person who intentionally commits election fraud shall be punished by suspension for eighteen months.
12. Any person who recklessly or willfully commits fraud shall be punished by suspension for six months.
13. Any person who negligently commits gross misconduct shall be punished by suspension for the term of office of their position.
14. Any person who conspires to commit a Class 2 felony or a misdemeanor shall be punished by suspension for three-quarters the term of the offense conspired to be committed.

 

[Romanoffia]

How about a clause which prohibits excessive or unusual penalties?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

On the proposal of Eluvatar and Scorch, I think that the punishment with respect to Election Fraud may need some tweaking (either to be a felony or to have a special provision, such as gross misconduct does). I say this because it seems to me that the offence is more easily committed by Election Commissioners and more likely to be committed by such Commissioners and candidates for election. Presuming this is right, it seems to me that it is fairly likely that those who commit the offence will hold office (either as Commissioners or, presuming the fraud succeeds, as successful candidates), and, consequently, it seems to me that considerations should be given to whether removal from office should be an available punishment.

I think also that some thought should maybe be given to whether gross misconduct necessarily needs to be punished by removal from office. At the time of its creation, gross misconduct related to the violation of the oath of office, so it could only be committed in one's capacity as an official. Since that time the scope of the offence has widened to include all legally mandated oaths (which is to say, it now also includes the citizenship oath, being the other oath required by law (leaving aside a potential question around oaths required by Rules)). This means that it would be possible for someone to, for example, commit gross misconduct as a citizen (say by misusing the coat of arms) but then be punished as an official, despite the wrong not relating to their official conduct.

It may be that we do not want those who have committed gross misconduct to continue as officials whatever the capacity in which they committed the offence, but I do think that it is worth considering.

Let me have a go:

An Act to repeal and re-enact the penal code.
Be it enacted by the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific:
1. This Act shall be called the "Penal Code Reform Act, 2018."
2. Chapter 2 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific is hereby repealed.
3. (1) In this Act:
"banning" means banning from the region and suspension of the right to post on the forums on the region, and includes suspension for a term extending two months beyond the end of the period of banning;
"Class 2 felony" means any felony not being treason;
"felony" means any offense punishable by banning;
"misdemeanor" means any offense not a felony;
"recklessly" means failing to pay attention which a reasonable person would have paid, and thus resulting in an unlawful act being carried out;
"negligently" means omitting to do something which the actor has a legal obligation to do;
"suspension" means suspension of voting rights and the right to be a candidate for public office;
"willfully" means with intent to commit an act, whether or not the actor knew it was unlawful, and includes "intentionally".
(2) Any offense referred to in this Act is the offense of the same name as described in Chapter 1 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific.
4. The Court may impose only the following punishments upon a person who violates Chapter 1 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific, either for a limited time or indefinitely:
(a) ejection or banning from the region;
(b) removal of the right to vote;
(c) removal from a particular public office, and of the right to stand for election thereto; and
(d) suspension of the right to post on the forums of the region:
Provided that all "indefinite" sentences shall expire after five years, unless the Court determines that the offender continues to pose a risk to the region:
And provided further that the Court shall never impose a sentence for an offense greater than is shown corresponding thereto in the following sections.
5. Any person who commits treason shall be punished by banning indefinitely.
6. Any person who conspires to commit treason shall be punished by banning for two years.
7. Any person who commits espionage shall be punished by banning for twelve months.
8. Any person who commits crashing, spamming, or phishing shall be punished by banning for six months.
9. Any person who willfully commits gross misconduct shall be punished by banning for four months.
10. Any person who commits proxying shall be punished by banning for one month for each proxy used to gain an advantage or to circumvent a disadvantage, provided that the total shall not exceed three months.
11. Any person who intentionally commits election fraud shall be punished by suspension for eighteen months.
12. Any person who recklessly or willfully commits fraud shall be punished by suspension for six months.
13. Any person who negligently commits gross misconduct shall be punished by suspension for the term of office of their position.
14. Any person who conspires to commit a Class 2 felony or a misdemeanor shall be punished by suspension for three-quarters the term of the offense conspired to be committed.

I should say, I think that any definition of intents would be best placed in Chapter 1, which defines the offences themselves rather than their punishments. Beyond that, as I have outlined earlier, I do not think that mandatory sentences are a good idea, generally, so I would not support this proposal insofar as it includes them. I should also note, to my mind, the sentence proposed for the Off-Site Property offences (i.e crashing, spamming, and phishing) is insufficient, these can be grave offences in the context of NS.

How about a clause which prohibits excessive or unusual penalties?

I should think that the prohibition on disproportionate punishment in clause 7 of the Bill of Rights (and, in the version proposed by Eluvatar and Scorch, in Chapter 2, clause 2) is sufficient.

 

[Eluvatar]

How about this?

Section 2.3: Gross Misconduct
7. Gross Misconduct regarding an oath of office, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, will also be punished by removal from the same office.

 

[Emmonak]

I guess I shall have to try again. Note that I agree with Eluvatar in his opposition to mandatory sentences, but I still think offenders have a right to know what sentence they will get before they do something. Therefore, I have copied Alaska's penal code in classifying offenses and placing "presumptive ranges" of sentences.

An act to repeal and re-enact with amendment Chapters 1 and 2 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific and to consolidate the law relating to criminal offenses.
Be it enacted by the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific:
1. This Act may be cited as the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 2018, and is composed of the Criminal Code Revision Act of 2018 and the Penal Code Reform Act, 2018.
2. A reference to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific in any law is a reference to the Criminal Code Revision Act of 2018 and the Penal Code Reform Act, 2018, respectively.
3. (1) Chapters 1 and 2 of the Legal Code of the North Pacific are hereby repealed.
(2) Their repeal shall not affect any criminal prosecution ongoing at the enactment of this Act.
4. Crimes shall be divided into felonies and misdemeanors. Felonies are further divided into Class 1 felonies, which include treason, crashing, spamming, and phishing, and Class 2 felonies, which include attempts to commit Class 1 felonies, and all other offenses punishable by banning for more than one year.
5. A person who commits a Class 1 felony shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of five years of banning.
6. A person who commits a Class 2 felony shall be sentenced:
(a) for a first felony conviction, to one to two years of banning;
(b) for a second or subsequent felony conviction, to eighteen to thirty-six months of banning.
7. A person who commits a misdemeanor shall be sentenced:
(a) for a first conviction, to suspension not exceeding one year;
(b) for a second conviction, to suspension not exceeding two years, and banning not exceeding six months;
(c) for a third or subsequent conviction, to suspension not exceeding five years, and banning not exceeding one year.
8. In the following chapters of this Act:
"banning" means banning from the region and suspension of the right to post on the forums on the region, and includes suspension for a term extending two months beyond the end of the period of banning;
"recklessly" means failing to pay attention which a reasonable person would have paid, and thus resulting in an unlawful act being carried out;
"negligently" means omitting to do something which the actor has a legal obligation to do;
"suspension" means suspension of voting rights and the right to be a candidate for public office;
"willfully" means with intent to commit an act, whether or not the actor knew it was unlawful, and includes "intentionally".
CHAPTER 1 - THE CRIMINAL CODE REVISION ACT OF 2018
1. (1) A person commits treason if they fight against or help in any other way a lawful government of the North Pacific or any of its allies with which it has signed a treaty of alliance.
(2) It shall be sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the defendant maintained a nation within the North Pacific or held any public office therein, while also maintaining a nation within a region with which the North Pacific was at war.
2. (1) A person commits-
(a) crashing, if they cause a forum to become unable to be viewed or posted to, or delete any of its posts;
(b) phishing, if they obtain any personal data that would not be desirable for public view held in the forum;
(c) spamming, if they send so many messages that crashing, as defined in paragraph (a) of this subsection, occurs.
(2) It shall be sufficient for the prosecution to prove an attempt to commit any of the acts described in the last preceding subsection.
3. A person commits sedition if they encourage nations in the North Pacific to rebel against its lawful government, when not sanctioned by its Constitution.
4. A person commits espionage if they gather any information accessible only to public officers, and delivers it to another region.
5. A person commits election fraud in the first degree if they intentionally mislead others offering to vote in an election as to information required for voters in that election.
6. A person commits election fraud in the second degree if they recklessly or willfully commit the act referred to in the last section.
7. A person commits gross misconduct in the first degree if they willfully violate their duly sworn oath of office.
8. A person commits gross misconduct in the second degree if they negligently violate such an oath.
9. A person commits proxying if they use any device that masks their IP address to create the impression of being a different person.
CHAPTER 2 - PENAL CODE REFORM ACT, 2018
1. Treason is a Class 1 felony.
2. An attempt to commit treason is a Class 2 felony.
3. Crashing, phishing, and spamming are Class 1 felonies.
4. Sedition is a Class 2 felony.
5. Espionage is a Class 2 felony.
6. Election fraud in the first degree is a Class 2 felony.
7. Gross misconduct in the first degree is a Class 2 felony.
8. An attempt to commit the offenses set out in the last foregoing four sections is a misdemeanor.
9. Election fraud in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
10. Gross misconduct in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
11. Proxying is a Class 1 felony.

 

[SillyString]

Therefore, I have copied Alaska's penal code in classifying offenses and placing "presumptive ranges" of sentences.

Sorry, but in TNP we only draw from North Carolina and Kentucky legal codes.

 

[Eluvatar]

Bump:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for 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, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, The East Pacific, and Balder.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful (intentional or reckless) deception of residents 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.
12. "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
13. "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.
14. "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.
15. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
16. "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.
17. 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.
18. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.

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

Section 1.6: Gross Misconduct
21. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

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

Section 1.8: Exceptions
23. 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. “Basic rights” is defined as voting rights, the right to stand for office, the right to participate in public service, and freedom of speech.
2. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court but this chapter may further specify the nature of a sentence that can be imposed.

Section 2.1: Felonies
3. Criminal acts considered to be felonies are Treason, Conspiracy (Treason), Espionage, Crashing, Phishing, Spamming, Proxying, and Gross Misconduct (willfully).
4. Felonies may be punished by ejection and banning, and the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the court sees fit.

Section 2.2: Misdemeanors
5. Criminal acts considered to be misdemeanors are Election Fraud, Fraud, Gross Misconduct (through negligence), and Conspiracy (anything but Treason).
6. Misdemeanors may be punished by the suspension of voting rights for a Court-determined duration of one to twenty four months.

Section 2.3: Gross Misconduct
7. Gross Misconduct regarding an oath of office, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, will also be punished by removal from the same office.

And also adding a section 3.4 to the Judicial Law:

Section 3.4: Reviewing a Sentence
18. Sentences exceeding 12 months may be reviewed after 12 months have elapsed at the request of the sentenced.
19. Review of a sentence will not result in a more severe sentence.
20. A standard procedure for reviewing sentences will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

Markup for Chapter 1:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for 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, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, The East Pacific, and Balder.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful (intentional or reckless) deception of residents 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.
12. "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
13. "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.
14. "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.
15. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
16. "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.
17. 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.
18. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.

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

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

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


Section 1.6: Gross Misconduct
21. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

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

Section 1.8: Exceptions
23. 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.

 

[Funkadelia]

I think the revamp of the penal code will make things a little simpler, and I imagine it will also be considerably easier to add new crimes to the code as they may become necessary.

 

[Eluvatar]

Official bill (texts to be enacted identical to above):

1. Chapter 1 of the Legal Code will be replaced in its entirety as follows:

Chapter 1: Criminal Code

1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for 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, Equilism, Europeia, Albion, The East Pacific, and Balder.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "Espionage" is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.

Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful (intentional or reckless) deception of residents 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.
12. "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
13. "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.
14. "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.
15. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
16. "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.
17. 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.
18. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.

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

Section 1.6: Gross Misconduct
21. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

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

Section 1.8: Exceptions
23. 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.

2. Chapter 2 of the Legal Code will be replaced in its entirety as follows:

Chapter 2: Penal Code

1. “Basic rights” is defined as voting rights, the right to stand for office, the right to participate in public service, and freedom of speech.
2. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court but this chapter may further specify the nature of a sentence that can be imposed.

Section 2.1: Felonies
3. Criminal acts considered to be felonies are Treason, Conspiracy (Treason), Espionage, Crashing, Phishing, Spamming, Proxying, and Gross Misconduct (willfully).
4. Felonies may be punished by ejection and banning, and the removal of any and all basic rights for whatever duration the court sees fit.

Section 2.2: Misdemeanors
5. Criminal acts considered to be misdemeanors are Election Fraud, Fraud, Gross Misconduct (through negligence), and Conspiracy (anything but Treason).
6. Misdemeanors may be punished by the suspension of voting rights for a Court-determined duration of one to twenty four months.

Section 2.3: Gross Misconduct
7. Gross Misconduct regarding an oath of office, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, will also be punished by removal from the same office.

3. A section will be added to Chapter 3 of the Legal Code as follows:

Section 3.4: Reviewing a Sentence
18. Sentences exceeding 12 months may be reviewed after 12 months have elapsed at the request of the sentenced.
19. Review of a sentence will not result in a more severe sentence.
20. A standard procedure for reviewing sentences will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

 

[SillyString]

Not being able to quote your quotes makes this tricky.

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.

I suggest rephrasing this slightly to allow for better verb flow:

'"Treason" is defined as 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, or taking arms against the same.'

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.

I would strike "Specifically". That word makes it sound like this clause is an explanation or clarification of the previous one, not an additional way to commit treason. I would also change it so that it's clear that doing so is treason, not simply saying it's not allowed.

'"Treason" is additionally defined as a player maintaining a nation in TNP, or participating in the governance thereof, while also maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP.'

I'm not thrilled with that language but it's a start.

11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful (intentional or reckless) deception of residents 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.
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

I am quoting these together because my comment deals with both of them. I am concerned that the change that is suggested does something different than what it appears to do. That is, it appears that it expands Election Fraud to include both intentional and reckless deception, but what it actually might do is restrict Fraud to only including intentional deception. It would require a court case to determine for sure, but there is a court ruling on Fraud which specifically says that "willful" and "intentional" deception are the same thing, and that they both include both intentional and reckless behavior.

I am not inherently opposed to making a change to the standard of proof required to show two different kinds of fraud - it may very well make sense for there to be a lower bar for the commission of Election Fraud, as it deals with fundamental rights and freedoms of voting, where plain Fraud is just misleading people. But I would like to make sure that any amendment we adopt to effect this change is clearly marked for the general public, so that they are not misled about what is happening.

19. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.

Folks may recall that I recused myself from considering the criminal charges of Proxying (and other crimes) brought over the summer against an individual. I believed myself to have a conflict of interest in that matter due to the specific wording of this crime, and I think it is high time that it be changed. For those not familiar with the issue here (I know Elu is), let me explain:

1) I have two accounts on this forum (this one and Queen Astarial), and very briefly - during and shortly after the forum transition - I had a third (SillySkin). I am not the only one in this situation. Gracius Maximus has two as well (the other being Pierconium). Erastide/FEC had two during the forum transition, but they were later merged together. Eluvatar/Zemnaya Svoboda has two. These are just the few off the top of my head. All of these multiple accounts exist with the knowledge and consent of forum administration. Some are or were for administrative needs, others for in character gameplay reasons.

2) XenForo has a feature which allows the "linking" of multiple accounts, such that one account is considered a user's main, and others are subordinate accounts. This is something we have considered encouraging for our RP community, as it would allow them to make their posts as different nations more clearly in the correct character, and prevent some degree of possible confusion.

3) The root administrator account is, I believe, accessible to two admins at this time. Admins are also able to access any user's account at will if necessary in the course of their duties.

Based on the plain text of the law, all of these fall afoul of "any practice which allows a member multiple accounts". This is, obviously, patently absurd - it is nonsensical to say that I am "proxying" when I asked "Hey can I have these two accounts and keep them separate, since one is a foreign envoy and one is a citizen", and it is equally nonsensical to say that the admins were "proxying" when they said that that was okay. But that is what the law appears to say.

We should, instead, focus on what proxying really is, and what we're trying to prevent. The real problem is when, through the use of a proxy server, multiple devices, or other means of hiding their identity, an individual a) is able to obtain multiple citizenship accounts, thus letting them vote more than once, hold more than one office, and so on; or b) is able to gain citizenship or access to the forum that they would not have been granted had their true identity been known, such as if someone banned for committing a crime made a new account.

20. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.

This clause has always bothered me because it's not clear at all what it means. In some places in the laws "government" refers to all branches; here it seems to indicate that it excludes the court. Let's be more specific about who needs to be told: I say it should be the Delegate, the Speaker, and the Attorney General. It's really not the Court's business unless the AG wants to bring a complaint. What is the court supposed to do with that information? Proactively convict?

You could even include the Security Council, if you wanted - one could argue they have a need to know if someone is attempting to sneak in.

1. "Basic rights" is defined as voting rights, the right to stand for office, the right to participate in public service, and freedom of speech.

I would change this a little bit:

'"Basic rights" are defined as: the right to access the TNP forum; the right to hold citizenship or residency; the right to vote; the right to hold or stand for elected or appointed office; the right to participate in public service; and freedom of speech.'

2. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court but this chapter may further specify the nature of a sentence that can be imposed.

Run-on. Try this: "Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights in a manner proportionate to the crime, at the discretion of the Court. Further restrictions on sentences that may be imposed will be specified in this chapter."

No comment from me currently on felonies vs. misdemeanors, as I have not carefully considered the breakdown. One note, though - it seems odd that Fraud and Election Fraud would be the same category of crime, when the standard of proof for them is being differentiated.

7. Gross Misconduct regarding an oath of office, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, will also be punished by removal from the same office.

The phrasing on this seems strange but I can't quite pin down why. I do agree with the premise, though.

Section 3.4: Reviewing a Sentence
18. Sentences exceeding 12 months may be reviewed after 12 months have elapsed at the request of the sentenced.
19. Review of a sentence will not result in a more severe sentence.
20. A standard procedure for reviewing sentences will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

I like this addition, but I have some changes to suggest:

Section 3.4: Reviewing a Sentence
18. Sentences which restrict a nation's rights for longer than 12 months may be reviewed by the Court after 12 months have elapsed, at the request of the convicted nation or their chosen counsel.
19. The Court may sustain, reduce, or eliminate the remaining time that a nation's rights will be restricted. If multiple rights were restricted for longer than 12 months, the Court may consider each right separately. The Court may not increase the amount of time a nation's rights will be restricted, nor may it add additional restrictions beyond the original sentence.
20. A standard procedure for reviewing sentences will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

 

[Eluvatar]

Not being able to quote your quotes makes this tricky.

Yeah

I can quote your quotes if I copy+paste, at least?

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.

I suggest rephrasing this slightly to allow for better verb flow:

'"Treason" is defined as 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, or taking arms against the same.'

Works for me.

I also like the earlier suggestion from @Gracius Maximus I forgot about to include nation in addition to "group or region":

"Treason" is defined as providing material support to a nation, group, or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of TNP (The North Pacific) or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution, or taking arms against the same.

While we're touching it up, I want to define TNP.

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.

I would strike "Specifically". That word makes it sound like this clause is an explanation or clarification of the previous one, not an additional way to commit treason. I would also change it so that it's clear that doing so is treason, not simply saying it's not allowed.

'"Treason" is additionally defined as a player maintaining a nation in TNP, or participating in the governance thereof, while also maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP.'

I'm not thrilled with that language but it's a start.

That it's in the Treason section and is not defining another crime makes it sufficiently clear that it's about Treason, but clarifying that, and especially being clear that it's not an alternate definition but an additional one is sensible.

I would go with:

3. "Treason" is also defined as a player maintaining a nation in TNP, or participating in the governance thereof, also maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP.

11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful (intentional or reckless) deception of residents 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.
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

I am quoting these together because my comment deals with both of them. I am concerned that the change that is suggested does something different than what it appears to do. That is, it appears that it expands Election Fraud to include both intentional and reckless deception, but what it actually might do is restrict Fraud to only including intentional deception. It would require a court case to determine for sure, but there is a court ruling on Fraud which specifically says that "willful" and "intentional" deception are the same thing, and that they both include both intentional and reckless behavior.

I am not inherently opposed to making a change to the standard of proof required to show two different kinds of fraud - it may very well make sense for there to be a lower bar for the commission of Election Fraud, as it deals with fundamental rights and freedoms of voting, where plain Fraud is just misleading people. But I would like to make sure that any amendment we adopt to effect this change is clearly marked for the general public, so that they are not misled about what is happening.

I agree that we should explicitly and publicly discuss this. I think I will also note it in the post showing the final annotation for changes to the criminal code.

We should also have a discussion as to what level of intention needs to be proven for accusations of Fraud. The most relevant example court case may be TNP v Grosseschnauzer, in which our former root administrator was accused of Fraud for making unsubstantiated accusations of supporting a possible coup d'etat against the Speaker. What kind of statement is an "intentional deception"? One which is unsupported, one which no reasonable writer would believe, or one which the writer didn't believe?

19. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.

Folks may recall that I recused myself from considering the criminal charges of Proxying (and other crimes) brought over the summer against an individual. I believed myself to have a conflict of interest in that matter due to the specific wording of this crime, and I think it is high time that it be changed. For those not familiar with the issue here (I know Elu is), let me explain:

1) I have two accounts on this forum (this one and Queen Astarial), and very briefly - during and shortly after the forum transition - I had a third (SillySkin). I am not the only one in this situation. Gracius Maximus has two as well (the other being Pierconium). Erastide/FEC had two during the forum transition, but they were later merged together. Eluvatar/Zemnaya Svoboda has two. These are just the few off the top of my head. All of these multiple accounts exist with the knowledge and consent of forum administration. Some are or were for administrative needs, others for in character gameplay reasons.

2) XenForo has a feature which allows the "linking" of multiple accounts, such that one account is considered a user's main, and others are subordinate accounts. This is something we have considered encouraging for our RP community, as it would allow them to make their posts as different nations more clearly in the correct character, and prevent some degree of possible confusion.

3) The root administrator account is, I believe, accessible to two admins at this time. Admins are also able to access any user's account at will if necessary in the course of their duties.

Based on the plain text of the law, all of these fall afoul of "any practice which allows a member multiple accounts". This is, obviously, patently absurd - it is nonsensical to say that I am "proxying" when I asked "Hey can I have these two accounts and keep them separate, since one is a foreign envoy and one is a citizen", and it is equally nonsensical to say that the admins were "proxying" when they said that that was okay. But that is what the law appears to say.

We should, instead, focus on what proxying really is, and what we're trying to prevent. The real problem is when, through the use of a proxy server, multiple devices, or other means of hiding their identity, an individual a) is able to obtain multiple citizenship accounts, thus letting them vote more than once, hold more than one office, and so on; or b) is able to gain citizenship or access to the forum that they would not have been granted had their true identity been known, such as if someone banned for committing a crime made a new account.

1-2) I agree, the clause should be reworked. I would draft, to start with:

19. "Proxying" is defined as any practice such as use of a proxy server or multiple computers to deceive forum administration and render a forum user anonymous preventing identification with a player who would not be permitted the access they seek or allow a player to secretly control multiple forum accounts.

20. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.

This clause has always bothered me because it's not clear at all what it means. In some places in the laws "government" refers to all branches; here it seems to indicate that it excludes the court. Let's be more specific about who needs to be told: I say it should be the Delegate, the Speaker, and the Attorney General. It's really not the Court's business unless the AG wants to bring a complaint. What is the court supposed to do with that information? Proactively convict?

You could even include the Security Council, if you wanted - one could argue they have a need to know if someone is attempting to sneak in.

There are two interpretations of the use of "Government" in this clause, I think.

1. The legal code revamp was initially drafted with a British style of use for the word "Government" in mind, and some artefacts snuck in.
2. The clause means the entire government in general, but the Court especially in particular.

Ultimately the Court would require testimony from forum administrators as to relevant observations by forum administrators in any criminal case of Proxying. But that doesn't mean the same administrators should go to the Court unsolicited.

Do we need to separately require admins to testify in some fashion?

1. "Basic rights" is defined as voting rights, the right to stand for office, the right to participate in public service, and freedom of speech.

I would change this a little bit:

'"Basic rights" are defined as: the right to access the TNP forum; the right to hold citizenship or residency; the right to vote; the right to hold or stand for elected or appointed office; the right to participate in public service; and freedom of speech.'

I'm not sure which of "is" or "are" is more appropriate here. In one sense it's "[The phrase] 'basic rights' is, in another it's "Basic rights are".

Adding a colon is helpful.

I think "the right to ... residency" suggests residency is a legal status which is granted or revoked through formal process, rather than a material state of being which can be lost through CTE or ejection. I'd prefer the right to residence.

2. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court but this chapter may further specify the nature of a sentence that can be imposed.

Run-on. Try this: "Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights in a manner proportionate to the crime, at the discretion of the Court. Further restrictions on sentences that may be imposed will be specified in this chapter."

No comment from me currently on felonies vs. misdemeanors, as I have not carefully considered the breakdown. One note, though - it seems odd that Fraud and Election Fraud would be the same category of crime, when the standard of proof for them is being differentiated.

I severely dislike multi-sentence clauses. They are less bad than sentences which are difficult to parse, however.

I think this clause can actually be broken into two:

2. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court.
3. This chapter will further specify what sentences may be imposed.

7. Gross Misconduct regarding an oath of office, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, will also be punished by removal from the same office.

The phrasing on this seems strange but I can't quite pin down why. I do agree with the premise, though.

I mean, it has a parenthetical delimited by commas.

Section 3.4: Reviewing a Sentence
18. Sentences exceeding 12 months may be reviewed after 12 months have elapsed at the request of the sentenced.
19. Review of a sentence will not result in a more severe sentence.
20. A standard procedure for reviewing sentences will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

I like this addition, but I have some changes to suggest:

Section 3.4: Reviewing a Sentence
18. Sentences which restrict a nation's rights for longer than 12 months may be reviewed by the Court after 12 months have elapsed, at the request of the convicted nation or their chosen counsel.
19. The Court may sustain, reduce, or eliminate the remaining time that a nation's rights will be restricted. If multiple rights were restricted for longer than 12 months, the Court may consider each right separately. The Court may not increase the amount of time a nation's rights will be restricted, nor may it add additional restrictions beyond the original sentence.
20. A standard procedure for reviewing sentences will be established by majority agreement of the Court.

Why specify "which restrict a nation's rights"? Is there some other form of sentence which the penal code authorizes?

Why do you want to specify counsel can request? Should counsel, who may not remain in contact with a convicted nation 12 months later, remain empowered to represent them without explicit confirmation of this? Does "the sentenced" somehow imply that convicted nations are denied the representation by counsel which they are guaranteed by the bill of rights in this review process?

Why do we need so many words to define what's being reviewed, when what a sentence consists of has already been established in the same chapter? Why do we explicitly need to allow the Court to consider separate parts of a sentence separately?

It may be proper to be more specific than "more severe" however, and explicitly specify that review cannot make any part of the sentence longer or add other restrictions, of course.

 

[SillyString]

I agree with adding in "nation" to the first clause of this crime.

3. "Treason" is also defined as a player maintaining a nation in TNP, or participating in the governance thereof, also maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP.

Double "also" makes it wonky. "While" would be preferable to also IMO.

We should also have a discussion as to what level of intention needs to be proven for accusations of Fraud. The most relevant example court case may be TNP v Grosseschnauzer, in which our former root administrator was accused of Fraud for making unsubstantiated accusations of supporting a possible coup d'etat against the Speaker. What kind of statement is an "intentional deception"? One which is unsupported, one which no reasonable writer would believe, or one which the writer didn't believe?

None of those three fit the definition of intentional deception for me - I think it consists of multiple parts.

Ignoring what the court ruling already says for the sake of laying out a suggestion for a fresh start, I would consider intentional deception to be making a statement of fact which one knows to be false but which someone else could reasonably believe to be true, and where the truth or falsity of that statement is reasonably likely to impact the actions or decisions of another person. Reckless deception for me would be similar, but would encompass statements of facts which the speaker should reasonably be expected to know are untrue, or where they have, to use a linguistics term of art, "bullshitted" - stated something uncaring of its truth value.

1) "SillyString is incompetent and you should not vote for her": Not intentional or reckless deception because it is a statement of opinion, not fact
2) "SillyString has been legally classified as a potato": Not intentional or reckless deception because someone could not reasonably believe it to be true (even though if it were true it would reasonably impact their likeliness of voting for me).
3) "SillyString thinks CyberNations is better than NationStates": Not intentional or reckless deception because whether or not I think that is not reasonably likely to impact someone else's decision of whether to vote for me.
4) "SillyString's citizenship and candidacy are illegal because she and Siwale are actually controlled by the same person": Possibly intentional deception if the speaker knows that this claim is untrue; would not be intentional deception if they had been told this by someone else and given doctored screenshots showing a match in IP addresses. Possibly reckless deception even if not intentional, though, if a reasonable person would have known that the source was unreliable.
5) "SillyString can't legally run for justice because we have a two-term limit on all offices": Probably reckless deception, since any brief perusal of the legal code would indicate that this statement is untrue, and thus the speaker is simply uncaringly making up information about the law.

19. "Proxying" is defined as any practice, such as the use of a proxy server or multiple computers, to deceive forum administration and render a forum user anonymous thereby preventing identification with as a player who would not be permitted the access they seek, or to allow a player to secretly control multiple forum accounts.

I think this flows better.

Ultimately the Court would require testimony from forum administrators as to relevant observations by forum administrators in any criminal case of Proxying. But that doesn't mean the same administrators should go to the Court unsolicited.

Do we need to separately require admins to testify in some fashion?

I don't think we need to specifically require admins to testify. I think requiring them to inform the AG is enough - I can't imagine admins would say "Yeah, we told the AG there was proxying, but we refuse to provide the evidence of that to the Court". Even if one particular admin didn't want to cooperate or disagreed that the evidence indicated proxying was going on, surely at least one would take their responsibility seriously.

Even aside from that, though, I'm not sure there's a mechanism to compel admins (or anyone else) to testify.

I think "the right to ... residency" suggests residency is a legal status which is granted or revoked through formal process, rather than a material state of being which can be lost through CTE or ejection. I'd prefer the right to residence.

I think there's actually two separate things here. "Residence" to me indicates "the right to have a nation in TNP", while "Residency" indicates the legal rights that usually go along with having a nation in TNP. One could hypothetically have a nation with residence which has been stripped of its residency rights - the right to apply for citizenship, the right to access the residents-only area of the RA, the ability to act as a deputy AG, the ability to view declassified documents, and the right to request the release of classified documents and to complain to the court if denied.

I'm probably fine with changing it to "residence" instead, just wanted to clarify that I see them as somewhat different.

2. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court.
3. This chapter will further specify what sentences may be imposed.

Works for me.

I mean, it has a parenthetical delimited by commas.

That's actually not the part that's bothering me.

Why specify "which restrict a nation's rights"? Is there some other form of sentence which the penal code authorizes?

I think it's possible, though perhaps not likely, to interpret the existing phrasing as indicating that any sentence can be reviewed 12 months after it is imposed, and possibly retroactively (?) lifted. I also think the phrasing "Sentences exceeding" is a strange verb to go with that noun.

There is also the possibility that we could add additional ways to punish a nation that are not restrictions on their basic rights. For example, we might want to grant the Court the power to say that an individual may not hold moderation or admin permissions on the forum, or may not be granted in-game regional officer powers, as a result of some conviction. I don't think those are basic rights as they are not something just everyone is entitled to.

Why do you want to specify counsel can request? Should counsel, who may not remain in contact with a convicted nation 12 months later, remain empowered to represent them without explicit confirmation of this? Does "the sentenced" somehow imply that convicted nations are denied the representation by counsel which they are guaranteed by the bill of rights in this review process?

Because not all nations are eloquent and well-versed in legal theory, and may not be the best people to argue for leniency for themselves. I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to be able to ask someone to make that argument on their behalf.

I do not think that that counsel needs to be identical to the counsel who represented them at their trial, if any. I do think the nation should need to specifically request their counsel take this step (or, at least, grant explicit consent if the counsel suggests it). I do think that "the sentenced" indicates that it is just the convicted nation who must make the request; moreover, the bill of rights does not specifically grant the right to counsel in a sentencing review and, unless defined here as also allowed, it might take a review by the court to specify if a sentencing review counts as "a criminal proceeding" or not. One can make an argument either way and I prefer not to leave it up to chance.

Why do we need so many words to define what's being reviewed, when what a sentence consists of has already been established in the same chapter? Why do we explicitly need to allow the Court to consider separate parts of a sentence separately?

Because simply allowing the court to consider a sentence as a whole does not explicitly make clear that it can consider the different elements separately. It is not impossible for someone to interpret that as saying "I can either reduce your whole sentence (a ban from the region and the forum), or I can not reduce it, but I can't reduce just your ban from the region but keep the forum ban the same."

I don't understand the first question.

It may be proper to be more specific than "more severe" however, and explicitly specify that review cannot make any part of the sentence longer or add other restrictions, of course.

Yes, I think so. For one thing, a justice might decide that a ban on residence is harsher than a ban on citizenship, and think that they are making a sentence more lenient by saying "The remaining 12 terms of your residence ban will be served as just a citizenship ban". They might even be correct that that's more lenient in this case - but another justice might then decide that a residence ban is harsher than a forum ban, and say that instead of being banned from the region, the nation should just be banned from the forum. Easier to specify that the nature of the punishment cannot be changed; just the length.