[DRAFT] The FREE Act. (Fair, Respectful, and Equitable Engagement Act)

In the time I have been in TNP, it is sad that I've seen acts of extorsion and coercion or intimidation in order to obtain political benefits, things that I am not in freedom to say or discuss. If we are to behave and coexist in a proper manner, with respect, instead of simply using the "catch-all crime" of Gross Misconduct regarding a citizen's oath, I'd think it'd be for the best to explicitly lay down the existence of the crime of extorsion in TNP.

The Legal Code, Chapter 1 would be amended as follows:

Section 1.13: Extorsion
27. "Extortion” is defined as the deliberate use of threats, coercion, or intimidation to compel a government official or citizen to surrender intelectual property, political concessions, or any other advantage against their will.
28. For the purposes of clarity, “threats” include any communication—whether posted publicly on the forum, sent via private messages, or delivered through any regional communication channel—that implies harm to personal reputation, position, security, or the stability and integrity of the regional government.

Section 1.14: Coercion
29. “Coercion” is defined as any act intended to manipulate an individual’s decision-making through undue pressure or abuse of power, rather than through free and voluntary choice.
30. The reception of electoral propaganda will not be considered as coercion unless it's done under the lense of malicious intent.

Section 1.15: Gross Misconduct
31. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.

Section 1.16: Exceptions
32. 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.
33. Legitimate political negotiation or bargaining, where both parties engage freely and no coercion or threat is involved, shall not be considered extortion.
34. Any conduct shall only be classified as extortion if it is demonstrated that the actions were intended to force a decision or action contrary to the free will of the targeted party.

Click to expand...

The Legal Code, Chapter 2 is amended as follows:

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. Perjury may be punished by the suspension of voting rights, restriction on standing for election, and/or restriction on serving as a government official for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
5. Evidence Tampering may be punished by the removal from office, suspension of voting rights, and/or restriction on standing for election for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.
9. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.
10. Extorsion may be punished by the removal from office, suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit, and/or banning by forum administration if the action is deemed punitive or grave enough by the Court.
11. Coercion may be punished by the removal from office, suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
12. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.

Click to expand...

What exactly inspired you to propose this? You appear to be hinting that something to this effect has taken place and you have witnessed it, but for some reason don’t feel able to speak up about it. That’s a very explosive thing to be hinting about, and I would hope if it’s true that you would bring it forward - we may not have an explicit law against it but we do, as you acknowledged, have gross misconduct.

I’m not generally a fan of enumerating endlessly specific crimes and this narrative that we can’t take action when people in our region do wrong because there isn’t technically a crime to identify. Gross misconduct covers a lot and I don’t think that’s a problem. If people feel gross misconduct should be the worst of the worst, why don’t we come up with a lesser gross misconduct that will cover some of these “smaller” crimes. We might even be able to trim this section down!

Write all the provisions you want, of course, the Court won’t properly respond if it comes to it. I’m sure you would, you are a true blue advocate for justice and you’ve long cared about this area and done your part to better perfect it. But the lawyer game in our criminal trial procedure disincentivizes actually punishing crime, and incentivizes getting them out of trouble through technicalities. We all seem to accept that’s a big fun joke and the whole point of the legal system anyway, so I’m personally more inclined to throw that whole thing out than add new specific crimes to the criminal and penal codes. To say I’m jaded, and lack faith in this region’s criminal justice system is putting it incredibly mildly, and I say that as someone who at this point has been a court justice longer than most others. Our trials are a sham and an international joke, and they deserve to be mocked. If your region marches obvious rule breakers and people who committed crimes through its hallowed halls and they are never actually held accountable and instead get away with it, then you need to rethink some things.

Perhaps @St George might join me in repealing the bulk of the criminal trial procedure, and our esteemed justices could assist in doing the same on their end of things? We ought to clean out useless things, it’s almost time for spring cleaning anyway.

Pallaith:

What exactly inspired you to propose this? You appear to be hinting that something to this effect has taken place and you have witnessed it, but for some reason don’t feel able to speak up about it. That’s a very explosive thing to be hinting about, and I would hope if it’s true that you would bring it forward - we may not have an explicit law against it but we do, as you acknowledged, have gross misconduct.

Click to expand...

That's definitely wrong wording on my end, I apologice! I meant as in IRL, and I don't want to see that kind of thing happen here in TNP unpunished.

Pallaith:

What exactly inspired you to propose this? You appear to be hinting that something to this effect has taken place and you have witnessed it, but for some reason don’t feel able to speak up about it. That’s a very explosive thing to be hinting about, and I would hope if it’s true that you would bring it forward - we may not have an explicit law against it but we do, as you acknowledged, have gross misconduct.

I’m not generally a fan of enumerating endlessly specific crimes and this narrative that we can’t take action when people in our region do wrong because there isn’t technically a crime to identify. Gross misconduct covers a lot and I don’t think that’s a problem. If people feel gross misconduct should be the worst of the worst, why don’t we come up with a lesser gross misconduct that will cover some of these “smaller” crimes. We might even be able to trim this section down!

Write all the provisions you want, of course, the Court won’t properly respond if it comes to it. I’m sure you would, you are a true blue advocate for justice and you’ve long cared about this area and done your part to better perfect it. But the lawyer game in our criminal trial procedure disincentivizes actually punishing crime, and incentivizes getting them out of trouble through technicalities. We all seem to accept that’s a big fun joke and the whole point of the legal system anyway, so I’m personally more inclined to throw that whole thing out than add new specific crimes to the criminal and penal codes. To say I’m jaded, and lack faith in this region’s criminal justice system is putting it incredibly mildly, and I say that as someone who at this point has been a court justice longer than most others. Our trials are a sham and an international joke, and they deserve to be mocked. If your region marches obvious rule breakers and people who committed crimes through its hallowed halls and they are never actually held accountable and instead get away with it, then you need to rethink some things.

Perhaps @St George might join me in repealing the bulk of the criminal trial procedure, and our esteemed justices could assist in doing the same on their end of things? We ought to clean out useless things, it’s almost time for spring cleaning anyway.

Click to expand...

I’m just a layperson with regards to the law, but I do wish to know: what is it about the region’s criminal justice system that you think is flawed?

Pallaith:

You appear to be hinting that something to this effect has taken place ... but for some reason don’t feel able to speak up about it. ... That’s a very explosive thing to be hinting about, and I would hope if it’s true that you would bring it forward - we may not have an explicit law against it but we do, as you acknowledged, have gross misconduct.

But the lawyer game in our criminal trial procedure disincentivizes actually punishing crime, and incentivizes getting them out of trouble through technicalities. We all seem to accept that’s a big fun joke and the whole point of the legal system anyway, so I’m personally more inclined to throw that whole thing out than add new specific crimes to the criminal and penal codes. To say I’m jaded, and lack faith in this region’s criminal justice system is putting it incredibly mildly, and I say that as someone who at this point has been a court justice longer than most others. Our trials are a sham and an international joke, and they deserve to be mocked. If your region marches obvious rule breakers and people who committed crimes through its hallowed halls and they are never actually held accountable and instead get away with it, then you need to rethink some things.

Click to expand...

I think the issue posed in your first paragraph is answered by the problems you describe with the Court later in your response @Pallaith. Why would individuals bring a claim when it is pretty apparent pursuing such an accusation in the Court is likely to be procedurally time-consuming and almost certainly result in little consequence to the offender?

I experienced just the kind of extortion and/or coercion over election posts I made that Vivanco notes above. I looked at the Court and decided it wasn't worth pursuing, and if Vivanco and myself have seen this kind of behavior, I venture to guess we're not the only ones.

Antonius Kaizuniviel:

I’m just a layperson with regards to the law, but I do wish to know: what is it about the region’s criminal justice system that you think is flawed?

Click to expand...

I suppose it’s too simplistic to say “all of it” but my biggest issue is that it is incapable of actually punishing people who clearly broke the law. I guess I’m exaggerating since we have had some successful convictions in the past, but they rely on poor defenses or subjects who don’t really fight the conviction. If they put up a fight, they will win, because there’s too many opportunities to poke procedural holes in the prosecution. Note the key here - procedural. It’s never a question of the merits of the prosecution, but whether they jumped through all the fake legal hoops successfully. We had one conviction thrown out because the prosecution didn’t put a public oath that everyone knows the accused had given into the official evidence. This isn’t the real world, we should be able to come up with a sensible system that can actually hold people accountable for the wrong they commit.

In my view, we had a lot of people who were wannabe lawyers or just had a lot of experience with that sort of thing, and wanted to emulate the complex, put together justice system thing in this region. There’s a reason most other regions out there don’t have a system like this. It’s all about the legal chess between the lawyers and not about justice or making sure that crime is punished. There’s too much obsession over the process so we miss the point of why a process would be in place. Sometimes you just want to prosecute someone for improperly using their office’s powers and be able to get a resolution and not get bogged down with who the more clever or careless lawyer was.

Juba:

I think the issue posed in your first paragraph is answered by the problems you describe with the Court later in your response @Pallaith. Why would individuals bring a claim when it is pretty apparent pursuing such an accusation in the Court is likely to be procedurally time-consuming and almost certainly result in little consequence to the offender?

I experienced just the kind of extortion and/or coercion over election posts I made that Vivanco notes above. I looked at the Court and decided it wasn't worth pursuing, and if Vivanco and myself have seen this kind of behavior, I venture to guess we're not the only ones.

Click to expand...

Vivanco already explained this was a misunderstanding and the behavior was real world behavior not something done in this region. That being said, if you were extorted or coerced in an election, that’s a serious accusation and I believe should have been reported. I understand you may have preferred not to do so, but I do not want people in this region to feel silenced or intimidated if they are manipulated in such a way.

Unfortunately there is some truth to the concern about the effort being pointless. I think we need to rework the system, though I admit it’s gonna be hard to figure out how to discourage lawyer games, since no matter how you simplify the process, working the system will always be the move. I don’t know how to get around that, but maybe we can make it harder and less common a thing, that’s got to be better than nothing.

Pallaith:

I suppose it’s too simplistic to say “all of it” but my biggest issue is that it is incapable of actually punishing people who clearly broke the law. I guess I’m exaggerating since we have had some successful convictions in the past, but they rely on poor defenses or subjects who don’t really fight the conviction. If they put up a fight, they will win, because there’s too many opportunities to poke procedural holes in the prosecution. Note the key here - procedural. It’s never a question of the merits of the prosecution, but whether they jumped through all the fake legal hoops successfully. We had one conviction thrown out because the prosecution didn’t put a public oath that everyone knows the accused had given into the official evidence. This isn’t the real world, we should be able to come up with a sensible system that can actually hold people accountable for the wrong they commit.

In my view, we had a lot of people who were wannabe lawyers or just had a lot of experience with that sort of thing, and wanted to emulate the complex, put together justice system thing in this region. There’s a reason most other regions out there don’t have a system like this. It’s all about the legal chess between the lawyers and not about justice or making sure that crime is punished. There’s too much obsession over the process so we miss the point of why a process would be in place. Sometimes you just want to prosecute someone for improperly using their office’s powers and be able to get a resolution and not get bogged down with who the more clever or careless lawyer was.

Click to expand...

Since the Justice elections have begun, I was reminded of this post so I wanted to ask - if you believe the issues with our Justice system are mostly procedural, why do you seemingly believe it is broken beyond repair? The court procedures can be amended by the Justices, and you have served many, many terms on the Court, so why were you unable to make a start on it?

Gorundu:

Since the Justice elections have begun, I was reminded of this post so I wanted to ask - if you believe the issues with our Justice system are mostly procedural, why do you seemingly believe it is broken beyond repair? The court procedures can be amended by the Justices, and you have served many, many terms on the Court, so why were you unable to make a start on it?

Click to expand...

I did, and I reported on this to the region by the end of that first term, in case you missed it. That should probably take care of your questions.

To put another way though, it’s not that the issues are procedural, it’s that the way we chose to go about this creates certain conditions and necessities. If we want a realistic, American court system kind of thing, we have to accept that there’s a lot of steps and moving parts that can be dropped and mishandled and our system will fail us because of that. If we want something more efficient and likely to impart justice, we need to think outside the box. Tweaking the current rules isn’t gonna get it done, because strictly speaking, the issues with the cases that made us a joke were not the system not working as intended - we wanted a Byzantine heavily rules based system rewarding people who successfully game it or can call out opponents on technicalities, and that’s what we have. In this game, and this region, I think that’s stupid and shouldn’t be the case.

Pallaith:

To put another way though, it’s not that the issues are procedural, it’s that the way we chose to go about this creates certain conditions and necessities. If we want a realistic, American court system kind of thing, we have to accept that there’s a lot of steps and moving parts that can be dropped and mishandled and our system will fail us because of that. If we want something more efficient and likely to impart justice, we need to think outside the box. Tweaking the current rules isn’t gonna get it done, because strictly speaking, the issues with the cases that made us a joke were not the system not working as intended - we wanted a Byzantine heavily rules based system rewarding people who successfully game it or can call out opponents on technicalities, and that’s what we have. In this game, and this region, I think that’s stupid and shouldn’t be the case.

Click to expand...

The more I look at our existing system, the more I'm convinced that defendants gaming the system is not a result of a "Byzantine heavily rules based system", but a result of two different issues. The first is a culture that has been built over the years that makes gaming the system pretty much okay in most people's eyes, and that is something that is very difficult to change. But the second, and I think the more solvable issue, is that rather than our rules being "Byzantine", the real flaw is that we've created very long processes for trials but insufficient safeguards to prevent counsels from gaming the system at every step of the process. One thing I've seen defence counsels do quite a bit is submit a bunch of motions that get the judge bogged down dealing with them. And the reason that happens is because we've got hardly any rules about motions, which can be fixed, or at least significantly mitigated, if we establish a few motions that are allowed to be submitted and just ban the rest. In other words, if we adopt tighter rules that actually streamline the court process and eliminate opportunities for deviations, we can make the system much more robust. That certainly won't be a simple tweak of the rules, but I think it's not a pipe dream either.

Gorundu:

The more I look at our existing system, the more I'm convinced that defendants gaming the system is not a result of a "Byzantine heavily rules based system", but a result of two different issues. The first is a culture that has been built over the years that makes gaming the system pretty much okay in most people's eyes, and that is something that is very difficult to change. But the second, and I think the more solvable issue, is that rather than our rules being "Byzantine", the real flaw is that we've created very long processes for trials but insufficient safeguards to prevent counsels from gaming the system at every step of the process. One thing I've seen defence counsels do quite a bit is submit a bunch of motions that get the judge bogged down dealing with them. And the reason that happens is because we've got hardly any rules about motions, which can be fixed, or at least significantly mitigated, if we establish a few motions that are allowed to be submitted and just ban the rest. In other words, if we adopt tighter rules that actually streamline the court process and eliminate opportunities for deviations, we can make the system much more robust. That certainly won't be a simple tweak of the rules, but I think it's not a pipe dream either.

Click to expand...

Then I wish you luck in devising those fixes and look forward to seeing what you come up with. But at this point it strikes me as a band-aid. If your system is built on procedure adding more procedural rules creates more opportunities to game the system. We have to increasingly write longer and more complex procedures to try to close loopholes and minimize damage from people weaponizing those procedures, and that strikes me as a step in the wrong direction. I also suspect you will discover, as I did, that the procedures are not inherently unreasonable in design and you may have less room to make changes than you think…unless you’re willing to write something new from scratch. That’s where I’m at personally.

Whatever will bring our Vice Delegate to face justice is fine by me.