+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [PASSED] Amendment to Article 1 of the Criminal Code (Extortion) (/thread-6581.html)
[PASSED] Amendment to Article 1 of the Criminal Code (Extortion) - Ryccia - 11-06-2018
Quote:(4) Blackmail Extortion shall be defined as demanding private gains from a player they would otherwise not grant in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information. by threatening them in any way.
It is not only information that may be a cause for extortion. Let us consider another scenario:
Player 1 holds a powerful office in a region Player 2 is in. Player 1 demands that Player 2, an official here, give him something here (an advisor position, dismiss a trial or rule in Player 1's favour, or anything) in exchange for not kicking Player 2 out of the other region. Player 2, wanting to also be in that other region, gives in.
Sorry if that was a bad example, but you get the general details.
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Amerion - 11-06-2018
I understand the intent behind this amendment but is the scenario laid out not already covered under the bribery section?
Criminal Code, Article 1 Wrote:(8) Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue patronage by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Nakari - 11-06-2018
I don't think "not carrying out a threat" counts as patronage, which generally conveys "offering support". Our patronage law would then cover a wide range of positive bribes, while this extortion law covers the negative bribes to an equally wide extent.
Alternately the word 'patronage' could be changed to something more neutral so as to cover both positive and negative attempts to threaten a person, and leave the blackmail law as it is.
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Amerion - 11-06-2018
(11-06-2018, 01:52 PM)Nakari Wrote: I don't think "not carrying out a threat" counts as patronage, which generally conveys "offering support". Our patronage law would then cover a wide range of positive bribes, while this extortion law covers the negative bribes to an equally wide extent.
Alternately the word 'patronage' could be changed to something more neutral so as to cover both positive and negative attempts to threaten a person, and leave the blackmail law as it is.
Nods
I agree. Would something like 'undue advantage' or 'undue support' be more appropriate?
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Nakari - 11-06-2018
Perhaps them exactly parallel, as they are almost mirror images of each other in intent:
Quote:Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue support by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
Extortion shall be defined as the threatening of any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Ryccia - 11-06-2018
(11-06-2018, 01:42 PM)Amerion Wrote: I understand the intent behind this amendment but is the scenario laid out not already covered under the bribery section?
Criminal Code, Article 1 Wrote:(8) Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue patronage by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
I did not know you could bribe in threats. I should try that with a politician sometime.
Besides, under this logic, the "giver" of this "gain" is not a victim, and may be charged for being complicit in "negative bribery"
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Amerion - 11-06-2018
(11-06-2018, 02:15 PM)Ryccia Wrote: I did not know you could bribe in threats. I should try that with a politician sometime.
Indeed, I do it all the time
(11-06-2018, 02:03 PM)Nakari Wrote: Perhaps them exactly parallel, as they are almost mirror images of each other in intent:
Quote:Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue support by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
Extortion shall be defined as the threatening of any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
This looks good.
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - The Sakhalinsk Empire - 11-07-2018
(11-06-2018, 02:03 PM)Nakari Wrote: Perhaps them exactly parallel, as they are almost mirror images of each other in intent:
Quote:Bribery shall be defined as the receiving or offering of undue support by or to any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
Extortion shall be defined as the threatening of any individual in order to influence behavior that the recipient would otherwise not alter.
Speaking of bribery, it seems unclear on whether both the briber and the bribee get punished, or only the briber. If it is the latter, then I propose a change allowing both parties to be punished.
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Amerion - 11-07-2018
I'm not sure if explicitly stating so is necessary. If someone is charged for giving a bribe, I would expect that the person who accepted the offer faces charges as well, vice versa.
RE: Amendment to the Criminal Code - Rebeltopia - 11-07-2018
One can assume... But Ive heard flimsier defenses. Even the tiniest loophole can and will be used against the prosecution in a court in NS...