| Amendment to the Criminal Code - Aiding the Enemy |
Criminal Code Wrote: I didn't substantively change clause (1) here -- it's merely a clarification. Now that we do a lot of defending (i.e. the type of military gameplay), some might assume that "defensive action" might mean any of our R/D, even if it's offensive in nature (e.g. liberations, chases). In fact, it's pretty clear from context that the clause is using a more traditional definition of "defensive": protecting itself. "Defensive" here is the opposite of "offensive", not the opposite of "raiding". Clause (15), however, is specifically R/D-based. It's a good idea for there to be some liability for those who want to be members of the Coalition while actively obstructing our military. For example, imagine if a South Pacifican took a Regional Officer slot on a raider occupation of a region and pressed the ban button on SPSF members as they jumped into the region in a crucial liberation attempt. It should be possible to take legal action against them. It may not be outright treason -- and certainly doesn't deserve the mandatory sentence of permanent banishment -- but it is a betrayal of the Coalition. This draft is intentionally broad. Yes, technically charges could be brought under it any time a TSPer goes on a tag raid that SPSF is fighting. But not only would no reasonable court impose a meaningful sentence for such a frivolous case, but also the petitioner might end up being held responsible for vexatious charges themselves. For serious cases like the one I suggested in the paragraph above, I could imagine the court deciding on a temporary ban. For less egregious cases, I could imagine a simple warning on a citizen's criminal record. For even less serious cases -- perhaps the court would not hear them at all, and it's unlikely anyone would bring them in the first place. Just like in RL laws (e.g., prohibitions on jaywalking), actions can be illegal without necessarily often seeing the maximum possible consequences applied. I certainly don't see this as "banning raiding". Rather, it does exactly what we should want: setting the norm for people who want to be TSPers that actively and detrimentally obstructing our own military is not approved of, and that there may be consequences for serious cases. Whether you're a South Pacifican defender or a South Pacifican raider, you should be a South Pacifican first and foremost -- and that means, at least, that there may be consequences for choosing your ideology over TSP when they conflict on the battlefield. ![[Image: AfI6yZX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/AfI6yZX.png){kind=small} ~ Aumeltopia ~
(12-08-2020, 08:19 PM)Somyrion Wrote: But not only would the court likely refuse to hear such a frivolous case Genuine question: is the Court allowed to dismiss a case for being frivolous even if it might otherwise be justiciable or have probable cause? Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (12-08-2020, 08:41 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:(12-08-2020, 08:19 PM)Somyrion Wrote: But not only would the court likely refuse to hear such a frivolous case A good question that I don't have an opinion on off the top of my head. Let me go read the laws again. 
~ Aumeltopia ~
(12-08-2020, 08:41 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Genuine question: is the Court allowed to dismiss a case for being frivolous even if it might otherwise be justiciable or have probable cause? I've put forward an amendment here so that, if the Court does have that power, it will be unambiguously clear. I thought I would get the ball rolling but I am happy whatever the Assembly decides.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
Interesting. So on the one hand, I think it's good that there's some accountability for people who actively aid the enemy. But on the other hand, sometimes defenders wind up on opposite sides of an operation; see the TITO/FRA split over Marijuana Militia in 2010-ish, or any raid where an org like TGW has raided a region, and other orgs like RRA have deployed to defend it. Marijuana Militia is an old example, but it's one of the most infamous which is why I bring it up.
The point I'm making is that especially as the world has become more cosmopolitan, we are seeing more and more dual membership in militaries. Lots of SPSFers, including myself, have this. NCE and I are in the Founderless Rangers and Swifty, Roavin, and Nakari are Wardens. And those are just the ones I can think of right now. What happens if we end up on the opposite side of an operation from the SPSF? What happens if there's genuine disagreement about the operation, and it isn't just frivolous "you ran tags once?" With the recent delegate-toppling in the region NationStates and the varying positions different orgs have taken on the matter, I think it's shown that this is still possible in the modern world. And we have to strongly consider how we want to handle such a situation when so many of our members carry membership in another military. I don't know yet what my opinion is, but it's what I thought of when I saw this. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.
I think this is dangerously broad, and effectively criminalises being in any R/D organisation other than the SPSF. The reality is that a lot of the time you won’t know who exactly is going to be on the other side of a R/D engagement until after it happens - this is particularly true for raiders, who can’t possibly know which defender groups or independent/non-aligned group working with defenders that day will follow them into a region.
Whilst it’s true that the Court has discretion - and the current Court will almost certainly not indict someone for ordinary R/D activity - I don’t think it’s a good idea to criminalise something with the expectation that 99% of the time we won’t bring charges. That makes a mockery of our laws, our Court, and produces huge uncertainty for players. None of these are good things. I think a case could be made for a more limited definition of this, which would only apply to cases where the Minister of Defence/General Corps has made a clear determination that an operation is not part of ordinary R/D and issued a directive for TSPers to withdraw. In that situation there would be a clear warning so players would know that they are in potential breach of the law and thus wouldn’t be placed in unfair jeopardy as part of ordinary R/D. This is the very limit of what I would consider acceptable; (That’s not to say I necessarily think it’s a good idea or would vote for it, just that it wouldn’t place players in unfair jeopardy and thus be actively unjust) “(15) Aiding the enemy shall be defined as involvement in, providing aid to, or abetting in a military operation in opposition to the forces of the Coalition where the General Corps has issued a public declaration that the situation is of vital interest to the South Pacific and thus not part of ordinary R/D military gameplay.” Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Bel's suggestion is good. Generals can be recalled if they abuse it.
(12-09-2020, 08:40 AM)Belschaft Wrote: “(15) Aiding the enemy shall be defined as involvement in, providing aid to, or abetting in a military operation in opposition to the forces of the Coalition where the General Corps has issued a public declaration that the situation is of vital interest to the South Pacific and thus not part of ordinary R/D military gameplay.” That makes sense to me, and would seem to avoid the messy legal issues Somyrion's proposal might cause.
Republic of Lansoon (Pacifica)
(12-08-2020, 08:41 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:(12-08-2020, 08:19 PM)Somyrion Wrote: But not only would the court likely refuse to hear such a frivolous case No. However, filing frivolous cases could be in and of itself criminal as per CC12 "Vexatious Charges". ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
I'd be in favor of Belschaft's language. That would ease a lot of my concerns. We need the accountability but we shouldn't get into needless spats about everyday R/D stuff.
Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they. |
![[Image: fKnK6O4.png]](https://i.imgur.com/fKnK6O4.png){kind=small}
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |