Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 01:43:01 PMI'm not upset, but I also would note that you are mistaken about a few things. Multiple times, people have been charged or nearly charged with crimes under those legal codes. It hasn't happened a lot, but it has happened. It just isn't very equitable.
All right, time for some archeology. Wisconsin law was written into our law (at the proposal of KR1) by 31RZ14, which reads in part:QuoteWHEREAS under Talossan law, there are no actual, legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, or any other crimes...
So clearly KR1 was thinking of the kind of crimes of gross moral turpitude that I. Canún is currently doing time for. This was further amended (at Sir Cresti's proposal) by 35RZ21. The list of those sections of the Wisconsin Code "dynamically included" in our law are:QuoteChapters 240-243 Fraudulent Conveyances and Contracts
Chapters 401-411 Uniform Commercial Code
Chapters 421-429 Wisconsin Consumer Act
Chapters 700-710 Property
Chapters 938-951 Criminal Code
Chapter 961 Controlled Substances
I suppose we could go through Old Witt's debates to find out exactly why Sir Cresti thought these sections should apply to Talossa. But I maintain the following:
- putting Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that Talossan judges and lawyers have to be familiar with Wisconsin case and statute law to really know our law, which is ridiculous and puts the Talossan law out of reach for any but US-trained lawyers (like Cresti, lol)
- no case of "murder, rape or robbery" has ever been tried under these law in Talossan court
- I believe that the only time these sections were invoked was when Cresti relied on Wisconsin court decisions as precedent in Talossan court - see above
These sections need to be repealed. Talossan law should be indigenous. But what will they be replaced with? That's what we're discussing.
A point I've made which seems to have been ignored is that Talossa's current common law system already allows courts a lot of discretion to hear cases on matters not referred to by statute. So if we adopted a set of "Principles of the Common Law of Talossa", Courts could base their decisions on those rather than on the "Anglo-American" precedent enshrined by the previous OrgLaw. But if the idea of judges ruling on matters not specifically referred to by statute is a problem, then we should switch to a Civil Law code post haste, which removes judicial discretion over matters not in statute. The Regent seems upset by something which is the status quo.
Yes, the modern court system has been bent inexorably towards the court system with which most of the judges in office have been familiar. It's not quite as open-season as you think, though!