Wittenberg

WHEREAS the 31st Cosa chose to deal with the lack of Talossan law against "murder, rape, robbery" and other serious crimes against the person by incorporating the laws of the State of Wisconsin into Talossan law, where indigenous Talossan law does not contradict them;

AND WHEREAS the 35th Cosa amended this to specify only certain sections of the Wisconsin Statutes, which currently comprise sections A.1-4 of El Lexhatx;

AND WHEREAS this means that a thorough knowledge of Talossan law necessarily requires a knowledge of Wisconsin law;

AND WHEREAS Wisconsin law has never in fact been used to punish infamous crimes committed by Talossan citizens, such as statutory rape;

AND WHEREAS the practice of Talossan law and jurisprudence should be open to all Talossans, not just those who are already professional lawyers;

AND WHEREAS the only way Wisconsin law has been used in Talossa is by trained practitioners of United States law introducing Wisconsin precedent into their Talossan legal briefs, giving those trained in United States law an unfair advantage over those who are only trained in Talossan law;

AND WHEREAS we should find a different way to achieve the original intent of the measure, which was to make infamous crimes against the person a crime under Talossan law;

AND WHEREAS the basic principles of what is moral, right and good under Talossan law are already contained in our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms;

AND WHEREAS previous versions of the Organic Law specified "generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law" as a foundation for Talossan law, but this has been removed;

AND WHEREAS it is wise to re-establish some legislative basis for Talossan juridical practice;


BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu that sections A.1-4 of El Lexhatx are replaced in their entirety by the following:

Quote1. The basis of all Talossan law and jurisprudence are the principles contained in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Where Talossan statute law is silent, Talossan courts shall make decisions in accordance with Talossan juridical precedent. Judges may also use precedent from other legal systems with which they are familiar to guide their decisions, though such precedent shall not be binding.

3. Behaviour by any Talossan citizen which is repugnant to the principles contained in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms is an offence, and Courts may apply any punishment authorised by Organic and statute law to those convicted of such behaviour, in strict proportion to the severity of the offence and the presence or absence of any mitigating circumstances.

4. For repugnant behaviour as described above which takes place outside Talossa, conviction by a credible judicial authority in another jurisdiction shall count as prima facie evidence.

+1

This also, by implication at least, addresses what would need to be done should extra-Talossan crimes be tried in a Talossan court of law.  Well-done on this.

I have some concerns.

As discussed in the thread for the committee on legal reforms, the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms has never been interpreted as a set of potentially criminal restrictions on individual behavior.  The Seneschal's theory (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=664.msg5577#msg5577) is fundamentally that the Sixth Covenant effectively criminalizes all behavior that can be convincingly argued as "activities which injure, endanger, risk or compromise the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of other persons."  She has cited other covenants as the basis for other possible criminal prosecutions, but they're actually irrelevant in the light of this interpretation, since this view is amazingly broad and nonspecific.

Any behavior or speech could potentially be a crime under this interpretation.  Even something specifically authorized by law could potentially be a crime, in fact, since the Sixth Covenant (http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:Organic_Law#Sixth_Covenant) overrides every statute, every other provision of the Organic Law, and every other covenant!

It was never the intent of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms to be read in this way, since this interpretation doesn't make sense just on a first pass through them.  I mean, what would be the point of the Seventh Covenant (http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:Organic_Law#Seventh_Covenant)?  If it's literally meaningless -- since actually anything can be a crime -- why bother including it?

Further, there's a reason that the Seventh Covenant does exist: if any activity is a crime once the Government decides that it might be, then it opens the door to ruinous corruption and abuse of power.  It costs the Government nothing but a little time to prosecute an offender, and they risk nothing.  If the Avocat-Xheneral or Seneschal decide they dislike you, then they simply need to identify something you did (or failed to do) at some point in your entire life as activity that plausibly offended the serenity of someone else.  If the prosecution fails, they've still cost you time and inflicted stress on you.  They can always try again, whenever they wish.  And maybe they'll get lucky and get you convicted!

Obviously, neither our current Avocat-Xheneral nor our current Seneschal would let their personal grudges influence their behavior.  But not all future officials might be so calm and virtuous.

It's worth noting, incidentally, that this interpretation would also conflict with other important covenants than just the Seventh.  Take the Eighth Covenant (http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:Organic_Law#Eighth_Covenant), for example.  Is euthanasia against the law?  Well, the Ziu isn't allowed to write a statute which makes it a crime to end the life of another human being, but that would be irrelevant: euthanasia would certainly be "compromis[ing] the physical health" of another person, and "no right herein enumerated" in the Covenant can protect such activity.

I urge that this approach be abandoned and a little more thought applied to this problem, which remains an important one.

Let's try that again.

===
WHEREAS the 31st Cosa chose to deal with the lack of Talossan law against "murder, rape, robbery" and other serious crimes against the person by incorporating the laws of the State of Wisconsin into Talossan law, where indigenous Talossan law does not contradict them;

AND WHEREAS the 35th Cosa amended this to specify only certain sections of the Wisconsin Statutes, which currently comprise sections A.1-4 of El Lexhatx;

AND WHEREAS this means that a thorough knowledge of Talossan law necessarily requires a knowledge of Wisconsin law;

AND WHEREAS Wisconsin law has never in fact been used to punish infamous crimes committed by Talossan citizens, such as statutory rape;

AND WHEREAS the practice of Talossan law and jurisprudence should be open to all Talossans, not just those who are already professional lawyers;

AND WHEREAS the only way Wisconsin law has been used in Talossa is by trained practitioners of United States law introducing Wisconsin precedent into their Talossan legal briefs, giving those trained in United States law an unfair advantage over those who are only trained in Talossan law;

AND WHEREAS we should find a different way to achieve the original intent of the measure, which was to make infamous crimes against the person a crime under Talossan law;

AND WHEREAS the basic principles of what is moral, right and good under Talossan law are already contained in our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms;

AND WHEREAS previous versions of the Organic Law specified "generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law" as a foundation for Talossan law, but this has been removed;

AND WHEREAS it is wise to re-establish some legislative basis for Talossan juridical practice;


BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu that:

1.  Sections A.1-4 and A.7-8 of El Lexhatx are repealed in their entirety.

2. Sections A.1-3 of El Lexhatx shall henceforth read as follows:

Quote1. The basis of all Talossan law and jurisprudence is the principles contained in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Where Talossan statute law is silent, Talossan courts shall make decisions in accordance with Talossan juridical precedent. Judges may also use precedent from other legal systems with which they are familiar to guide their decisions, though such precedent shall not be binding.

3. A Talossan citizen who is convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, shall be guilty of the crime of "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute", and be liable to a punishment of severity in strict proportion to the severity of the said offence.

3. The sections of Title A of El Lexhatx shall be subsequently renumbered consecutively.

While something along the lines of section 3 of this bill is sorely needed, I have grave concerns about the remainder of this bill.

If the idea is to replace the entirety of our current criminal code with prosecutions based directly on the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, I don't see how that's a viable solution. I'm not aware of any other country that allows direct criminal prosecutions for violating similarly broad statements of constitutional principles as are contained in, say, the Sixth Covenant.  If such a broad criminal law were to be enacted in the United States, it would be struck down as a violation of due process, as the US Constitution's due process protections have been held to require that criminal offenses must be defined with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. A similar rule is applied under Article 7 section 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which embodies the principles of nullum crimen sine lege (there can be no crime without law) nulla poena sine lege (there can be no punishment without law). This is consonant with the rule of lenity: the traditional principle of legal construction that penal statutes should be strictly construed, with doubts resolved in favour of criminal defendants.

If we pass this and it is struck down as unenforceable due to concerns such as those described above, we will then have no criminal code and no way to punish criminal acts within Talossa. Even if it isn't struck down, I don't see how a more vague, unpredictable, and arbitrary system of criminal law is an improvement. If the Sixth Covenant were held to establish valid offenses under the Seventh Covenant, for example, it would seemingly criminalize all of tort law (i.e., every tort would also be a crime), and potentially also criminalize near torts under an "endangerment" theory. I'm not strongly opposed to breaking our dependence on Wisconsin law, but I do think it's imperative that we do it right and not "on the cheap."

Am I right or wrong in my recollection that it was your idea to write the Wisconsin Code into our own laws in the first place? And am I right or wrong that the Wisconsin Code has never been used to punish a crime in Talossa, but on the other hand that you personally have relied on Wisconsin legal briefs in your representations before the Corts?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 03:07:38 PM
Am I right or wrong in my recollection that it was your idea to write the Wisconsin Code into our own laws in the first place? And am I right or wrong that the Wisconsin Code has never been used to punish a crime in Talossa, but on the other hand that you personally have relied on Wisconsin legal briefs in your representations before the Corts?

You're mistaken.  Off the top of my head, I know that a citizen was convicted and punished for a violation of §947.0125, and I found in a few minutes where your Government brought charges under §939.10, §939.30, §939.31, §946.10, §946.61, and §943.70, as well as relying on Wisconsin judicial precedent in the same and other cases.  Other convictions on other provisions in Wisconsin law have been prosecuted and convicted in the past by prosecutors, as well.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 24, 2021, 03:24:28 PM
You're mistaken.  Off the top of my head, I know that a citizen was convicted and punished for a violation of §947.0125, and I found in a few minutes where your Government brought charges under §939.10, §939.30, §939.31, §946.10, §946.61, and §943.70, as well as relying on Wisconsin judicial precedent in the same and other cases.  Other convictions on other provisions in Wisconsin law have been prosecuted and convicted in the past by prosecutors, as well.

Sources, please. "My government"?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 03:07:38 PM
Am I right or wrong in my recollection that it was your idea to write the Wisconsin Code into our own laws in the first place?

Well, according to you...

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 01:43:01 PM
All right, time for some archeology. Wisconsin law was written into our law (at the proposal of KR1) by 31RZ14 (http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Talossan_Civil_and_Criminal_Codes_Act), which reads in part:

QuoteWHEREAS under Talossan law, there are no actual, legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, or any other crimes...

Also, I honestly think this process would be improved if we stopped trying to skip steps and first agreed on the principles involved, which I think is possible! I think we all agree that we would prefer that our laws be indigenous. Surely we can all also agree that they must be specific, so citizens know exactly what is against the law and what isn't?

And Cresti wrote 35RZ21 (http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Talossan_Civil_and_Criminal_Codes_Act), which actually effectively did the job of incorporating Wisconsin law into our law, because 31RZ14 was ineffective due to KR1's legal ignorance (there is no "civil code" of Wisconsin).

Speaking of legal ignorance, the cry of "we must know exactly what our laws are" is incompatible with the principles of the Common Law, of which I know that the Regent is a supporter because he insists on stare decisis. Stare decisis is the principle of "judge-made law", that the law is as much in old Cort decisions as it is in statute.

The alternative is a Civil Code, whereby only what is written in positive statute is a crime, and if it's not in positive statute law no Court can rule on it. That is also a good option, and I encourage someone to write up a bill enshrining it; but if Talossans prefer to stick to Common Law principle, my bill does fine.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 04:36:40 PM
And Cresti wrote 35RZ21 (http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:The_Talossan_Civil_and_Criminal_Codes_Act), which actually effectively did the job of incorporating Wisconsin law into our law, because 31RZ14 was ineffective due to KR1's legal ignorance (there is no "civil code" of Wisconsin).

Speaking of legal ignorance, the cry of "we must know exactly what our laws are" is incompatible with the principles of the Common Law, of which I know that the Regent is a supporter because he insists on stare decisis. Stare decisis is the principle of "judge-made law", that the law is as much in old Cort decisions as it is in statute.

The alternative is a Civil Code, whereby only what is written in positive statute is a crime, and if it's not in positive statute law no Court can rule on it. That is also a good option, and I encourage someone to write up a bill enshrining it; but if Talossans prefer to stick to Common Law principle, my bill does fine.

Yes, I think that Sir Cresti helped clean up the language and fix about a thousand statutes in his time. It's pretty amazing.

I think that one of the two of us is confused about stare decisis. My understanding is that this is a principle which establishes that precedent should largely govern the decisions of a court. If courts have followed and established principal or rule for deciding a particular set of matters, a judge should continue to do so absent compelling reason. I have never understood it to mean that a judge could, for example, declare new crimes on the basis of existing principles.

But this is a semantic argument. Accordingly, it's pointless. Can we just establish as a principal of this discussion that we would all like to have a system of government and set of laws which allows every citizen to know what is a crime or not? That specific guarantee is in the Covenants, so I didn't think this was controversial!

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 24, 2021, 04:46:34 PM
I think that one of the two of us is confused about stare decisis. My understanding is that this is a principle which establishes that precedent should largely govern the decisions of a court. If courts have followed and established principal or rule for deciding a particular set of matters, a judge should continue to do so absent compelling reason. I have never understood it to mean that a judge could, for example, declare new crimes on the basis of existing principles.

Quote from: Wikipedia on "Common Law"The first definition of "common law" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, 2014, is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions... arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation."

.

Stare decisis is, in fact, the process by which the common law felonies emerged, on the basis of the commonly-held social mores of 11th century England. "Sodomy" and "mayhem" did not originate in statute, although it would be funny if they did.

This is not a semantic question. It's a broader question of whether Talossa is to be a common-law or a civil-law jurisdiction. Hitherto we have been a common-law one, precisely one in which "new crimes" historically emerged from judicial decisions - or, to be precise, judicial decisions codified existing community mores. The Organic Law formally mandated "Anglo-American" precedent, but that's gone now; what I am attempting here is to establish an indigenous Talossan Common Law tradition, based primarily on the Covenants.

There is a good argument to switch from this to a Civil Law jurisdiction in which only statute law has any effect; but pick one. Stare decisis literally historically has meant that judges make law, including new crimes, until overruled by statute. The only good reason not to prefer a Civil Law solution is the time and effort it would take to design an indigenous criminal code.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 05:15:01 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 24, 2021, 04:46:34 PM
I think that one of the two of us is confused about stare decisis. My understanding is that this is a principle which establishes that precedent should largely govern the decisions of a court. If courts have followed and established principal or rule for deciding a particular set of matters, a judge should continue to do so absent compelling reason. I have never understood it to mean that a judge could, for example, declare new crimes on the basis of existing principles.

Quote from: Wikipedia on "Common Law"The first definition of "common law" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, 2014, is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions... arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation."

I think that some of what you clipped out when quoting is actually helpful :)

QuoteThis first connotation can be further differentiated into:

(a) general common law
arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation. Examples include most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most contract law and the law of torts.
(b) interstitial common law
court decisions that analyze, interpret and determine the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies. This body of common law, sometimes called "interstitial common law", includes judicial interpretation of the Constitution, of legislative statutes, and of agency regulations, and the application of law to specific facts.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 05:15:01 PM
Stare decisis literally historically has meant that judges make law, including new crimes, until overruled by statute.

Would you please provide an example of a Talossa judge inventing a new crime and punishing someone for it?  I am always eager to learn.

Beyond that, to be clear, I think you are wrong.  As far as I understand it, stare decisis is a legal principle which states only that it should generally be the policy of a judge to abide by precedent in interpreting the law.  Believing in the principle of stare decisis does not mean that I think it is a good idea for a judge to be able to invent new laws from whole cloth, and the specific language and extremely long-lasting policy of the Talossan judiciary has never interpreted it that way.  There's some wiggle room here, since even the idea of what is "law" is kind of fuzzy.  I mean, the courts have traditionally given enormous deference to participants in any proceeding in terms of scheduling, and an expectation of long deadlines and great leniency has become so enshrined that it could be argued that it represents a kind of law which supplements the written law, eg that interstitial common law which makes it possible for statutes to be open to some flexible interpretation.  What is a "reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction?"  Well, the corts fill in the details there, and other corts are generally expected to abide by previous decisions (eg stare decesis).  Common law!

But barring one exception that you personally found outrageous, judges have not invented new laws in Talossa, but rather interpreted them.  This is because the Talossan legal tradition is overwhelmingly influenced by the American tradition.  If you glance over the rulings handed down, you will find that almost every decision is guided by an attempt to interpret the existing statutory or Organic law whenever possible, making rules and sorting through ambiguities with the goal of getting it exactly clear what the law might be.

It is the duty of every component of a good legal system, whenever possible, to make the law clear to citizens.  Whenever the legality of an action is unclear, that's a failing of the system.  Often it's unavoidable, since no legislator or judge can anticipate every permutation of every situation.  But the goal should always be clarity.  No citizen should wonder whether or not something is a crime.

Certainly, hitherto, Talossan jurisprudence has copied United States judicial practice. As you previously and correctly stated:

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 01:48:24 PM
Yes, the modern court system has been bent inexorably towards the court system with which most of the judges in office have been familiar.

And it is precisely this that I seek to replace with either a fully indigenous Talossan common law; or an indigenous Civil Law system. I see this as patriotism. What is the point of being Talossa if we are going to act like the Big Neighbour, or to assume that the way the Big Neighbour does things should be our way. It also removes the unfair advantage that trained US legal professionals have in a system which operates as a "toy version" of the system they spend their livelihoods in.

Once again I reiterate: I am taking option A only because option B would be far more work. A secondary motive is that an indigenous Common Law system would preserve the principle of stare decisis, which seems very popular with conservative Talossans; a Civil Code system would have no need for that and every judge could use their individual discretion in every case.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 06:01:59 PM
Certainly, hitherto, Talossan jurisprudence has copied United States judicial practice. As you previously and correctly stated:

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 01:48:24 PM
Yes, the modern court system has been bent inexorably towards the court system with which most of the judges in office have been familiar.

And it is precisely this that I seek to replace with either a fully indigenous Talossan common law; or an indigenous Civil Law system. I see this as patriotism. What is the point of being Talossa if we are going to act like the Big Neighbour, or to assume that the way the Big Neighbour does things should be our way. It also removes the unfair advantage that trained US legal professionals have in a system which operates as a "toy version" of the system they spend their livelihoods in.

Once again I reiterate: I am taking option A only because option B would be far more work.

Yes, I believe I already said that we share the common goal of a fully indigenous Talossan law?  But that goal is only a mooncast shadow when compared to the roaring sun of "people shouldn't have to guess at what might be a crime."

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 03:07:38 PM
Am I right or wrong in my recollection that it was your idea to write the Wisconsin Code into our own laws in the first place?

Not quite right. The law that adopted the "civil and criminal code of the State of Wisconsin" (or "criminal and civil," I can't recall the precise formulation off the top of my head) as Talossan law predated me. The immediate problem I saw, and tried to address with my bill, is that it was unclear which portions of the Wisconsin statutes these words were intended to comprehend. So my bill identified specific titles of the Wisconsin statutes that would apply to Talossa, with the intent of making things clearer and more definite than they were before.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 03:07:38 PMAnd am I right or wrong that the Wisconsin Code has never been used to punish a crime in Talossa, but on the other hand that you personally have relied on Wisconsin legal briefs in your representations before the Corts?

You're wrong on the first point, as Sir Alexandreu pointed out. I certainly have cited to Wisconsin case law, as I would encourage anyone to do. I've never used any resources that aren't available to anyone—particularly Google Scholar and Google Books.

We could do a lot to point people to relevant resources and provide research tips. At least the status quo provides guideposts to relevant sources of authority. I think you're mistaken in believing the situation would be improved by trading the status quo for a free-for-all where all the rules are made up as we go. When there are no clear standards set forth in the law, a clever lawyer can argue that any standard ought to apply.

I think there are some arguments for retaining Wisconsin-based criminal laws, but those are probably better discussed in the other thread (which I regret not having seen before now). But like I said before, I don't feel too strongly about that. What's critical, in my opinion, is that criminal offenses and their penalties be clearly set forth in the law. This 1) makes it possible for citizens to know what conduct is prohibited and 2) circumscribes the discretion of government prosecutors. Consider Sir Thomas More's advice to William Roper (https://youtu.be/PDBiLT3LASk).

 

I see that the Seneschal has Clarked this without change, which is unfortunate.  I believe that section three remains irredeemably flawed.

Quote3. A Talossan citizen who is convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, shall be guilty of the crime of "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute", and be liable to a punishment of severity in strict proportion to the severity of the said offence.

The proposed law is inorganic.  Talossan citizens are afforded rights of due process, but little actual process is afforded by this provision.  If charged under this provision, a citizen found guilty by a foreign court is automatically deemed guilty of a Talossan crime.  While they might contest the fact of their conviction, or might contest the "repugnancy" of the crime in question, they have no opportunity to challenge the actual conviction itself.  That's a serious problem for those Talossans who live in places with judicial systems that are questionable or flawed.  Further, the law as written could possibly make things such as euthanasia illegal, in direct contravention of the Covenants.

The proposed law is unethical.  It would leave it entirely unclear what would sort of behavior would be illegal under Talossan law.  Any conviction for any crime could hypothetically be subject to prosecution under Talossan law.  The Government is unlikely to seize upon flimsy crimes such as jaywalking, but what about more serious crimes such as tax evasion?  Is that illegal under Talossan law?  No one could say for sure if this bill were to pass, since it would depend on the whims of the Government and judge to decide what they thought was particularly "repugnant."   The Covenant's theoretical prohibition of "activities which injure, endanger, risk or compromise the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of other persons" is very broad if considered as a crime.

The proposed law is impractical.  Is abortion a crime under this law?  Unclear!  The Eighth Covenant guarantees it, but the Sixth Covenant overrides the Eighth!  We've never considered the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms to be a list of crimes, and it doesn't make sense when you read it that way.  In some places, for example, affirmative action is illegal.  Is that a Talossan crime?  Maybe!  Is it illegal to have a scholarship fund for LGBT youth?  It sure is in Iran, and maybe in Talossa!  If you're a politician, is it a crime not to announce a dirty secret from your past "which reasonable voters might find helpful, profitable, or informative?"  Maybe!

I will address the Ziu to this effect very soon, in much the same words, and will refer further comment there.

This seems like a good one to seek advice on from Government legal officers.

The Attorney-General is on leave at the moment, but I've had no disagreement on the principle from the Talossans with legal experience I've talked to. The Leader of the Opposition expresses himself cautiously neutral.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 30, 2021, 02:54:04 PM
The Leader of the Opposition expresses himself cautiously neutral.

I haven't commented up to now because I don't particularly care one way or the other. I think the Regent's concerns would be quite valid if Talossa were a country with a multitude of citizens that actually threw people in prison. Given we are really just a few dozen citizens who all pretty much know each other, with no enforcement capability, the possibility of a serious abuse of this law seems too remote for me to spend too long caring about.

I am abstaining.

I understand the patriotic impulse to "domesticate" Talossan law, but scrapping the criminal code in favour of an indigenous common law (that does not yet exist) is not the way to do it. While a mature system of common law has much to commend itself, starting a new system of common law from scratch is a recipe for chaos. English common law arose more or less out of necessity, in a time when Parliament met rarely and mostly for the purpose of granting funds to the crown. There is a reason most common law jurisdictions (US federal courts, most US states, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.) have come to reject the judicial creation of new common law crimes. Crimes and penalties should be defined by the representatives of the people, and the people should be able to know in advance what actions are subject to criminal penalty. I would have thought these would be generally accepted as basic principles of justice these days.

Pace my colleague the Opposition Leader, it is true that Talossan authorities cannot throw us in prison, but they can throw us out of Talossa, and just being prosecuted in a Talossan court (even unsuccessfully) can be burdensome and traumatic. As a (rather disgraceful) saying among some American police goes, "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." That is, arrest/indictment/prosecution can be forms of punishment, or at least harassment, in themselves. And we must keep in mind that Talossa is a uniquely voluntary society, dependent on people freely choosing to do things they find enjoyable in their spare time, but the court system is one of the few ways we attempt to involuntarily impose potentially significant burdens on people as the price of being Talossan. For these reasons, it is imperative that criminal offenses be narrowly and clearly defined. Citizens should be able to know how they can avoid being hauled into court (at least if they don't want to be), and the ability of government prosecutors to creatively multiply the number of prosecutions should be constrained as much as possible.

If we want to domesticate the areas of law that we currently borrow from Wisconsin, I would start by trimming the list of the chapters of Wisconsin statutes that is included in Lexh. A.1. Maybe cut it down to chapters 939-951 (Criminal Code), exclusive of chapters 949 and 950. That would leave non-criminal law (e.g. commercial and contract law) to the courts to develop a body of common law (less dangerous than criminal law), and then we could go through the remaining 10 chapters one (or a few) at a time to determine to what extent we should selectively retain, replace, or repeal them. Whatever we do retain from those remaining chapters could be incorporated verbatim in el Lexhatx rather than by reference.

Regarding the proposed A.3, I think the Regent raises legitimate objections, but I'm frankly less concerned about that because if someone has committed a serious crime outside of Talossa, the other jurisdiction's courts will be far more competent to try the issues than any Talossan court could, and the consequences in the citizen's jurisdiction of residence will be far more significant than any consequences in Talossa. The potential consequences of a repeal of the Talossan criminal code are much more significant for the rest of us. That being said, my preference would be an administrative process that would denaturalise Talossans who have dual nationality and are incarcerated for a significant term in their state of residence, but that would probably require an OrgLaw amendment.

This is a reasoned argument (more so than the Regent's sophistries, anyway), but I'm amazed that you think giving the State the administrative ability to take away citizenship is less oppressive than giving the CpI the discretion to decide - upon a formal complaint - whether someone has violated the Covenants and to evoke a discretionary punishment which may be far less than banishment. Conversely, if your fear is rogue prosecutions, not rogue convictions, might I suggest that limits on prosecutorial power would be the answer? I suggested elsewhere a "grand jury", but no-one bit on that one.

Let's go back to why we are doing this. It is not just because it is unseemly to have written another jurisdiction's laws wholesale into our own. It is because one of our own citizens is doing time for statutory rape, and that section of the law did not give Talossa's State or courts any options to disassociate ourselves from this charater and his crimes. I don't see how your suggested amendments (reasonable on the surface) would do so; mine would.

Something my compatriots who are only familiar with US law might be interested in is the debate in this country over the "principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" (https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/WT-Principles-of-the-Treaty-of-Waitangi-as-expressed-by-the-Courts-and-the-Waitangi-Tribunal.pdf) to which State actions must conform. The point is that - due to colonial-era skullduggery - the English and Māori versions of this nation's founding document say different and contradictory things, to the point that the English text authorises mass confiscations of indigenous land, while the Māori version suggests a level of indigenous autonomy which would render the current State illegitimate. So it has been up to the courts (and the sub-judicial Waitangi Tribunal) to work out, in light of community mores, just what those principles are. I suggest that Talossan common law should do just that with our Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. (Notwithstanding that, should we go with this measure, I would like to propose certain amendments to those Covenants to improve them as the basis for our common law.)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 03:27:06 PMI'm amazed that you think giving the State the administrative ability to take away citizenship is less oppressive than giving the CpI the discretion to decide - upon a formal complaint - whether someone has violated the Covenants and to evoke a discretionary punishment which may be far less than banishment.

It seems that you're focused on situations where a citizen who has already been through a full-fledged criminal prosecution and is literally sitting in an actual brick-and-mortar prison for a term of many years, and is facing potential loss of Talossan citizenship on top of that, and the question is whether they should go through a simple administrative process or a criminal trial (where guilt is essentially presumed anyways) before losing Talossan citizenship. I'm focused on situations where a citizen thinks he or she is abiding by the law to the best of his or her ability and the question is whether they should be put through a trial and risk losing their citizenship at all. For your citizen, the additional process and consequence they're facing from Talossa is a drop in the ocean compared to the process and consequences that they have already faced and that we can't do anything about. For my citizen, the threat of prosecution and loss of citizenship in Talossa is everything.

So no, I don't think an administrative process that results in loss of Talossan citizenship is much of an incremental burden for the citizen who is already sitting in prison for 25 years after a trial with due process (and if they didn't get due process, loss of Talossan citizenship is the least of their problems, and we can add safeguards to the process mitigate that risk) and conviction of a crime that was defined in advance by law (because they hopefully live in a jurisdiction that—unlike Talossa if this bill passes—believes in the principle of legality). On the other hand, I think putting a citizen in jeopardy of loss of Talossan citizenship for a "crime" that is not defined by any law and of which the citizen had no prior notice is kind of a big deal. And yes, the actual punishment may well be less than banishment, but that's still on top of the prosecution itself, and starting from a baseline of zero (whereas with your citizen we're talking about starting from a baseline of a macronational prosecution and several years of incarceration). 

So when it comes to A.3 we're talking about cases where the choice is between a lengthy prison term and loss of Talossan citizenship or just a lengthy prison term, whereas when it comes to the repeal of the criminal code we're talking about cases where the choice is between prosecution and no prosecution. That can mean prosecution where there ought to be no prosecution (because prosecutors are encouraged to prosecute offenses that would not have been enacted by the legislature) or no prosecution where there ought to be prosecution (if the Cort declines the invitation to create a criminal common law under the 7th Covenant). So you'll really be rolling the dice between anarchy and arbitrary prosecution. And it's unnecessary if you're really concerned primarily about non-Talossan crimes. You could enact something like A.3 without repealing the existing criminal code for Talossan crimes, so I think this bill is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 03:27:06 PMConversely, if your fear is rogue prosecutions, not rogue convictions, might I suggest that limits on prosecutorial power would be the answer? I suggested elsewhere a "grand jury", but no-one bit on that one.

Yes, I think the principle of legality is a great limit on prosecutorial power: have crimes and their elements defined up front, so if prosecutors try to charge someone with something that isn't even a crime there can be a procedure to have the charges quickly dismissed as legally insufficient. And that also makes it easier to identify cases of malicious prosecution and sanction prosecutors who bring frivolous charges. A grand jury is a fine idea in principle, but it would be a lot more practical if we had a much larger active population. Any solution that requires multiple additional bodies means taking away from anything else we would like to see get done in Talossa (legal reform projects, language stuff, other cultural endeavours, etc.).

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 03:27:06 PMLet's go back to why we are doing this. It is not just because it is unseemly to have written another jurisdiction's laws wholesale into our own. It is because one of our own citizens is doing time for statutory rape, and that section of the law did not give Talossa's State or courts any options to disassociate ourselves from this charater and his crimes. I don't see how your suggested amendments (reasonable on the surface) would do so; mine would.

Why we're doing what, specifically? How does a general repeal of the criminal code achieve the purpose you're talking about? Why not leave the criminal code in place for Talossan crimes and separately enact a mechanism (whether a new crime or something else) to deal with the issue of non-Talossan crimes that you're talking about? I don't see how one is necessary, or even helpful, for accomplishing the other.

I think we've been talking past each other to an extent. I think the primary purpose of Talossan criminal law should be to address Talossan crimes: crimes committed in Talossa, or against Talossans, or against the Talossan state. If a Talossan citizen is also a Texan and assaults someone in Texas, Texas will deal with it (and is best suited to). If a Talossan counterfeits Talossan coins or stamps, or commits perjury in a Talossan forum, or tries to bribe a Talossan official, or engages in online harassment of another citizen (which we had a prosecution for back in '06), only Talossa is likely to care (or at least to care nearly as much as we do). Why repeal our existing laws criminalizing forgery, perjury, bribery, and online harassment in order to deal with that Texan crime that can be handled with a separate law? My suggestions are aimed at making better Talossan law for Talossan crimes. How to respond to non-Talossan crimes committed by Talossans should be a separate issue.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on March 31, 2021, 08:48:45 PM
It seems that you're focused on situations where a citizen who has already been through a full-fledged criminal prosecution and is literally sitting in an actual brick-and-mortar prison for a term of many years

Yes, because those are the only situations in which Section A3 applies.

Quote from: The billconvicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms

.

... oh, I get it. You think that the sections A1-2 will entitle prosecutors to just "make up" crimes to take people to Court for. That's a very novel interpretation which I would never have thought of. My intention was to codify (there's that word the Regent loves) the principle of stare decisis and the basis of Talossan common law - not to invent any new crimes apart from "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute".

Sections A1-2 are meant only to clarify that Talossa is a common law jurisdiction and that the Covenants are at the base of our jurisprudence - which is the status quo. If you want those removed, please answer quickly: should Talossa be a civil law jurisidiction, where the courts cannot rule at all where statute law is silent? If not, what should be the basis of our common law?

I think we've wasted a lot of time due to mutual misunderstanding.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on March 31, 2021, 08:48:45 PM
If a Talossan counterfeits Talossan coins or stamps, or commits perjury in a Talossan forum, or tries to bribe a Talossan official, or engages in online harassment of another citizen (which we had a prosecution for back in '06), only Talossa is likely to care (or at least to care nearly as much as we do). Why repeal our existing laws criminalizing forgery, perjury, bribery, and online harassment in order to deal with that Texan crime that can be handled with a separate law? My suggestions are aimed at making better Talossan law for Talossan crimes. How to respond to non-Talossan crimes committed by Talossans should be a separate issue.

Because I had no idea - until you told me - that these sections of the Wisconsin Code had anything to do with "harassment, perjury, bribery or counterfeiting" - and no way of knowing apart from making a guess and doing a Google search. This is hilarious, because the Regent is complaining about "people not knowing what's against the law", where the status quo is you have to look up the laws of a completely different country right now to know what's against the law in Talossa, and you don't mind that, because you're used to finding out such information. I'm not. No-one else is (except perhaps other lawyers).

But you never would have budged if I were not forcing the issue right now, so there you go. Please, write your recodifications of all those things you think are necessary to Talossa, that only you and perhaps a small minority of others knew what was in there, because ordinary people can't look them up. Hopper them and I'll co-sponsor them into the next Cosa.

...you didn't look up what you were repealing?  Or ask someone?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:17:58 PM
Yes, because those are the only situations in which Section A3 applies.

Right, so why does the rest of the bill say what it does?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:17:58 PM
... oh, I get it. You think that the sections A1-2 will entitle prosecutors to just "make up" crimes to take people to Court for. That's a very novel interpretation which I would never have thought of.

Well, that's what I've been saying all along. In my initial comment on the bill I tried to set aside A.3 and focus on the problems created by repealing the existing criminal code (which seems unnecessary to the purpose of A.3).

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:17:58 PMIf you want those removed, please answer quickly: should Talossa be a civil law jurisidiction, where the courts cannot rule at all where statute law is silent? If not, what should be the basis of our common law?

Really, what we see today are mostly hybrid systems to one degree or another. Sir Alexandreu mentioned "interstitial common law" in a previous post, and that's where I think the common law is strongest. Filling in the gaps, addressing procedural issues, providing precedent about how codified law should be interpreted. But I think the basic elements of crimes and their penalties should be codified in statute. As I mentioned earlier, most common law jurisdictions have either abrogated common law crimes or "frozen" them so that new ones cannot be created by the courts.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Because I had no idea - until you told me - that these sections of the Wisconsin Code had anything to do with "harassment, perjury, bribery or counterfeiting" - and no way of knowing apart from making a guess and doing a Google search. This is hilarious, because the Regent is complaining about "people not knowing what's against the law", where the status quo is you have to look up the laws of a completely different country right now to know what's against the law in Talossa, and you don't mind that, because you're used to finding out such information. I'm not. No-one else is (except perhaps other lawyers).

At least there is something to look up, which is explicitly identified in the law. It can be improved (and I've made specific suggestions how to do do), but it's still better than not even have anything to look up for those who are motivated to do so.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on March 31, 2021, 09:29:36 PM
Really, what we see today are mostly hybrid systems to one degree or another. Sir Alexandreu mentioned "interstitial common law" in a previous post, and that's where I think the common law is strongest. Filling in the gaps, addressing procedural issues, providing precedent about how codified law should be interpreted. But I think the basic elements of crimes and their penalties should be codified in statute. As I mentioned earlier, most common law jurisdictions have either abrogated common law crimes or "frozen" them so that new ones cannot be created by the courts.

Okay. 1) No-one at all is suggesting inventing new common law Talossan crimes, only introducing one new statutory one, described in A3.

2) On what basis is our common law to be? We used to say Anglo-American precedent; we repealed that bit. We could bring it back if you wanted, but honestly I think lessening our reliance on The Big Neighbour's legal system is more patriotic. And I think our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms should play the role in our jurisprudence that the Bill of Rights does in the Big Neighbour's. This is ALL that A1-2 are designed to achieve.

I repeat again that you guys had two months to wake up and suggest amendments here. Our current system, where a Bill is Clarked with 5 days before voting and its opponents go "miéida sant, we didn't think you were serious! Please stop!" is ludicrous and leads to bad law.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 31, 2021, 09:28:08 PM
...you didn't look up what you were repealing?  Or ask someone?

I never thought for a second there was "secret law" in Talossa that you had to "ask someone" to look up, so I suppose I had a failure of imagination, yes!  ;D This kind of petty, condescending rudeness is exactly why people don't take your critiques seriously.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:36:16 PMI repeat again that you guys had two months to wake up and suggest amendments here. Our current system, where a Bill is Clarked with 5 days before voting and its opponents go "miéida sant, we didn't think you were serious! Please stop!" is ludicrous and leads to bad law.

You posted a first draft of this bill on February 10th.  I pointed out huge problems on February 13th, and you said nothing for a very long time.  Then more than a month later, on March 17th -- again, that's only two weeks ago! -- you posted the new draft.  Within the week, you received detailed feedback on these specific problems.  That discussion continued in good faith and in detail right up until March 24th, at which point you Clarked the bill.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other bill?  Since you're not describing what you did with this one.  There was no way for anyone to know that you'd just abandoned your first draft after the February exchange -- you never said, "I do see the problem here, so let's fix it."  You just stopped replying and said nothing for a month.  I am not a mind reader.

I also had no way to know that you never looked up the laws you were repealing.  It never would have occurred to me to ask if you'd done that, since such a question would seem very insulting for me to ask.  I certainly would have helped you find them if I had known.  I usually just google "Wisconsin statutes," which is an easy way to get there for me.

I hope that the Ziu sees these manifold problems and more time can be taken to fix this.  You have Clarked numerous bills this term and I'm not sure a single one has lost even one vote from your party, however, so that seems unlikely.

Well, quite often with you the best way to end a discussion that's going nowhere is just to cease replying, because you always have to have the last word, lol

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 31, 2021, 10:50:31 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 31, 2021, 09:36:16 PMI repeat again that you guys had two months to wake up and suggest amendments here. Our current system, where a Bill is Clarked with 5 days before voting and its opponents go "miéida sant, we didn't think you were serious! Please stop!" is ludicrous and leads to bad law.

You posted a first draft of this bill on February 10th.  I pointed out huge problems on February 13th, and you said nothing for a very long time.  Then more than a month later, on March 17th -- again, that's only two weeks ago! -- you posted the new draft.  Within the week, you received detailed feedback on these specific problems.  That discussion continued in good faith and in detail right up until March 24th, at which point you Clarked the bill.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other bill?  Since you're not describing what you did with this one.  There was no way for anyone to know that you'd just abandoned your first draft after the February exchange -- you never said, "I do see the problem here, so let's fix it."  You just stopped replying and said nothing for a month.  I am not a mind reader.

I also had no way to know that you never looked up the laws you were repealing.  It never would have occurred to me to ask if you'd done that, since such a question would seem very insulting for me to ask.  I certainly would have helped you find them if I had known.  I usually just google "Wisconsin statutes," which is an easy way to get there for me.

I hope that the Ziu sees these manifold problems and more time can be taken to fix this.  You have Clarked numerous bills this term and I'm not sure a single one has lost even one vote from your party, however, so that seems unlikely.

You do understand that the Ziu seeks counsel, not because we have to... but because we chose to. The legislative body of this Kingdom is a separate entity... not part of the Sovereign's day to day. We heard your input... and while we do appreciate the Regent's desire to be a bit more involved (WAY more than John has in a while)... you also need to learn to stay in the lane of the office you hold. We as a legislative body spend far too much time arguing with the Sovereign/Regent over freaking nonsense. The duties of the Government are handled by the Ziu... not by you... and we will be a better nation when that is clearly understood.

I would say that I think the clerking of this bill without the improvements that were pointed out when originally posted is not in the spirit of what the hopper is for. Its intended for legislation to be discussed and improved for the betterment of our nation. If that improvement does happen I believe that my fellow members are within their right to be angry about it.

On the question of codified vs. statute law. I was talking the other day with various Talossans about our legal definition of treason - never mind why - and my legal search came to the shocking conclusion that, while the Organic Law makes provision for treason, it is nowhere defined in our law except El Lexhatx A.20.5, which applies that term to... bogus "official Talossan websites".  There is nothing in codified Talossan law which criminalises attempting to overthrow the State.

The point of this observation is that you'd have to work a long long time to create Talossan statute law which perfectly covers all our needs. I support the "common law" approach of giving discretion to judges to cover the gaps, although statute law should replace it at our earliest convenience.

I should also point out that the last time Patrick Woolley spoke to me, it was to express his enthusiasm about... bringing back the common-law felonies. So, yeah.

Directing judges to invent crimes as needed is easier than legislating, but it seems unwise and unethical.  A citizen of a country should be able to know what is a crime and what is not.

Treason is an offence against the state itself ("high treason") and not internal violent dissent ("petty treason").  Most nations have dropped the concept of "petty treason" and use "treason" to mean "high treason" - which is what, I presume, we do (and shall do) here in Talossa. For that particular Crime Repugnant to Talossanity I think we have no need for the Justices to be involved in contentious deliberation: the answers to "Is this person trying to kill the monarch?" and "Is this person supporting external war against Talossa?" make the question "Is this (potentially) treason?" a clear one.

It is my intention to resubmit this bill to the First (real) Clark of the 56th Cosa. Note that under Organic Law VII.11, it will not be subject to royal veto.

However, I will happily withdraw it before then in favour of any other bill which accomplishes both of the below:

(a) removes Wisconsin law from El Lexhatx;
(b) takes into account the objections made by the King in his veto decision, and Sir Cresti and everyone's favourite Baron in the thread above;

and is able to get a majority and avoid another Royal veto. Removing Wisconsin law is that much of a priority for me. I will also note that I will totally support any bill which makes "harassment, perjury, bribery or counterfeiting" crimes under indigenous Talossan law as a companion to this.

So basically, judges will now have full discretion to declare anything they dislike enough a crime as long as they can find some justification in the sixth amendment (which should be easy enough for most things)?

OH NO!

Edit: Ok, this was based on the bill at the top of thread. Apologies

And then of course, the blame of any future negative consquences rests not on people voting for a bad bill but on the people warning for these consquences not putting in hours of work to write a better one.

Yay, politics...

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 17, 2021, 04:52:10 PM
Let's try that again.

===
WHEREAS the 31st Cosa chose to deal with the lack of Talossan law against "murder, rape, robbery" and other serious crimes against the person by incorporating the laws of the State of Wisconsin into Talossan law, where indigenous Talossan law does not contradict them;

AND WHEREAS the 35th Cosa amended this to specify only certain sections of the Wisconsin Statutes, which currently comprise sections A.1-4 of El Lexhatx;

AND WHEREAS this means that a thorough knowledge of Talossan law necessarily requires a knowledge of Wisconsin law;

AND WHEREAS Wisconsin law has never in fact been used to punish infamous crimes committed by Talossan citizens, such as statutory rape;

AND WHEREAS the practice of Talossan law and jurisprudence should be open to all Talossans, not just those who are already professional lawyers;

AND WHEREAS the only way Wisconsin law has been used in Talossa is by trained practitioners of United States law introducing Wisconsin precedent into their Talossan legal briefs, giving those trained in United States law an unfair advantage over those who are only trained in Talossan law;

AND WHEREAS we should find a different way to achieve the original intent of the measure, which was to make infamous crimes against the person a crime under Talossan law;

AND WHEREAS the basic principles of what is moral, right and good under Talossan law are already contained in our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms;

AND WHEREAS previous versions of the Organic Law specified "generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law" as a foundation for Talossan law, but this has been removed;

AND WHEREAS it is wise to re-establish some legislative basis for Talossan juridical practice;


BE IT ENACTED by the Ziu that:

1.  Sections A.1-4 and A.7-8 of El Lexhatx are repealed in their entirety.

2. Sections A.1-3 of El Lexhatx shall henceforth read as follows:

Quote1. The basis of all Talossan law and jurisprudence is the principles contained in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Where Talossan statute law is silent, Talossan courts shall make decisions in accordance with Talossan juridical precedent. Judges may also use precedent from other legal systems with which they are familiar to guide their decisions, though such precedent shall not be binding.

3. A Talossan citizen who is convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, shall be guilty of the crime of "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute", and be liable to a punishment of severity in strict proportion to the severity of the said offence.

3. The sections of Title A of El Lexhatx shall be subsequently renumbered consecutively.

This was the version that was passed by the Ziu, Gluc.  It is better than that first one to which you're referring.  The newer version only criminalizes nearly any conviction in any other court, rather than any action anywhere.  Unfortunately, this version of the bill would allow the Government to prosecute you for something as trivial as failing to register your car on time, since nearly every crime (in America anyway) can be punished by a few days in jail as one potential consequence.  This bill does have the downside of legalizing many crimes in Talossa, too.  Perjury in a Talossan court, harassment of another Talossan, etc won't be a crime anymore, if it passes.

Quick quiz, Glüc: do you know what Talossa's current laws against harassment, perjury, etc. are? No you don't, because they're not in El Lexhatx, they're (apparently) in Wisconsin law somewhere, and AD actively mocked me because I didn't already know that.

It's the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty that gets me. "With judicial discretion, people won't know what the law is". And we don't know what the law is now, unless we know exactly what sections to look up in Wisconsin law. Or even how to look things up in Wisconsin law in the first place. AD will come back and say that that's not a burden on average Talossans, and if you agree with that... well.

As we found out with the question of the monarchy, if people like the status quo, they will not engage in good faith to change things unless you give them a worse alternative. So: have at it.

I didnt know what the current law on perjury was, so I googled "wisconsin law perjury" and found Wis. Stat. § 946.31 (https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-946-crimes-against-government-and-its-administration/subchapter-iii-perjury-and-false-swearing/section-94631-perjury), which would mean it's a Class H felony. I didnt know what that was, so I googled some more and found Wis. Stat. § 939.50 (https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-939-crimes-general-provisions/subchapter-iv-penalties/section-93950-classification-of-felonies), which would mean the punishment for perjury before a Talossan court would be a fine of up to 6666¤40 and/or up to 6 years in prison. Except imprisonment isnt a de facto authorised punishment (Lexh A.5.3), so possible punishments would be banishment (Lexh A.5.1), revocation of citizenship (Lexh A.5.2), civil disability for up to 18 years (Lexh A.5.4, Lexh A.6.1) and/or the aforementioned fine (Lexh A.5.5), and I guess restitution (Lexh A.5.6) and reprimand (Lexh A.5.7) but those seem kinda silly in this context.

For me, the problem isnt finding out what is and isnt legal, the Wisconsin Statutes are all freely available on the internet, and the Lexhatx will tell you which of these statutes apply to Talossa and which punishments are permitted, but something about this still rubs me the wrong way... I can't really pinpoint it though. I guess part of it would be that the punishment is up to SIX YEARS IN PRISON, what the hell??

An additional problem here is because of how the royal veto works, I have to reintroduce this bill exactly the same as passed by the last Ziu. I mean, I could "tweak" the exact provisions of what kind of extra-Talossan crimes might be prosecutable in Talossa; another good amendment might be to bring in a Public Defender system for people who can't represent themselves in Talossan court (because they're in jail or whatever). But because the (current) King's vetoes are so capricious - he almost always waits until the Ziu debate is over, then pulls out a veto if he feels like it - then there's no point trying an amended bill which will probably just be vetoed itself on relatively spurious grounds.

Furthermore, I have reached out to certain heavyweight Talossan legal beagles to write statute law on "perjury, harassment, counterfeiting and bribery", so hopefully that project will be coming soon. As Marcel says you can Google it, but only if you know what you're looking for. Before I started this process I had no idea that such things were even covered by the sections of Wisconsin law written into Talossan law - El Lex does not list "perjury. harrassment, counterfieting and bribery" among the issues covered by Wisconsin law in Talossa. I have to also add that Marcel could find out what the penalties for perjury are in Wisconsin. Since I'm too busy right now, could Marcel also Google what the legal definition of perjury is under Wisconsin law? And all the legal issues (including judicial precedent) involved in finding someone guilty of perjury, that Talossan courts would currently have to know?

Further, these issues were only raised after the original version of this bill was Clarked - by the very same trained lawyer who included these sections into Talossan law in the first place, a fellow who is relatively inactive these days. I feel like I'm going mad sometimes trying to explain why it was not right that there were whole sections of Talossan law that only Cresti knew existed. And anyway - as Marcel points out - the penalties are inappropriate for Talossa, which is a good enough reason in itself for removing these sections.

We also have to remember that under Talossan law, the Courts can't do a single thing until someone brings a case. There's a lot of effort going into thinking up "edge cases" whereby some Talossan lawyer hates someone so much that, when he finds out they got 10 days in jail for making an audio porn tape*, he gets together a case to get them the Talossan death penalty; and then the UC, who hates this person just as much, ignores the bit of the new bill which says "strict proportion" and banishes them or declares it legal to hunt them for sport or something. As opposed to the current system, where we can't do jack about it as a Kingdom when we find out a prominent citizen raped little children.

* actually happened to the late Frank Zappa, he was entrapped

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 04:46:12 PM
As opposed to the current system, where we can't do jack about it as a Kingdom when we find out a prominent citizen raped little children.

About that. I'm not sure if I read this right, but it seems to me like Talossan courts cannot prosecute or punish a citizen who commits a crime against a non-citizen (Lexh A.3), which seems like an extreme oversight, because otherwise that crime would be covered by Wis. Stat. § 948.02 (https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-948-crimes-against-children/section-94802-sexual-assault-of-a-child?), punishable by banishment, revocation of citizenship and civil disability for up to 180 years.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 04:46:12 PM
I have to also add that Marcel could find out what the penalties for perjury are in Wisconsin. Since I'm too busy right now, could Marcel also Google what the legal definition of perjury is under Wisconsin law?

The statute in question begins with the words "Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before any of the following, whether legally constituted or exercising powers as if legally constitutedis guilty of a Class H felony", which sounds like what youre asking for.

QuoteAnd all the legal issues (including judicial precedent) involved in finding someone guilty of perjury, that Talossan courts would currently have to know?

I'm afraid I'd have to sift through 173 years worth of court cases to find everything that might be relevant (a problem with Common Law in general) so probably not.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:06:43 PM
The statute in question begins with the words "Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before any of the following, whether legally constituted or exercising powers as if legally constitutedis guilty of a Class H felony", which sound like what youre asking for.

Thanks for that - that's the basis for a Talossan Perjury Bill right there, lol.

QuoteI'm afraid I'd have to sift through 173 years worth of court cases to find everything that might be relevant (a problem with Common Law in general) so probably not.

That's precisely right. My opponents want a Common Law system based on stare decisis. Incorporating Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that Wisconsin precedent becomes relevant. Only actual trained lawyers in the Wisconsin jurisdiction are capable of doing that. Cresti himself commonly brought up Wisconsin precedents in Talossan court cases; and yet some people who defend this transclusion of Wisconsin law also say that "Talossan law must be open to amateurs".

I've suggested a Civil Law system where only the text of statute matters, but that wasn't popular.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:02:30 PM
About that. I'm not sure if I read this right, but it seems to me like Talossan courts cannot prosecute or punish a citizen who commits a crime against a non-citizen (Lexh A.3), which seems like an extreme oversight, because otherwise that crime would be covered by Wis. Stat. § 948.02 (https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-948-crimes-against-children/section-94802-sexual-assault-of-a-child?), punishable by banishment, revocation of citizenship and civil disability for up to 180 years.

That's right. Others have pointed out that Talossa simply doesn't have the resources to properly try serious crimes in such a way that both justice could be done and the defendant's rights could be respected. Which is why it is ridiculous to have things like "murder, rape and robbery" (as KR1 put it) in Talossa's laws altogether. Which is why our only choice when deciding Talossan sanctions is to rely on the verdicts of credible (I put that word in the law advisedly, i.e. not the kangaroo courts of authoritarian regimes) outside courts.

... aw man, the more I look through El Lexhatx Section A the more I find out that it's based on the very very American distinction of "felony" and "misdemeanour" for grading various crimes. So the companion statute to indigenously define various crimes will have to either take that on board, or replace it, whichever is less annoying.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 05:27:04 PM
Which is why our only choice when deciding Talossan sanctions is to rely on the verdicts of credible (I put that word in the law advisedly, i.e. not the kangaroo courts of authoritarian regimes) outside courts.

Different countries' legal systems are pretty diverse, so wouldn't relying on credible outside verdicts require at least some kind of conversion key or something? EDIT: And how would you determine which countries have credible outside courts and which don't? It's easy for a lot of countries, but there are a ton of unclear or edge cases as well.

Quote... aw man, the more I look through El Lexhatx Section A the more I find out that it's based on the very very American distinction of "felony" and "misdemeanour" for grading various crimes. So the companion statute to indigenously define various crimes will have to either take that on board, or replace it, whichever is less annoying.

German law states that, in general, a felony is any crime punishable by at least one year in prison, and conversely a misdemeanour is any crime punishable by less than one year in prison or by fine (§12 StGB (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p0116)). Maybe we could use something similar to decide which outside verdicts would constitute felony or misdemeanour charges in Talossa, in case the country in question doesnt make the distinction.

Currently we have a kludge in place to criminalize a wide variety of offenses that matter to us in particular.  This was a hasty and easy way to get in place these laws.  It was probably very necessary to do so, since we've prosecuted and/or convicted people of violating laws such as §947.0125, §939.10, §939.30, §939.31, §946.10, §946.61, and §943.70.  We need laws against some stuff.  I think we can all agree on that as a goal, right?  We want to be able to prosecute people who do some bad stuff that only we will care about and act on, like harassing a Talossan or whatnot.

We also want to be able to kick our or penalize people who do stuff that's very bad, even if it's not one of the things that matter specifically to us.  Iusti Canun is the obvious example.  So that's another goal we can agree on, right?  And we want to have due process for dealing with both of the above, so that's yet another one.

It's kind of annoying to look these laws up.  It helps a lot to be American, and it really helps to be familiar with American law in particular.  It's not impossible, of course.  Most native English speakers can pretty easily spend fifteen minutes or so and find the listed provisions from the Wisconsin statutes online, since they're identified by number and label. After all, it's not too impossible to look at a list of chapters and deduce where Chapter 240 might be, even if it's a bit of a janky solution.  (Certainly someone writing a bill which repeals all the crimes should take the time to look at what's in these sections.)  But it's not an ideal system for reasons of equity and access, and also because it'd be good to have our own laws that we control and wrote in their entirety.

So this is clunky and bad, and as I said (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=702.msg5807#msg5807) a while ago, I think everyone involved agrees that we would like to replace the Wisconsin sections of our law with native law.  That's another goal we can agree on!

But!  This is way less important than one of the fundamental principles of law, so important it's stated in our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms: crimes should not be invented after the fact.  The citizens of a modern democracy should be able to identify what is a crime and what is not.  So that should also be a goal.  It's a fundamental principle of good government.  It's a fundamental principle of moral government.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 04:46:12 PM
We also have to remember that under Talossan law, the Courts can't do a single thing until someone brings a case. There's a lot of effort going into thinking up "edge cases" whereby some Talossan lawyer hates someone so much that, when he finds out they got 10 days in jail for making an audio porn tape*, he gets together a case to get them the Talossan death penalty; and then the UC, who hates this person just as much, ignores the bit of the new bill which says "strict proportion" and banishes them or declares it legal to hunt them for sport or something.

I know you're trying to make light of the possibility of abuse here, but it's kind of funny how hard you have to work at it.  I mean, is it really so hard to believe that there might be citizens in our country who might find out that someone was convicted of some crime at some time in some country, and then start up a prosecution just to mess with the other person?  Even if the charge gets thrown out, that's stress and time/money that's been spent.

If someone's ever spent a night in jail for disorderly conduct because they went to a protest, then got time served in the morning -- well, that person now has to hide that fact from the rest of Talossa forever.  Otherwise it's a club that anyone could hold over their head, since any citizen at any point could prosecute them for it.

You mock my concerns as though they're unreasonable, but it seems far more unreasonable for you to assume that everyone in the country will always behave well.  Surely you admit that it's a good goal to say that citizens should be able to know what is a crime and what is not, right?

If you do agree, then we have a good set of goals laid out for writing a decent bill:
* We want to criminalize some stuff that matters mostly to us and that we can actually address.
* We want to be able to kick out people that do other stuff that's so bad we don't want them around.
* We want due process to protect everyone accused of both of those sets of things.
* We want to have only law we write and control.
* We want citizens to be able to know what's a crime in Talossa and what is not.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 06:37:17 PM
I know you're trying to make light of the possibility of abuse here

I certainly am! I'll quote from Senator Plätschisch in the last debate over this: "I think the Regent's concerns would be quite valid if Talossa were a country with a multitude of citizens that actually threw people in prison. Given we are really just a few dozen citizens who all pretty much know each other, with no enforcement capability, the possibility of a serious abuse of this law seems too remote for me to spend too long caring about."

QuoteIf someone's ever spent a night in jail for disorderly conduct because they went to a protest, then got time served in the morning

... then that doesn't matter, because none of that fits the definition of "convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms".

But no matter - write your alternative bill, and if it's good enough I'll vote for it and withdraw my own.  The whole point is that this "kludgy, janky" fix which only US-qualified lawyers could properly operate would be there foreever if I hadn't forced the issue. You're welcome.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:38:39 PM
Different countries' legal systems are pretty diverse, so wouldn't relying on credible outside verdicts require at least some kind of conversion key or something?

Now you're getting into the weeds of "how can we really know anything, ever". If you're saying that there is no way that Talossa can determine that the court which convicted I. Canún of raping children was credible, then I give up, there is no point to any of this.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 06:58:28 PM

QuoteIf someone's ever spent a night in jail for disorderly conduct because they went to a protest, then got time served in the morning

... then that doesn't matter, because none of that fits the definition of "convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms".

Yes, it does?  Being sentenced to a night in jail is penal servitude, and pretty much every imaginable crime could violate the Sixth Covenant.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 06:58:28 PM
But no matter - write your alternative bill, and if it's good enough I'll vote for it and withdraw my own.

That's quite a request, my goodness!  You want me to put forward a ton of time and effort within the next month, in the hopes of writing a wholesale revision of our entire criminal law that you deem "good enough," even though you won't deign even to answer direct questions about your goals here?

Do you agree to these goals as things that you would like to accomplish with the bill?  If you think one of them is bad, would you please say so now?

* We want to criminalize some stuff that matters mostly to us and that we can actually address.
* We want to be able to kick out people that do other stuff that's so bad we don't want them around.
* We want due process to protect everyone accused of both of those sets of things.
* We want to have only law we write and control.
* We want citizens to be able to know what's a crime in Talossa and what is not.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:01:04 PM
Now you're getting into the weeds of "how can we really know anything, ever". If you're saying that there is no way that Talossa can determine that the court which convicted I. Canún of raping children was credible, then I give up, there is no point to any of this.

No, I'm obviously not saying that.

What I am saying is that we would need some kind of way of consistently determining which outside court rulings correspond to which Talossan court rulings, because even among countries with credible criminal justice systems, laws and punishments vary wildly. Converting an American child rape conviction into Talossan would be very trivial, but child rape isn't the only thing that we'd want to punish in future, right?

It would be unreasonable to punish two different Talossans differently for the same crime based solely on where they happen to live and thus were convicted. For example, prostitution is illegal in Wisconsin punishable by a fine of up to 6666¤40 and/or 9 months in prison, but perfectly legal in Germany. What would we do about things like this?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:01:04 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:38:39 PM
Different countries' legal systems are pretty diverse, so wouldn't relying on credible outside verdicts require at least some kind of conversion key or something?

Now you're getting into the weeds of "how can we really know anything, ever". If you're saying that there is no way that Talossa can determine that the court which convicted I. Canún of raping children was credible, then I give up, there is no point to any of this.

There doesn't seem to be any need to be so dismissive of the very valid point that different legal systems have very different standards and penalties for things.  He's not having an existential crisis, he's pointing out that things are complex.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 07:14:31 PM
prostitution is illegal in Wisconsin punishable by a fine of up to 6666¤40 and/or 9 months in prison, but perfectly legal in Germany. What would we do about things like this?

Tell me which part of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms "prostitution" (i.e. sex work) is repugnant to, first.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:17:15 PM
Tell me which part of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms "prostitution" (i.e. sex work) is repugnant to, first.

Firstly, let me preface that the word "prostitution" is the neutral legal term for sex work in German, and I wasnt aware of any negative connotations in English. Sorry for that faux pas.

Secondly, prostitution is criminalised by Wis. Stat. § 944.30 (https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-944-crimes-against-sexual-morality/subchapter-v-prostitution/section-94430-prostitution), which means it's currently illegal in Talossa as well if it occurs between two citizens, which is why I used it as an example. I wouldn't mind legalising it of course, but others might, and I'd rather have a debate in the Ziu about which crimes to keep and which to drop rather than leaving it vague.

---

EDIT: My idea of legal reform would look something like this:
- We draw up a list of things that should be illegal and how to punish them, and whether they are misdemeanours or felonies, with the distinction being that felonies can result in banishment or revocation of citizenship.
- If a Talossan is convicted by a credible outside court of an act that is in the aforementioned list, they get punished accordingly by a Talossan court. We would also draw up a list of countries whose legal systems are considered credible for ease of use.

The problem with this is that different crimes are defined differently in different credible countries, so to make sure that the act in question is actually a crime in Talossa, we'd have to check the other country's criminal code etc etc, which would only make matters more complicated. So my idea sucks, but its the best one I have currently.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 07:12:04 PM
pretty much every imaginable crime could violate the Sixth Covenant.

OrgLaw VIII.6 declares that "The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms". If "every imaginable crime violates the Sixth Covenant", then think a minute about what you've just argued about the very basis of Talossan law. A possible reading of the 6C would be "if you annoy someone, you have no rights under Talossan law". And the OrgLaw requires that our Corts interpret all matters through this lens.

Admittedly, my bill presumes that the Uppermost Cort is comprised of justices who will apply common sense, natural justice and community mores in making their decisions. But if you're right and we can't expect the Cort to do that, then we have a much bigger problem.

Quote
Do you agree to these goals as things that you would like to accomplish with the bill?  If you think one of them is bad, would you please say so now?

* We want to criminalize some stuff that matters mostly to us and that we can actually address.
* We want to be able to kick out people that do other stuff that's so bad we don't want them around.
* We want due process to protect everyone accused of both of those sets of things.
* We want to have only law we write and control.
* We want citizens to be able to know what's a crime in Talossa and what is not.

No, all those are good. I think my bill covers some of them, not all; but because we can't trust the King not to veto, I won't shift from my bill until I'm sure the alternative will get through.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 07:24:38 PM
prostitution is criminalised by Wis. Stat. § 944.30 (https://casetext.com/statute/wisconsin-statutes/criminal-code/chapter-944-crimes-against-sexual-morality/subchapter-v-prostitution/section-94430-prostitution), which means it's currently illegal in Talossa as well if it occurs between two citizenstc etc, which would only make matters more complicated. So my idea sucks, but its the best one I have currently.

There you go - another argument for repealing Wisconsin law! Thanks.

My point about the Covenants is that you couldn't bring a case against a Talossan for sex work under my bill, but now that I know you can bring one under Wisconsin law, that just makes the reform more important. Did you see AD's mournful little fable about the Talossan who got a night in jail for protest and could theoretically be legally harassed by other Talossans, assuming a prosecutor and a judge who wanted to be real pieces of miéida? Well, ha ha, because that might happen right now if anyone of us is doing sex work.

(BTW, yeah, "prostitution" is considered pejorative in contemporary English, but no offence taken.)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:33:37 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 07:12:04 PM
pretty much every imaginable crime could violate the Sixth Covenant.

OrgLaw VIII.6 declares that "The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms". If "every imaginable crime violates the Sixth Covenant", then think a minute about what you've just argued about the very basis of Talossan law. A possible reading of the 6C would be "if you annoy someone, you have no rights under Talossan law". And the OrgLaw requires that our Corts interpret all matters through this lens.

Respectfully, I think this might not be a correct reading of the Covenants.  They aren't a criminal code.  The Government can't prosecute someone for violating the Sixth Covenant in some vague way.  For example, if you thought I was annoying, you couldn't direct the A-X to prosecute me for disturbing your tranquility, even though that's "against" the Sixth.  The lens thing basically just means that quartz should look to them for important principles in a general way. That's why we have specific laws, since the Sixth isn't a super-crime-code which makes everything we don't like a crime.

Your bill, however, would make them wholesale the basis for deciding what's a crime and what is not in Talossa.  And that's part of why it's a bad idea, because they weren't written that way, aren't understood that way, and would criminalize pretty much everything in theory.

I'm not saying it's impossible that the lens clause might be the basis for a successful prosecution. But I would be extremely skeptical of the strategy.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:33:37 PMAdmittedly, my bill presumes that the Uppermost Cort is comprised of justices who will apply common sense, natural justice and community mores in making their decisions. But if you're right and we can't expect the Cort to do that, then we have a much bigger problem.

We shouldn't build a legal system where potential crimes are a mystery and just trust that every judge will invent only the correct crimes.  Our judges aren't infallible.  After all, weren't you outraged over the outcome of the Pinatsch case?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:33:37 PM
No, all those are good.

Great.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 07:45:56 PM
We shouldn't build a legal system where potential crimes are a mystery

"Repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute" isn't a mystery. It's within the discretion of judges and open to interpretation, sure. But I think it's sufficiently flexible that it can cover any kind of horrible crime that we might not think to make illegal in Talossa. Importantly it covers also crimes that we can't make illegal in Talossa because there is no way that, for example, we could ensure basic human rights for both plaintiff and defendant in a murder or rape case. Talossan statute law should only cover things we could safely try in Talossan courts and get a trustworthy verdict. And the only way we can determine that such a crime has been committed outside Talossa is to "trust" a macronational court or system, which IMHO has to be done on a case-by-base basis, not saying, for example, "we can trust French courts but not Singaporean courts" etc.

Conversely, we have to get rid of Wisconsin law precisely because "potential crimes are a mystery". If you knew that sex work was illegal in Talossa before now, then... wow, congratulations, because no-one else even thought of it.

QuoteOur judges aren't infallible.  After all, weren't you outraged over the outcome of the Pinatsch case?

"Guy Incognito" was found not guilty in what I felt was a truly bizarre decision. But if all bad judicial decisions are biased to letting the guilty go free, rather than the reverse, I'll live with it.

The very best thing about this renewed debate is that we have up until the end of July (at the earliest) to come up with something better than 55RZ24, but that we can be sure that at least Wisconsin law will be gone as the default position. I have faith in all of us :D

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:57:01 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 07:45:56 PM
We shouldn't build a legal system where potential crimes are a mystery

"Repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute" isn't a mystery. It's within the discretion of judges and open to interpretation, sure. But I think it's sufficiently flexible that it can cover any kind of horrible crime that we might not think to make illegal in Talossa.

It's very flexible and under individual discretion and open to interpretation, yes.  That's one of my objections.  The list of crimes shouldn't be flexible, discretionary, or open to interpretation.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:57:01 PMTalossan statute law should only cover things we could safely try in Talossan courts and get a trustworthy verdict. And the only way we can determine that such a crime has been committed outside Talossa is to "trust" a macronational court or system, which IMHO has to be done on a case-by-base basis, not saying, for example, "we can trust French courts but not Singaporean courts" etc.

I agree entirely.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:57:01 PMConversely, we have to get rid of Wisconsin law precisely because "potential crimes are a mystery". If you knew that sex work was illegal in Talossa before now, then... wow, congratulations, because no-one else even thought of it.

It's not.  The Eighth Covenant provides that "consensual sexual activity" cannot be taxed or burdened or outlawed.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 07:57:01 PM
"Guy Incognito" was found not guilty in what I felt was a truly bizarre decision. But if all bad judicial decisions are biased to letting the guilty go free, rather than the reverse, I'll live with it.

If they were all biased that way, that'd be nice.

QuoteIt's not.  The Eighth Covenant provides that "consensual sexual activity" cannot be taxed or burdened or outlawed.

My mistake then.

In my defence, this confusion could be easily avoided if we just had a list of acts that should be deemed illegal, bypassing the need to go through the Wisconsin criminal code and also the Organic Law and the Lexhatx to make sure nothing contradicts each other. I believe that if we want a native criminal code that is unambiguous and accessible to amateurs, we'll just have to compile our own, even if its tedious and annoying as hell.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 08:27:32 PM

QuoteIt's not.  The Eighth Covenant provides that "consensual sexual activity" cannot be taxed or burdened or outlawed.

this confusion could be easily avoided if we just had a list of acts that should be deemed illegal, bypassing the need to go through the Wisconsin criminal code and also the Organic Law and the Lexhatx to make sure nothing contradicts each other.

Indeed. The current system is a system of "mystery crimes" until someone can make a list of every single thing that is criminalised by the sections of the WI Code currently in force in Talossa. We, collectively, have a lot of work to do either way - all I want to make clear is that the status quo is not an option.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 08:27:32 PM

QuoteIt's not.  The Eighth Covenant provides that "consensual sexual activity" cannot be taxed or burdened or outlawed.

My mistake then.

In my defence, this confusion could be easily avoided if we just had a list of acts that should be deemed illegal, bypassing the need to go through the Wisconsin criminal code and also the Organic Law and the Lexhatx to make sure nothing contradicts each other. I believe that if we want a native criminal code that is unambiguous and accessible to amateurs, we'll just have to compile our own, even if its tedious and annoying as hell.

Yeah, we didn't want to do that, so we took a shortcut a long time ago.  We might need to do it to solve this, I'm not sure.  I dread dead law, which is why I built el Lexhatx in the first place.  I have to think about potential solutions to our manifold goals.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 08:29:38 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 08:27:32 PM

QuoteIt's not.  The Eighth Covenant provides that "consensual sexual activity" cannot be taxed or burdened or outlawed.

this confusion could be easily avoided if we just had a list of acts that should be deemed illegal, bypassing the need to go through the Wisconsin criminal code and also the Organic Law and the Lexhatx to make sure nothing contradicts each other.

Indeed. The current system is a system of "mystery crimes" until someone can make a list of every single thing that is criminalised by the sections of the WI Code currently in force in Talossa. We, collectively, have a lot of work to do either way - all I want to make clear is that the status quo is not an option.

It's not really a mystery right now.  If someone wanted to sit down and make a list of crimes, it would be tedious, but perfectly easy.  There's only a handful of Eighth exceptions, after all, and most won't apply.  I mean -- the chapters invoked in our law are all clearly labeled and numbered, and they're all written in English in a way that's readable (if unpleasant).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 08:32:12 PM
I dread dead law, which is why I built el Lexhatx in the first place

... you built El Lex because it was a demand of my political tendency over several elections, which if I remember right the then-RUMP government opposed, and if you didn't do it we would have done it ourselves! :D

QuoteIf someone wanted to sit down and make a list of crimes, it would be tedious, but perfectly easy.

If it's a mystery except to those who want to sit down and do tedious searching, it's a mystery for the purposes of the nation as a whole. One approach to a true consensus solution would be for those who think WI law is "good enough" to make such a list, and then we can "pick and choose" which ones we want to keep in Talossan law. (Marcel finding the definition of perjury, which seems a perfectly good one for our purposes, is a good start.) But an alternative is to write an indigenous replacement from first principles, which I've asked people not involved in this debate so far to think about, and which is being discussed off-Witt for now.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 08:38:44 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 08:32:12 PM
I dread dead law, which is why I built el Lexhatx in the first place

... you built El Lex because it was a demand of my political tendency over several elections, which if I remember right the then-RUMP government opposed, and if you didn't do it we would have done it ourselves! :D

Regrettably, I'm sorry to say that your recollection is mistaken.  As early as 2012 and 2013 I was talking (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/8741/circumscribe-scribe-act?page=1&scrollTo=103962) about how we should be centralizing all the main bills into one law.  I published my first manual attempting to consolidate things in 2012, for that matter!  It's still online (http://wiki.talossa.com/images/b/bc/Selections_from_the_Law%2C_First_Edition.pdf).  There wasn't really any objection beyond, "That's a ton of work."

And it was.  Hours, and hours, and hours of work.

Also: why are you trying to pick a fight out of nowhere?  I wasn't talking to you or about you.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 07, 2021, 08:38:44 PMIf it's a mystery except to those who want to sit down and do tedious searching, it's a mystery for the purposes of the nation as a whole. One approach to a true consensus solution would be for those who think WI law is "good enough" to make such a list, and then we can "pick and choose" which ones we want to keep in Talossan law. (Marcel finding the definition of perjury, which seems a perfectly good one for our purposes, is a good start.) But an alternative is to write an indigenous replacement from first principles, which I've asked people not involved in this debate so far to think about, and which is being discussed off-Witt for now.

No specific crime is much of a mystery, just making a comprehensive list of them (thus I said "list.")  Big lists are tedious.  But there's a table of contents for each chapter, so reading the list of every crime would take like... ten minutes, maybe?

If people are working on doing this actual criminal code elsewhere, good.  Glad to hear it :)  I wasn't looking forward to organizing the effort, since it's going to be a lot of work.  I can't wait to see what they come up with, since I find this topic very interesting.  Do you know when we can expect some updates?  You've set a pretty aggressive schedule for getting this done.

Any info here, D:na Seneschal?  You've said you will pass this bill unless the other one is ready by next month, and the goal here is formidable, so I don't want to let time slip by.  How is your party's bill coming?

Firstly, it's not a FreeDems initiative, it's cross-party. I suppose I can reveal that one of the people involved is the LCC leader so he can perhaps give an update on where they're at. I've opened the other "Talossan Criminal Code" thread so people can contribute to that as and when they're ready.

Funny story, someone in the coalition negotiations wanted to run a Talossan lottery. I had to inform them that all lotteries are prohibited under Wisconsin code. It's again not so much that we can't look up what's in that law with a little bit of Google savvy, it's that we would have no reason to suspect that half the stuff in there is illegal until some legal beagle goes on a fishing trip.  "Mystery crimes", indeed.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 09, 2021, 04:05:33 PM
Firstly, it's not a FreeDems initiative, it's cross-party. I suppose I can reveal that one of the people involved is the LCC leader so he can perhaps give an update on where they're at. I've opened the other "Talossan Criminal Code" thread so people can contribute to that as and when they're ready.

Funny story, someone in the coalition negotiations wanted to run a Talossan lottery. I had to inform them that all lotteries are prohibited under Wisconsin code. It's again not so much that we can't look up what's in that law with a little bit of Google savvy, it's that we would have no reason to suspect that half the stuff in there is illegal until some legal beagle goes on a fishing trip.  "Mystery crimes", indeed.

Since the whole nation is under threat of this bill, I would love to hear as much as possible about where the alternative being written off Wittenberg by these people stands. But you also seem to have already put a lot of work into this other bill that you're developing, so is that the alternative? I can't tell.

I absolutely agree that it is annoying to have to look up potential crimes, and I hope that we can get rid of that, as I said. Of course, it will be far worse to replace that with a system where we can't even look them up!

I can't hurry up what those guys are doing (in a discussion not involving me because it all happens on chat while I'm asleep), but why don't you look at my most recent proposal (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=916.msg7407#msg7407) in the meantime.

So now I've got a full-fledged Criminal Code Replacement proposal (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=916.msg7416#msg7416), superseding what those other people were doing offline. I think it deals with all the objections made by King, Baron and Cresti re: 55RZ24.

The last thing I want is for the same thing to happen as did for 55RZ24, that this will be ignored until it gets Clarked, and then suddenly all kinds of problems with it will be discovered.

It is false to suggest that you received anything less than clear, prompt, and immediate feedback to this bill, long before you Clarked it:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 31, 2021, 10:50:31 PM
You posted a first draft of this bill on February 10th.  I pointed out huge problems on February 13th, and you said nothing for a very long time.  Then more than a month later, on March 17th -- again, that's only two weeks ago! -- you posted the new draft.  Within the week, you received detailed feedback on these specific problems.  That discussion continued in good faith and in detail right up until March 24th, at which point you Clarked the bill.

That said, I am glad that it is moving into the rearview mirror and I don't have to worry about it anymore. I haven't had much of a chance to do anything more than glance at the other bill, but from the looks of it you are trying to write a pretty comprehensive criminal code that lists specific crimes and suggested punishments. That will be infinitely superior to this bill, and I commend you for the hard work you've clearly already put into it. I have not looked at how you address the tangential issue of criminalizing convictions in other courts, but I will take a look as soon as I have a chance. Thank you for listening to and engaging with feedback on this bill.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 10, 2021, 05:10:57 PM
I have not looked at how you address the tangential issue of criminalizing convictions in other courts,

That's section 7.2.10, which I've highlighted in the document; I'm taking Marcel's tack of explicitly stating what kind of crimes "bring Talossa into disrepute". Thanks for your attention.

Sorry, please use this link for the formatted version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfQlUZrowS4frssyea6-SLxz8Pcss5WNNxyKud82lQw/edit?usp=sharing