Committee of Legal Reforms

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'm thinking of a historical case, KR1 attempting to frame Sir Tamorán dàl Nava for domestic violence. If we adopted my schema, KR1 would have to have proved that Sir Tamorán had both:

a) on the balance of probabilities, "injured, endangered, risked or compromised the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of another person" (Sixth Covenant);

b) that this behaviour would tend to bring Talossa into disrepute.

Based on the evidence that KR1 could have brought up (a restraining order brought by his ex, if I remember right), there's no way Sir Tamorán could have been convicted. That said, would we have needed a further safeguard against malicious prosecution? I mentioned a grand jury before, but - say - imagine 7 Talossan citizens were picked at random and KR1 had to convince 4 of them to let him take the case to the Cort. Would that be sufficient safeguard? Or - as tends to happen in cults and fascist movements - would 4 Talossans be prepared to swear that black was white if KR1 told them to? Open question.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

PETTY THEFT: violation of the Fourth Covenant right to property. Should be liable for a misdemeanour charge, only if the Cort is satisfied that it's of the kind that brings Talossa into disrepute.

EMBEZZLEMENT: felony violation of the Fourth Covenant and brings Talossa into disrepute. More chance of a conviction and a serious punishment.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: felony violation of the Sixth Covenant and brings Talossa into disrepute. More chance of a conviction and a serious punishment.

ACCUSATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Let's specify that conviction by a macronational court should be only considered prima facie evidence of bad behaviour; a State prosecutor (or the Cort) could look at the sentencing authority and go "kangaroo court under a dictatorship, not touching that". Or, alternatively, if someone gets off a rape/spousal abuse case because of a misogynist judge or jury, the Court would still be enabled to use the "balance of probabilities based on the evidence" test. The "bringing Talossa into disrepute" test would also come into action, for example, if it were a famous trial and a lot of people saw a rapist getting off because the courts are misogynist.

Here's where the rubber hits the road, though, doesn't it?  Under this proposal, the scope of Talossan prosecution seems as though it would -- in your view -- encompass all potential convictions or accusations or even exonerations, serious or no, as a basis for potential prosecution.  So if we were to end up someplace in this neighborhood -- which I'm not opposing -- there would need to be a whole trial and things really get messy.  If we're trying someone on the basis of an accusation of spousal abuse, for example, the Talossan in question would have due process rights that a Talossan court probably couldn't exercise in any real way.

Because of those things, I'd suggest the most practical way forward is to view and treat the matter as a question of accepting another country's judicial proceedings as acceptable in the eyes of our own Organic requirements.  In other words, I don't think it's feasible to really fairly design any process that can act on the basis of another country's accusations: only convictions should be an acceptable basis for review by our courts.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I don't think it's feasible to really fairly design any process that can act on the basis of another country's accusations: only convictions should be an acceptable basis for review by our courts.

I can understand the logic of this position, though I'm not 100% convinced. Is there no act outside Talossa that a Talossan could do which would be, not illegal, but (a) repugnant to the Covenants, and (b) brings Talossa into disrepute, and that we might want to impose sanctions on? We couldn't decide to censure a Talossan who - oh, let's say - spread legal but repulsive hate speech outside Talossa?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't think it's feasible to really fairly design any process that can act on the basis of another country's accusations: only convictions should be an acceptable basis for review by our courts.

I can understand the logic of this position, though I'm not 100% convinced. Is there no act outside Talossa that a Talossan could do which would be, not illegal, but (a) repugnant to the Covenants, and (b) brings Talossa into disrepute, and that we might want to impose sanctions on? We couldn't decide to censure a Talossan who - oh, let's say - spread legal but repulsive hate speech outside Talossa?

I'm sure there are all sorts of things that fall into those categories, either justly or unjustly! But that's the danger, isn't it? We can't punish people without due process, including a trial. Plus, the covenants are mostly guarantees against the power of the government, not specific crimes or even principles around which you could construct the basis for a criminal charge. If I told my daughter that she couldn't get an abortion, I couldn't be prosecuted for that, I don't think. Instead, it would just be a mechanism by which she could sue to get an abortion anyway, without my consent.

It might be possible to come up with a process that will ensure due process while also allowing for the prosecution of things that aren't crimes under our laws but which we don't like, but I can't even begin to imagine such a thing.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Okay. If we accept the formulation that "the State can prosecute if someone is criminally convicted in a macronational court for a crime repugnant to our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, and which would bring Talossa into disrepute in the eyes of those who share those values"; and also that a conviction is necessary but not sufficient (the Court has to decide that the verdict was "safe", i.e. the given court was credible and not a kangaroo court of a dictatorship)...

... is that enough that we can remove El Lex A.1-4?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I don't know whether this committee is inoperative or not, but I am minded to Hopper the below as a stand-alone reform.

Okay. If we accept the formulation that "the State can prosecute if someone is criminally convicted in a macronational court for a crime repugnant to our Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, and which would bring Talossa into disrepute in the eyes of those who share those values"; and also that a conviction is necessary but not sufficient (the Court has to decide that the verdict was "safe", i.e. the given court was credible and not a kangaroo court of a dictatorship)...

... is that enough that we can remove El Lex A.1-4?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I've read that a couple of times, and maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand.  I would suspect there's general agreement on those principles you lay out: a conviction in another court, not just a prosecution, can be reviewed by our system somehow and possibly lead to a Talossan sentence, as well.  But aren't we still missing the main tricky bit -- that review process?  I think there still has to be some sort of adversarial trial for the sake of the Covenants, for example.  I wonder if there's a simple solution here, actually... could we just declare that being convicted of a crime in another court of law is itself a Talossan crime, subject to the Covenants?  I'd have to think more on whether or not that would be itself Organic.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

could we just declare that being convicted of a crime in another court of law is itself a Talossan crime, subject to the Covenants?

Well, that's basically what I'm going for. But only a crime which in itself violates the covenants; which brings Talossa into disrepute; and a conviction that the judges consider "safe" (i.e. not a kangaroo court).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Could you give me an example of some crimes that violate the Covenants?  Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by that.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Reprinted from above:

PETTY THEFT: violation of the Fourth Covenant right to property. Should be liable for a misdemeanour charge, only if the Cort is satisfied that it's of the kind that brings Talossa into disrepute.

EMBEZZLEMENT: felony violation of the Fourth Covenant and brings Talossa into disrepute. More chance of a conviction and a serious punishment.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: felony violation of the Sixth Covenant and brings Talossa into disrepute. More chance of a conviction and a serious punishment.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ah, I missed that before.  But I don't quite see this, still.  What in the Fourth Covenant provides a "right to property" or criminalizes embezzlement?  What in the Sixth Covenant criminalizes domestic violence?

Generally speaking, the Covenants are understood as a list of rights that citizens enjoy and upon which the Government cannot infringe.  The Ziu couldn't pass a law which would allow the A-X to read someone's correspondence, for example, unless that law required a warrant first.  But the Fourth Covenant protection against searches without a warrant doesn't extend to anyone else.  If I ran a mail service and told everyone I would be reading their mail if they used it, no one could sue me under the Fourth Covenant.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

What in the Fourth Covenant provides a "right to property" or criminalizes embezzlement?

"the right of the people to privacy and security in their persons, homes, papers, correspondence, and property, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

What in the Sixth Covenant criminalizes domestic violence?

"no right herein enumerated, or elsewhere recognised by the Cosa, shall extend to anyone engaged in activities which injure, endanger, risk or compromise the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of other persons"

Generally speaking, the Covenants are understood as a list of rights that citizens enjoy and upon which the Government cannot infringe.

No, that's just how you understand them, presumably on the analogy of the US Bill of Rights. But the Preamble states that "The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to all Talossan citizens". It positively grants rights rather than negatively prevents infringements upon them.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Generally speaking, the Covenants are understood as a list of rights that citizens enjoy and upon which the Government cannot infringe.

No, that's just how you understand them, presumably on the analogy of the US Bill of Rights. But the Preamble states that "The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to all Talossan citizens". It positively grants rights rather than negatively prevents infringements upon them.

The U.S. Bill of Rights was explicitly the model for the Covenants, and a great deal of the language is identical, and the Covenants have been generally understood as a guarantee against action against your rights.  This is clear when we look at the Tenth Covenant, which says that "[a]nyone whose rights and freedoms, as guaranteed by these Covenants, have been infringed or denied may appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such redress of grievances as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."  Neither here nor anywhere else are there provisions for the criminalization of such infringements.  If the Ziu passes a law restricting someone's religious liberty, then no one can prosecute the people who voted in favor in the Ziu imprisoned for their "crime" of passing a law that violated the Covenants, for example.

[Açafat del Val]

Apparently I had not logged into Witt since January 12, 2021. My god.

Can I make this "the thread" for discussion of reform? I guess I don't care if this thread falls on deaf ears a second time, but maybe I just want someone to scream "put up or shut up" at me so that I have a good excuse to do it anyways.

[King Txec]

Apparently I had not logged into Witt since January 12, 2021. My god.

Can I make this "the thread" for discussion of reform? I guess I don't care if this thread falls on deaf ears a second time, but maybe I just want someone to scream "put up or shut up" at me so that I have a good excuse to do it anyways.

Please don't derail threads from their intended purposes. Thanks.

[Açafat del Val]

Apparently I had not logged into Witt since January 12, 2021. My god.

Can I make this "the thread" for discussion of reform? I guess I don't care if this thread falls on deaf ears a second time, but maybe I just want someone to scream "put up or shut up" at me so that I have a good excuse to do it anyways.

Please don't derail threads from their intended purposes. Thanks.

As the one who started this thread, it feels reasonable on my part that I should widen its scope and restart efforts of a committee of legal reforms.