[PROPOSAL] The Criminal Liability Act

[Vussul]

SECTION I. CITATION

…1.1. This Act shall be known and cited as the "Criminal Liability Act”.

SECTION II. LIABILITY

…2.1. Unless stated otherwise, all criminally liable offences shall require proof that the defendant had committed a voluntary action or a voluntary omission to act which resulted in the prohibited consequence before a conviction can occur.

…2.2. Unless stated otherwise, all criminally liable offences shall require proof that the defendant had intended or acted recklessly to cause the prohibited consequence before a conviction can occur.
…2.2.1. Intent is when the defendant wanted to commit a prohibited consequence and acted or omitted to act so as to cause a prohibited consequence.
…2.2.2. Recklessness is when the defendant had acknowledged or should have been aware that their action or omission would risk causing a prohibited consequence.

…2.3. A defendant can only be convicted if they have been proven to be liable beyond a reasonable doubt.

SECTION III. DEFENCES

…3.1. The defence of necessity is when the defendant had committed an offence with the intent to prevent a greater offence.
…3.1.1. The Conclave may, but is not required to, acquit a defendant on the defence of necessity.

This is to provide some defences to crimes, such as arguing that it was a mistake or necessary. It is barebones to get the ball rolling.

Thoughts?

[Zukchiva]

I don’t mind this for indictable offenses, but for summary offenses I do think there has to be room for accidental violations as well - like endocap stuff. Unless this covers only indictable offenses, but that should probably made more explicit if so.

I may have more thoughts later, I’m not reading into this too much rn.

[Vussul]

Summary offences don’t require a conviction so it wouldn’t apply. It they appeal their punishment and the Conclave holds a trial, it would apply.

This is how I read it at the moment.

[Mangegneithe]

Is there a standard of proof? Like “more likely than not by a preponderance of the evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Otherwise if it’s blurry how do we decide if it’s been proven? I think we need something like that.

[Vussul]

Added a small section saying this.

[Mangegneithe]

I suggest beyond a reasonable doubt, not all reasonable doubt. Cuz like, if we set the bar too high, we risk letting criminals walk.

[Vussul]

Motioned to vote.

[Mangegneithe]

I second

[Vussul]

I have acted in the stead of Provost Dremaur to open the vote here.