The following is the Criminal Liability Act, very briefly discussed here.
I don’t understand the point of this Act. It is and always has been the expectation that sufficient proof be presented to the Conclave prior to conviction. I don’t see how 2.2.1 is constructive - if anything, it potentially detracts from cases where a criminal act was committed via negligence, although Vussul appears to try to characterize negligence as recklessness. 2.3. adds nothing to our legalese that is not already common expectation. Once again, 3.1.1. appears to attempt to legislate court procedure in a manner that could be questioned via JR.
I’d like to nix this piece of unnecessary verbiage.
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.