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.
Upon review, it is my personal belief that the Act is entirely redundant and serves only to make mine and the Arbiters’ lives harder.
What problem must have existed that this Act would have solved? By my recollection, none. Nobody cared enough to shoot it down, though (myself included, regretfully) - this being how Vussul carried out a good amount of his sad agenda.
My opinions of its positor aside, the act is useless. It will almost certainly never be relevant legislation. The Conclave knows how to run its business. Our Arbiters will be quite alright without the added mess.
It is perhaps that I am biased in saying this, but I don’t believe anything about this Act has any bearing on how the Conclave (adequately) went about the Jo trials. They did their job correctly. Regardless of whether or not the prosecution’s claims had merit (which I am not in a position to comment on), there was not enough evidence publicly available to convict Jo of any crime. This Act was not instrumental in changing that fact.
The Jo case did not turn on any provision of this Act.
Section 2 aims, in my view, to require some proof of intent, and to set some standard of review. But it’s not a vital piece of legislation, and if so, could arguably be written a lot more to the point.
This entire act could accomplish the same thing as a single clause in a unified Criminal Code, the Standing Orders of the Conclave, or both. It is completely unnecessary and has always been. Not sure why this one passed – I don’t even remember it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the only legislation that requires proof to be furnished of intent or recklessness before a resident can be convicted?
I would be uncomfortable completely scrapping the requirement that proof has to be provided of wrongdoing before you can be punished for that wrongdoing and instead relying on the Arbiters and the Conclave to do the right thing or act on common expectation.
Part of this discomfort is because other pieces of legislation have mechanisms that implement checks and balances from each of the arms of TEP showing that there was an understanding that there has to be defenses against bad faith or unjust actions.
From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t expect this to ever be an issue, but I also think it’s important to have a safeguard just in case.
With that all of that said, I do agree that this Act has significant flaws, including a defense of necessity – in my opinion if that is ever required the Conclave, Viziers, and/or Delegate should already have been notified, removing the person from the situation to begin with.
I think this Act could be repaired through a formal amendment rather than repeal. For example, I think the below edits cut out a lot of the bs and pointless repetition. Granted, this is effectively an entire rewrite equivalent to the law being repealed anyway, but amendment ensures continuity of enforcement and protection.
I would agree, but I think this can be condensed into a larger text – I plan on creating a unified criminal code so this amendment can be rolled into that.
I am making use of my authority as Deputy Provost to lock this thread for inactivity. If the original poster would like it unlocked, give me a ping on Discord (follyredvixen).