§004 » condicio sine qua non (text & video post)

[heelsandlaw]

Comments

[doctor_tangent]

Why murder?

[heelsandlaw]

Most people and cultures, no matter how different their base philosophy, agree that murder is wrong and should be a crime. So why not start with the common denominator when trying to design a criminal code for a place full of different people and cultures?

[doctor_tangent]

You never met Krogans. Violent culture inherently. Survival of the fittest. Murder isn't that taboo to them. Especially considering their homeworld is basically living deathtrap. Some changes with the Genophage and all, but still. Not necessarily true.

[heelsandlaw]

I did say most, not all. The point still remains that murder is more likely to be considered a crime by more people than, say, tax evasion.

[doctor_tangent]

Questionable. Is said that one's laws are reflection of what is important for one's society, especially in that time and place. Can see possibility for a society with high birthrates and focus on collective identity that murder isn't that much of crime. Alternatively many Earth societies have concepts of "honorable" death... murdering a daughter or another figure because they did something to take away from family's honor. Necessity to restore it in some fashion. Is murder, yet culturally considered otherwise.

[ooc; so trying not to let the history major in me take over this...]

[heelsandlaw]

And yet the ideas of restributive justice and crime prevention have survived centuries on Earth and homicide is criminalised in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

[ooc; The law student in me wouldn't mind too much. I might learn something \o/]

[doctor_tangent]

Many times law becomes shadow of former self... all because their principle figure of governmental system decides to change the law to their whim. Bloody Code of some place called Britain made whole host of crimes punishable by execution but vast majority of crimes were considered minor at best.

Alternatively idea of being "outlawed". A monopoly of violence hasn't been established by the state. Need way to deal with criminal elements... but don't have man power or sheer force to deal with it. Deem a personage an "outlaw," can be handled by vigilantes then since the personage has been placed outside the protections of societal law. This is homicide by nature, yet was once considered legal.

[way too many Early Modern classes, I'm subtly familiar with all kinds of old law... I'm really trying to avoid looking at the Middle East, because I'll start up on that even worse.]

[heelsandlaw]

I'm well aware that there's many complications and pitfalls and laws weren't always fair, but isn't knowing what constitutes a criminal act and in which punishment it will result preferable to a lack of knowledge? Legal certainty is important, as is nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.

[ooc; I'm only about familiar with Roman law when it comes to legal history, to be honest. History is not a strength of mine...]

[doctor_tangent]

Putting too much faith in idea that laws and legal system are fair and just. Sometimes not simple and clean concept of crime therefore punishment. If governmental structure is strong enough, could care less about idea of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. If they want the person handled and gone, then it's done. We claim noble concept of not punishing those before the laws were created, but will find a way. It's "human" nature.

[ooc; interesting stuff. Looking at how England kept to its Germanic roots, and developed along the lines of a common law heritage. How the nobility/people use this to justify the Magna Carta and the "Ancient Constitutions". Too bad Rome didn't stay there long enough, or they could have had Roman Corporate Law implemented like the continent. Although this could be an amusing joke about why England's royalty survived and France's didn't in one way. The French always need a strong Emperor figure. England not so much later on. One bad English king, well... Parliament picks up the slack. One bad French King, y

[heelsandlaw]

And in this place, do you honestly think the governmental structure is strong enough? There isn't even a government, but there is a police force and while I fully believe they are doing a good thing, they're working on the basis of nothing which makes them vigilantes with a badge. Why shouldn't this change?

[ooc; I like the differences between common law and civil law, they're interesting. And then there's mixed legal systems... To be honest, French law I find mostly annoying, English law is fun.

/babbles]

[doctor_tangent]

Technically there is a government. Government is reigning body of politic, whether it be a king or a parliament. The Deities seem to function as that politic. Doesn't matter whether or not there is a larger institution that we consider as "government," we already seem to have one.

[ooc; trust me, I'm aware of mixed legal systems. I was thinking about how US law has a much more mixed element in a way nowadays myself... Haven't read heavily between French law and English law, but when you theoretically have the diktats of each leader technically making up one system, and commonly held practices making up the other, it's easier to see which is going to be the more fun of the two when looking at it at large.

Don't worry about the babble. You could probably get me going for awhile on law, and Early Modern history stuff.]

[heelsandlaw]

That would depend on your definition of 'goverment'. I still maintain the position that legal certainty would go a long way in this place, particularly since what you define as a government does more in terms of creating uncertainty than anything else.

[ooc; Mixed legal systems are amazing. South Africa has property law elements from both the civil and the common law tradition even though those elements technically clash, it's kinda fascinating. Anyhow, I like the civil law tradition better in general, because everything's nicely written down and ordered and you know where to look, but the common law is more... interesting? fun? yes.

I fail at history. Did I mention that?]

[doctor_tangent]

Not sure if agree with you. Place seems to chaotic. Don't think it would help out. No real authority to tie that law down to consequence. These Deities almost seem to like the chaos. No monopoly of violence ultimately despite police force existing.

[ooc; that sounds utterly fascinating... despite being outside my area of studies. I might look that up lately. Civil may be more orderly, but I don't know, I like the idea of having a law which truly evolves in a way. Something which can be utterly dynamic and changes with the culture itself.

Yeah, you mentioned that. It's just my area, so I can understand the idea of babbling away. Plus, if anything, I'm trying to give topics in law that may interest you if you were to do a rainy day reading day. I swear I'm not trying to convert you over to the historical side. Just bringing up stuff that may interest you.]

[heelsandlaw]

And this place would be more structured if the police were working on the basis of some kind of code. That, at least, would tie the law down to consequences, though it would not be backed by the apparent power of the Deities.

[ooc; Look for the South African trust, then. It's interesting, because the trust is such a common law thing and cannot exist under the civil law understanding of ownership. And hey, it even ties back to history, without the French revolution the civil law understanding of ownership would probably not differ much from the common law one. And some civil law countries are introducing trust-like constructs into their legal system while others are outright banning it (like the Dutch)... it's not quite my area of studies, I'm more into international law than property or just private law in general, but it's still really interesting.

Converting me to the historical side. Are there cookies? :D ]

[doctor_tangent]

Making this place more structured does not mean this place will become better. Trying to impose order onto chaos sometimes creates even more chaos. Law is necessary evil of society. But too much law is a burden. Although questions on how much law we're creating for it to become excessive.

[ooc; Oh, I understand. Property law is probably the root of modern law if you think about it historically. With the fall of Feudalism and its land = wealth, to the shift to capitalism, property really helps to define how law is handled. I will keep that in mind though. I wouldn't mind doing a little research into it.

Maybe~ I'll make some cookies if it brings you further into our fold. (must resist temptation to tell joke. "When in Rome, do as the Visigoth"... translation, they sacked Rome. So much for the grandeur of Rome")]

[heelsandlaw]

There are no laws whatsoever right now. What, according to you, would be the evil in me writing up a criminal code? How will it create more chaos? Honestly, I'm interested.

[ooc; The funny thing is, though, that comparative property law is a really new branch of law and very little has been done with regards to it, as compared to, say, comparative contract or comparative tort law. And yet it's such a basic, fundamental branch of law.

Cookies are always good. Right now I'm reading up on science. Why not history next.]