RP: UOC Government [Discussion] Removing Vagueness from the Law

Proposed Homicide Law said:

1. It is illegal to take the life of another individual except in certain instances, i.e. in defense of one's self or another being; in wartime during a combat exercise; in the line of duty as an executioner; upon that person's request.

The act of taking another's life will be defined as "homicide": in which one person kills another either intending to cause death or intending to cause serious injury. When it is committed with malice, it will be considered "murder" (defined as the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought if the defendant acts with any of the following states of mind:

(i) Intent to kill; (ii) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm; (iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (abandoned and malignant heart); or (iv) Intent to commit a felony.

Under element (i) intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.

Under element (iii) abandoned and malignant heart, the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury.)

The lawful exceptions to the ruling will be called, "justifiable homicide" and defined as: That which is committed with the intention to kill or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it.

It is justifiable:
1. When a judge or other magistrate acts in obedience to the law;

2. When a ministerial officer acts in obedience to a lawful warrant, issued by a competent tribunal;

3. When a subaltern officer or soldier kills in obedience to the lawful commands of his superior;

4. When the party kills in lawful self-defense.

A judge who, in pursuance of his duty, pronounces sentence of death, is not guilty of homicide; for it is evident that as the law prescribes the punishment of death for certain offenses, it must protect those who are entrusted with its execution. A judge, therefore, who pronounces sentence of death in a legal manner, on a legal indictment, legally brought before him, for a capital offense committed within his jurisdiction, after a lawful trial and conviction of the defendant, is guilty of no offense.

Magistrate, or other officers entrusted with the preservation of the public peace, are justified in committing homicide, or giving orders which lead to it, if the excesses of a riotous assembly cannot be otherwise be repressed.

An officer entrusted with a legal warrant, criminal or civil, and lawfully commanded by a competent tribunal to execute it, will be justified in committing homicide, if in the course of advancing to discharge his duty, he be brought into such perils that without doing so, he cannot either save his life, or discharge the duty which he is commanded by the warrant to perform. And when the warrant commands him to put a criminal to death, he is justified in obeying it.

A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful.

A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defense.

Those that commit murder are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law where a judge will preside over the criminal proceedings and allow both the representatives of the victim and the accused to present evidence that a crime has taken place; that there was malice or forethought to the action; and that the accused committed the crime. And a 13 person jury of the accused's peers (laypersons of similar social and ethnic, or religious status) will also be present to determine the accused's innocence or guilt.

A judge must determine if the evidence gathered from the scene of the crime is true and has not been tampered with. If it is deemed to be questionable, the accused's case will be dismissed and all charges against them dropped. The judge is also to keep the criminal proceedings civil, and give guidance to the jury on the form of punishments.

The jury must be able to decide by vote that beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime. There must be a majority ruling that the accused is felt to be guilty. If the accused is thought to be guilty then they can be fined and forced to compensate the victim's family for their loss; imprisoned from 2 years to life for their crimes; and/or executed for their crimes.

Click to expand...

Proposed law Enforcement Agency said:

The United Outer Colonies Assembly hereby establishes as separate law enforcement agency from the Peacekeeper Forces in order to ensure the safety of its citizens in its cities; and its civilian areas of commerce from those that wish to do them harm either bodily or monetarily.

It shall be called: the U.O.C.E.A. or the United Outer Colonies Enforcement Agency and be granted the authority to arrest those that commit crimes; hold those suspected of crimes for 3 days for humane questioning; to search the homes, businesses, or property of those under suspicion of serious crimes; and to conduct operations that help ensure the safety of the United Outer Colonies cities and the well-being of its citizens.

The citizens of the UOC have the right to live without fear of their law enforcement agencies and government, if a member of the UOCEA stands accused of corruption, then the person accused shall be investigated by a smaller, separate division of the UOCEA that's sole jurisdiction is the lawful and humane operations of the UOCEA called: "Internal Relations". If the accused is found to be guilty, they shall be removed from service and punished accordingly to their crimes against the citizens of the UOC.

With the creation of the UOCEA will also be the creation of a Criminal Court System also regulated by "Internal Affairs" for maintaining an honest and non-corrupt system.

Those accused of crimes have the right to:

1. Know why they are being arrested and what they are accused of;
2. Have the right to remain silent to prevent themselves from accidentally incriminating themselves for crimes they might or might not have committed;
3. Have the right to consult a lawyer before questioning;
4. Have the right to be questioned without fear of bodily harm to themselves or their families;
5. Have the right to ethical and humane treatment if imprisoned by the UOCEA- be provided clean living conditions, access to a toilet facility, provided clean food and water;
6. Have their personal effects returned to them that are not being held for evidence in criminal proceedings.

The UOCEA has the authority to:

1. Lawful search those that they have Probable Cause of committing a crime;
2. Lawfully arrest those accused of crimes;
3. Lawfully question those that might have information about a crime;
4. Lawfully hold an accused (on suspicion for a crime) for 3 days without having further proof;
5. Conduct a criminal investigation of a place where a crime has been committed and seize anything on the property that might contain evidence;
6. Monitor and record conversations within a criminal detaining area or within a public area (i.e. courtrooms, on the street);
7. Monitor and record conversations on private communication lines of those that are accused of a serious crime with proper authorization from a judge;
8. Search an accused's personal residence for specific items that have been used in a crime with proper authorization from a judge and beyond reasonable suspicion of the officer;
9. Defend themselves and others from harm by any means necessary, both lethal and non-lethal.

Click to expand...