View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Code of Criminal Laws Amendment Act

Amendments
2. Section 8.2 shall be amended to read as follows:

8.2 Major Crimes must be brought before the court within two (2) months of their occurrence.

3. Section 8.3 shall be amended to read as follows:

8.3 High Crimes must be brought before the court within four (4) months of their occurrence.

4. Section 8.5 shall be added, which shall read:

8.5 The statute of limitations only covers if a case can be filed or not. As such, should the actions be ongoing and evidence of such actions have already passed the statute, said actions shall be allowed to be admitted as evidence during the trial so long as the actions were illegal at the time of committing them.

5. Section 8.6 shall be added which shall read:

8.6 Any amendments to the statute of limitations shall not be considered retroactive, and as such one an action is outside of the statute it shall remain outside of the statute, even if the period is expanded.

6. Section 9.2 shall be amended to read as follows:

9.2 Treason shall be defined as "an act that directly harms Wintreath as a region, knowingly carried out" and includes sabotaging military actions, all forms of online illegal action (hacking) against Wintreath holdings, or directly going against a Royal Decree of the Monarch. Nothing in this section shall be constructed as to allow the trial of a person that has disagreed or otherwise acted against the Monarch, unless they are acting in direct violation of an issued Royal Decree.

Some minor amendments to the CoC. I felt like some of the limitations were a bit too short. I also added in a section that merely clarified that the Statute of Limitations does NOT cover what may be admitted as evidence during a trial, only if a petition may be filed or not. I also added in a section to allow things that are outside of the statute to stay as such, even if it is extended later on. I also clarified some language in section 9.2

I think your revision of Section 8.5 has a typo. It says that evidence of illegal actions occurring past the statue of limitations can be admitted into evidence so long as the action was NOT ILLEGAL...perhaps I'm misreading but I think it was supposed to be "not legal" or "illegal"

Thanks @Point Breeze that was a typo. I stopped reading it for a moment so when I returned my mind was in a different spot than what I had previously typed. Thanks for catching it

A question relating to that, by the way - evidence of previous violations would only be used to support the current charge filed within the statute of limitations, not new or additional charges for each piece of evidence of previous violations, correct?

Correct. Basically it is included to allow the court to be shown that someone has been repeatedly committing the same violation, even though no case was filed, for whatever reason. Without it, that would be in a legal gray area.

Does there really need to be a statute of limitations? A double jeopardy clause I can understand, but why a statute of limitations?

Basically it lowers the ability of someone to file a case several months longer down the line just because they got mad at them over something else. That and when writing the CoC we had very few things to go off of, so we also had to base it on real life laws

But if I did something objectionable or illegal and you only found out after the statute applied then that seems to me like justice would not be served. Maybe I'm overthinking it but i always thought that statutes of limitations were stupid anyway.

Eh, honestly I view the Statutes as something that, while not that good of an idea, does have a place.

In real life, certain crimes have a far longer statute of limitations than others. You could try adding different lengths for different offences.

I must say I see the need for this bill.

Also, I'm curious, what does it say now? The 2 sections being amended?

Also, I'm curious, what does it say now? The 2 sections being amended?

Sections 8.2 and 8.3 merely had the Statute of Limitations extended by one month (Major Crimes from 1 month to two, and High Crimes from three months to four.), only the length was changed.

Sections 8.5 and 8.6 are completely new.

Section 9.2 merely had two changes, the change of the phrasing: "..directly going against the word of the Monarch." was changed to "...directly going against a Royal Decree of the Monarch" as the current phrasing technically allows for someone to be tried for treason for merely disagreeing with the monarch (although then we get into Rights Violations as well). I also added the second sentence for good measure, and to make sure that it is clear that this is only for violation of Royal Decrees.

Although TBH I would much rather remove that text all together as it makes Royal Decrees more important that statutory law, although Royal Decrees can only affect certain things (This was also written when Royal Decrees could be anything, and could be modified by the Storting).

Edit:

In real life, certain crimes have a far longer statute of limitations than others. You could try adding different lengths for different offences.

Interesting, although at this time I think it's a bit unnecessary. Perhaps that could be done for new offenses, but at this time I would rather not get into that legal can of worms, so to speak.

I can't say I'd endorse something like this if all offences have the same statute of limitations. That's asking for trouble. This is one of those things that either has to be done properly, or not at all.

Well I mean offenses are categorized into three groups. Also I should note that given the older nature of this bill amending it is a bit of a bitch in order to not break the style :|

I think we're going to need to grit our teeth and amend all the old laws, at some point, or else scrap them completely and start from scratch.