Could he be arrested?
- Thread starter JMISBEST
- Start date
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
It depends entirely on which jurisdiction it is. Even on this single balkanised planet we have almost as many ideas about this as legal systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
It would depend on three things. The first being if the new law was retroactive, the second being if the locality had allowed ex post facto (after the fact) laws on the booms, and finally, depending on the locality and it's government, anything is possible. Generally, societies a that are not corrupt and depenp upon the rule of law wont have that issue. But the more corrupt or totalitarian it is, then it's more likely something lie that could occur.
Pyromancer
Mongoose
JMISBEST said:
If those making the law didn't want nobles to kill a commoner on the last day of April 1105, they would have said: "As of now, it is illegal to kill a commoner." But instead, they said: "As of 1st of May 1105 it is illegal..." They did that for a reason.
If a noble killed a commoner three seconds before midnight, an eager prosecutor might still prosecute the noble, most likely trying to proof that the deed really happened after midnight.
ca_lazerdwarf
Mongoose
And it's always possible for law enforcement to be wrong about the law or corrupt and arrest him even if he's technically innocent.
ca_lazerdwarf
Mongoose
Pyromancer said:
An interesting case might be if the noble shot the commoner before midnight, and he didn't die until after midnight.
But this would then come down to the actual wording of the law.
steve98052
Mongoose
Under the US Constitution laws may not retroactively make something a crime -- ex post facto in legal jargon. I'm sure that's true under the laws of many other countries too.
But on a Traveller world? It's a matter of local law. Imagine a non-charismatic dictatorship that's overthrown by a religious dictatorship. Maybe the new government would pass a law saying that wearing clothing made of artificial fibers is a crime, even if one did it under the old dictatorship. ("It was already a sin, so you shouldn't have been doing it even when it was legal!") And if the secret police found pictures of you wearing polyester on your Spacebook, you'd be off to the re-education camps.
I'd imagine that Imperial law would be generally straightforward, sensible, minimal ("rules light"), and mostly focused on regulatory matters. Things that are crimes under typical common sense laws would be crimes within the extra-territorial bounds of a starport, but outside planetary law would apply. Some planetary laws might grant certain people (any offworlders, Imperial nobles only, people with special visas, etc.) special legal status.
"You're under arrest for violation of the Natural Fibers Act!"
"I have an extra territorial law visa. Here are my papers."
"Oh, my apologies, Visitor. But be certain that you do not allow your garments to leave your possession. If a Citizen wears your clothing your visa will not protect you from smuggling charges, even if someone steals those Spandex socks."
"Thank you, Officer. I will wash them back at the starport laundromat."
But on a Traveller world? It's a matter of local law. Imagine a non-charismatic dictatorship that's overthrown by a religious dictatorship. Maybe the new government would pass a law saying that wearing clothing made of artificial fibers is a crime, even if one did it under the old dictatorship. ("It was already a sin, so you shouldn't have been doing it even when it was legal!") And if the secret police found pictures of you wearing polyester on your Spacebook, you'd be off to the re-education camps.
I'd imagine that Imperial law would be generally straightforward, sensible, minimal ("rules light"), and mostly focused on regulatory matters. Things that are crimes under typical common sense laws would be crimes within the extra-territorial bounds of a starport, but outside planetary law would apply. Some planetary laws might grant certain people (any offworlders, Imperial nobles only, people with special visas, etc.) special legal status.
"You're under arrest for violation of the Natural Fibers Act!"
"I have an extra territorial law visa. Here are my papers."
"Oh, my apologies, Visitor. But be certain that you do not allow your garments to leave your possession. If a Citizen wears your clothing your visa will not protect you from smuggling charges, even if someone steals those Spandex socks."
"Thank you, Officer. I will wash them back at the starport laundromat."
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
The political grapevine could provide details of the laws under consideration and likely to be enacted, but a lot of them do have a starting date, so changes in taxation to close loopholes tend to incite intense financial activity, either to exploit it while it's still legal, or covering your ass by diversifying your portfolio, if the penalties outweigh the benefits.
Not necessarily. Law Level tells you how much stuff is illegal - not how much of a stickler they are for the rules themselves.
A highly rule-focussed society would be exacting in terms of scope and applicability, by time as well as action, no matter how proscriptive the law, whilst a pronouncement from a dictator (or, especially, a theocrat) is probably more likely to be applied retroactively (see steve9805's comment of "It was already a sin, so you shouldn't have been doing it even when it was legal!").
By comparison, a 'law abiding' society generally plays by its own rules - western societies have problems with tax evasion where a rich individual or company can use offshore incorporation, companies with a single employee and so on to 'play' the rules, where a dictatorship with limited codified rules can just have the dictator say "stop messing around" and take several times the value of the taxes from your estate "because I'm the king and I said so".
Post revolution or post war is another time you're likely to have people lined up for phrases like "crimes against the people" or - however moral the intent (because the people so charged are often not nice at all), it basically boils down to "now you Aristocrats (or whatever) not in charge of the law any more, we're retroactively making everything you did illegal and trying you for it".
A highly rule-focussed society would be exacting in terms of scope and applicability, by time as well as action, no matter how proscriptive the law, whilst a pronouncement from a dictator (or, especially, a theocrat) is probably more likely to be applied retroactively (see steve9805's comment of "It was already a sin, so you shouldn't have been doing it even when it was legal!").
By comparison, a 'law abiding' society generally plays by its own rules - western societies have problems with tax evasion where a rich individual or company can use offshore incorporation, companies with a single employee and so on to 'play' the rules, where a dictatorship with limited codified rules can just have the dictator say "stop messing around" and take several times the value of the taxes from your estate "because I'm the king and I said so".
Post revolution or post war is another time you're likely to have people lined up for phrases like "crimes against the people" or - however moral the intent (because the people so charged are often not nice at all), it basically boils down to "now you Aristocrats (or whatever) not in charge of the law any more, we're retroactively making everything you did illegal and trying you for it".
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Consult an attorney specializing in the relevant field, for loopholes and exceptions.
