Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 03:16 UTC

Define crime  

I've read what has been posted until now and I would like to suggest that we take a few steps back. We first need to define what is a crime: 1) Our first reference would be our constitution. 2) Second reference would be intention, method and/or result. 3) Third reference would be if force and/or violence were used, also if as a result of these, the existence of casualties or victims. It is quite clear that any behaviour "contrary" to the rights and obligations of All Asgardia Citizens would be considered as inapropiate,. But how do we define what is inapropiate behaviour and what is an act of crime? Please comment. When it comes to types of sanctions or correctional methods I will confess that I am not at all pleased that any Asgardia citizen would have the audacity to pronounce thier preference towards capital or corporal punishment.

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 15:49 UTC

Pretty much by it's standard definition a crime is an act, or series of acts, that contravines law.

I don't think we should have much requirement for laws in general, a well written constitution should for the greater part cover most things. I do definitely agree that intention and method should be weighed into account when dealing with breeches, as much as the type of crime and the level of harm occurred.

Each individual breech should, IMHO, be handled on it's own merits. Thusly it should be possible, by the level of harm occurred, to define what is a crime and what is simply inappropriate. The type of crime, methods employed, and the overall intention should indicate how to "best" deal with this case, the primary goal ofc being to prevent future occurances, by the relevant party(ies) or by other citizens at a later date.

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 16:51 UTC

I suggest these are the only acts which merit consideration: - personal injury (in all forms); - property theft; - property damage. Behaviour which contravenes "accepted" "appropriate" standards, but which does not result in one of the above outcomes, is not criminal.

  Last edited by:  Fergus Reilly (Asgardian)  on Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 16:52 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 18:42 UTC

By "harm" I had intended to include damage, as in to property.

I did somewhere detail a loose heiracheal structure as an example for how to define various incrementing level of harm, sorted by severity. This is not intended to be definite, or even complete, just an example of a tiered gradient to assist sorting severities:

inaction leading to damage/loss of property to an individual
action leading to damage/loss of proprty to a group of individuals
inaction leading to mental or physical harm to an individual
action leading to mental or physical harm to a group of individuals
inaction leading to loss of facility operation
action leading to loss of facility operation
inaction leading to loss of life to an individual
action leading to loss of life to an individual
inaction leading to loss of life to a group of individuals
action leading to loss of life to a group of individuals

This is ofc only in the loosest of terms. By "inaction leading to loss of life to an individual" I would not mean for anything stupid, like if you're standing next to someone that attempts to throw themselves under a train, and you make no attempt to stop them this somehow becomes your responsibility purely by your presence, more things like you've taken your car into traffic knowing that you have no brakes, but have simply done nothing about it. I understand neither of those are likely to be actual issues in Asgardia, just trying to impress it's not so much as a maintainence issue with the ship/station systems as personal inaction representing some facet of neglect by the citizen(s). Concepts like "mental harm" would need much further clarification, as would other details, but intent was to structure so property of mulitple is viewed as more prominent than property of an individual, actually harming someone being more serious than property, with lives of individuals, and groups, topping the chain.

  Updated  on Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 18:46 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Formatting fail

Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 22:12 UTC

Our views on what is deemed inappropriate would be codified into law, which is essentially Asgardia's view of what is right and what is wrong. A crime would be anything that goes contrary to laws the legislature passes.

Jan 19, 17 / Aqu 19, 01 22:05 UTC


  Updated  on May 25, 17 / Can 05, 01 19:12 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: leaving asgardia

Jan 20, 17 / Aqu 20, 01 04:45 UTC

I don't agree a redefine in crime, instead of coming to a new for definition. I would suggest to look up on the dictionary or different countries definition and just have a majority vote, redefine vocabulary or concept take a lot of time. I do think that using definition already exist would be a better way

Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 09:18 UTC

Crime when defined objectively, or at least as objectively as possible, requires a victim and a defensible target that has violated the natural right of the victim. That is, a crime is an action done against the consent of the individual, as consent is the single-best identifier of ethics.

  Last edited by:  Vincent Fincher (Asgardian)  on Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 09:19 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Feb 19, 17 / Pis 22, 01 05:50 UTC

Hello Cybersayer, There is a problem with the idea of using what is considered as socially acceptable in regards to laws. Can you even define what is socially acceptable outside of your opinion and that of others? No, you can not because like so many things what is socially acceptable is subjective. Of course I am excluding anything that causes direct or indirect harm to another whether physical or psychological. Because of course it is unacceptable to cause another harm unjustly. However, if a person is only thinking or fantasing about something socially unacceptable. They too would be affected and that is itself unacceptable what a person thinks about is up to them and no one has any right to penalize them for it. That would be impeding upon their freedom of thought and no institution has the authority to do that. Do not get me wrong though if a person acts on their fantasy and it leads to them committing a crime then by all means they should be penalized. But the act of fantasing helps relieve stress and stops folks from acting out due to frustration or anger