Space Law: Delinquency

[unmovedmover]

 

Security often has their hands tied when dealing with minor disputes, as this recent post illustrates.

Adding a section on delinquency would fill in some of the gaps in present Space Law.

 

--

Deliquency

Security officers have the authority to intervene in disruptive behavior. Examples of disruptive behavior include: making graffiti, loitering, refusing to leave a queue when asked, flooding the radio channels with obscenities, harassment, disrupting a civil gathering, etc.

Officers are permitted to stop the disruptive behavior, however, delinquents should not be punished unless they have committed a crime. Depending on the situation, intervening can range from talking with the delinquent to escorting them to a different location. Officers should be forbearing in their treatment of delinquents.

If a delinquent refuses to cooperate, officers are permitted to arrest and take them to the brig. Delinquents may be held in the brig for up to one minute. Standard brig procedures apply during this time.

--

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by Guest

[SomeGuy9283]

 

I think the one minute bit should be stricken and a 5 minute charge for disorderly conduct be added for particularly disruptive behavior (effectively ten, as such persons will undoubtedly resist arrest).

 

That said, everything here about dealing with non-criminal disruptive behavior seems reasonable.

 

[necaladun]

 

This reminds me of insulting an officer charges, or misuse of comms. Such things have historically been pretty abused by security sadly.

 

I do like the ability though of officers to be able to make people stop being shits. A stronger definition would be needed though.

 

[SomeGuy9283]

 

. A stronger definition would be needed though.

 

How's this:

 

To act in such a manner as inhibits other crew from enjoying a safe, productive environment. For example, behaving in a manner that threatens harm to other crew, such as brandishing weapons or threatening violence verbally, would be disorderly conduct. Violent altercations and destruction of equipment are separate charges. It is suggested that the whole 5 minutes not be applied on top of other crimes except for particularly disruptive incidents. Does not stack with rioting or inciting a riot.

 

[unmovedmover]

 

Another solution would be the return of injunctions.

 

--

Injunctions

In special cases, the Magistrate, Captain, or Head of Security may issue an official injunction authorizing punishment for a crime not expressly listed in Space Law. Such punishment can range from a simple warning to 15 minutes in the brig, at the discretion of whoever issued the injunction. More stringent punishment may be issued only if it is authorized by Central Command.

 

The Magistrate can overrule injunctions made by the Captain or Head of Security. The Captain can overrule injunctions made by the Head of Security. Central Command can overrule all injunctions. Security is under no obligation to enforce injunctions that violate Space Law, Standard Operating Procedure, or common sense. Misusing injunctions will result in a swift demotion.

--

 

The main advantage of this system is that injunctions can only be issued by high-ranking crewmembers, who tend to be more experienced players.

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Guest

[Kyet]

 

Last time injunctions were brought up, even as a concept, the response from the folks in charge of Space Law / SoP was "hell no".

 

I don't see injunctions getting a second life anytime soon. They're just too abusable.

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

No injunctions, ever.

 

Not about to give ANYONE the legal right to go "This annoys me personally, stop or be punished".

 

[unmovedmover]

Remember that injunctions by the head of security would be overseen by the captain and magistrate. Injunctions by the captain would be overseen by the magistrate and other heads of staff who can demote him. The magistrate is checked by the fact that he has a 45 karma requirement and that his injunctions have no power without the assent of security.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Guest

[davidchan]

Bad security will abuse any and every chance they can to ruin the round of someone they don't like. When it comes to Space Law or SoP, there is really no room for vagueness or opened laws that have potential for malicious use.

[necaladun]

 

Bad security will abuse any and every chance they can to ruin the round of someone they don't like. When it comes to Space Law or SoP, there is really no room for vagueness or opened laws that have potential for malicious use.

 

Very much this. Give shitcurity an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

[Jakers457]

 

As I mentioned in a similar thread. It would be nice to have something to back us up if we get a call like, 'HALP SECURITY, CHUCKY MCFUCKERSON IS PAINTING OUR LOBBY AND SPRAY PAINTING GRAFFITI.'

 

We can't really do much about it, but if we don't do anything about it, we get hurled abuse?

 

[necaladun]

It's very much a catch-22. I agree it'd be nice to have some way to stop such things, but any law or wording has to be interpreted by the most assholey powertrippy shitsec out there.

[Jakers457]

Perhaps give sec the ability to remove someone from a lobby/waiting/room/bar if they cause a ruckus. And if they enter that area again, they get bagged for trespass?

[davidchan]

The law would, at best, be grounds for confiscation of items being used to deface. And there would have to be clear cut lines and ACTUAL policy on arrest, otherwise security is going to take it as an excuse to taser, cuff and strip the clown of his items every round. Or if someone just wasn't showing them the respect they feel they deserve (with many of our security regulars thats basically anyone not groveling at their feet and kissing their boots) they can just say they disarmed or resisted arrest and have them locked up for assaulting an officer and other bullshit.

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

As much as I can relate, giving Officers something like this to wave around would lead to far, FAR more abuse than actual enforcement of its intended use.

 

Otherwise, there would have to be a defined special guideline on JUST THIS CRIME, and I am not in any rush to bloat Sec paperwork even more than I already have.

 

[SomeGuy9283]

Perhaps a more thorough enforcement of resisting arrest/refusal to cooperate will have a similar effect on discouraging 'tider-like behavior while not changing the existing laws.

[unmovedmover]

 

I am brainstorming "civil disputes."

 

--

Civil Disputes

Civil disputes are conflicts between crew members in which no crime has been committed. Any crew member may raise a civil dispute against any other crew member for any reason. If a judge determines that a tort has been committed, the offender may be required to compensate the complainant and/or be subject to other restrictions.

 

The magistrate is responsible for acting as judge in civil disputes. If there is no magistrate present, or if the magistrate himself is involved in the dispute, then the captain or head of security may adjudicate. Internal affairs involvement is advised but not required. The judge should consider whether any wrongful harm (physical or non-physical) has been committed against the complainant. If it is determined that a tort has been committed, the judge may issue one or more of the following court orders against the offender, at their discretion:

 

• Transfer Payment - A payment of credits from the offender to the complainant. The amount of credits to be transferred should be proportionate with the amount of harm caused. If the offender refuses to comply, the funds may be removed from their account by security.

• Restraining Order - Prohibits the offender from approaching the complainant. A physical copy of this order should be kept on the complainant's person at all times. If the offender deliberately violates this order, they are guilty of trespass.

Letter of Appeasement - Requires the offender to make a written apology to the complainant. This letter must be approved by the judge. If a letter is not submitted in a timely manner, the offender may be detained until they write the letter.

 

--

 

The three court orders listed would solve a wide array of disputes. Each is most appropriate for a different kind of dispute. For example, restraining orders are best at preventing harassment, like the clown excessively slipping one individual, over and over. A dispute about racism might prompt a letter of appeasement. Excessive grafitti could elicit transfer payments, based on the amount of property defaced. Given that disputes require a complainant, it would be difficult for one to target court orders against a particular individual, or to otherwise abuse the system.

 

[necaladun]

 

I really like this actually, especially as something for the magistrate to do.

 

However, a lot of specifics would have to be written up for how such things are judged.

 

[Farya]

 

Thats why we need Community Service and Fines as alternative punishements for minor crimes. Rather then locking people up in brig(where they will do nothing useful for corporation) make them pay the fines or do some dirty job like collecting litter, moping the floors, helping the cook with his job, etc. That would be much more effective and satisfying measure to deal with troublemakers that way. Prison cells must be used only for people who are dangerous for crew and/or too hard to control.

 

Damn, it would be fun to add possibility of sinks and toiletes jamming- with prisoners cleaning them instead of janitor.

Maybe improve disposals as well? Manual sorting of trash for recycling.

 

[unmovedmover]

 

I submit draft 2 for feedback. This is intended to be added at the end of Space Law.

 

1. Civil Disputes

   Civil disputes are conflicts between crew members in which no crime has been committed. Any crew member may raise a civil dispute against any other crew member for any reason. If a judge determines that a tort has been committed, the offender may be required to compensate the complainant and/or be subject to other restrictions.

    

   The magistrate is responsible for acting as judge in civil disputes. If there is no magistrate present, or if the magistrate themself is involved in a dispute, then the captain or head of security may adjudicate. Internal affairs involvement is advised but not required. The judge should consider whether any wrongful harm (physical or non-physical) has been committed against the complainant. Wrongful harm can be either deliberate or negligent. An incident of wrongful harm that is substantial constitutes a tort. Examples of a tort can include, but are not limited to, defacement of a crewmember's workplace, harassment, accidental injury, medical malpractice, and so forth.

    

   If it is determined that a tort has been committed, the judge may issue one or more of the following court orders against the offender to resolve the dispute, at their discretion:

• Transfer Payment - A payment of credits from the offender to the complainant. The number of credits to be transferred should be proportionate to the amount of harm caused. If the offender refuses to comply, the funds may be removed from their account by security.

• Restraining Order - Prohibits the offender from approaching the complainant. A physical copy of this order should be kept on the complainant's person at all times. If the offender deliberately violates this order, they are guilty of trespass.

Letter of Appeasement - Requires the offender to make a written apology to the complainant. This letter must be signed and approved by the judge. If a letter is not submitted in a timely manner, the offender may be detained until they write the letter.

 

 

Court orders must be written in a formal style, signed, and stamped by the judge. All court orders should include the name of the offender and the reason why it was issued. Security is not authorized to enforce a court order until a document with these features is produced. Remember that court orders may only be issued to resolve a civil dispute. Issuing court orders without a tort is akin to issuing a brig sentence without a crime. Doing so is grounds for demotion and should be reported to Central Command.

 

A section on civil disputes would need to be added to Legal SOP, too.

 

1. Civil Disputes

   1. A civil dispute may be raised by any crewmember against any other crewmember for any reason;

   2. The complainant should bring their dispute before the Magistrate, who will act as judge;

   3. If there is no magistrate present, or if the magistrate themself is involved in the dispute, then the captain or head of security may adjudicate;

   4. The judge is to investigate the dispute, employing the help of Internal Affairs if necessary;

   5. The judge is to determine whether a tort has been committed, as defined by Space Law;

   6. If a tort has been committed, the judge may issue one or more court orders against the offender to resolve the dispute, as defined by Space Law;

   7. Court orders are to be written according to the specifications described in Space Law;

   8. Security is only to enforce court orders written to said specifications. Spoken word does not constitute a court order.

 

Finally, the following amendments would need to be made to the existing Legal SOP so that it becomes compatible with the civil disputes system. My edits are in bold.

 

1. [...]

   Internal Affairs

   [...]

   6. Internal affairs are to investigate civil disputes and provide accurate information to the judge;

   [...]

   Magistrate

   1. Magistrates are to ensure that Space Law is applied correctly. If it is not, they are to make it so. In addition, magistrates are responsible for settling civil disputes between crewmembers;

   [...]

 

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

The main issue I have about this is that it is already fully possible for you to do this, without the whole bureaucratic process.

 

I am not certain if laying down framework for actual civil disputes would be a positive addition, because not only would that tie down even more resources during even more time, it may actually discourage people from getting involved. Sure, it will be used when its novel, but when a third of the station wants to complain about the other two thirds, then you have a massive backlog that will most likely NOT be solved unless the Magistrate does nothing but civil disputes all shift long.

 

[FPK]

 

I'll throw my two bits in.

 

If the purpose of this change is to allow Security to deal with dicks not explicitly breaking the law, then we really don't need the change. If there's some jackass harassing crew members, I would suggest harassing them back. If it's code blue, demand to search them whenever you see them in the hallway. If they're shoving people over to fart on them, arrest them for Battery. If they inhibit someone from doing their job in any form or fashion, arrest them for Workplace Hazard.

 

If you still can't find a reason to arrest them, stun them with your baton and spray them down with pepperspray. Steal their shoes and throw them in the trash. Be a dick to them, and avoid the gaze of the HoS/IAA/Magistrate.

 

Alternatively, ignore it. Security is here to provide SECURITY, not to give everyone their safe place.

 

[Farya]

 

I'll throw my two bits in.

 

If the purpose of this change is to allow Security to deal with dicks not explicitly breaking the law, then we really don't need the change. If there's some jackass harassing crew members, I would suggest harassing them back. If it's code blue, demand to search them whenever you see them in the hallway. If they're shoving people over to fart on them, arrest them for Battery. If they inhibit someone from doing their job in any form or fashion, arrest them for Workplace Hazard.

 

If you still can't find a reason to arrest them, stun them with your baton and spray them down with pepperspray. Steal their shoes and throw them in the trash. Be a dick to them, and avoid the gaze of the HoS/IAA/Magistrate.

 

Alternatively, ignore it. Security is here to provide SECURITY, not to give everyone their safe place.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

 

Dealing with dicks by becoming one is not the way actually. Station crew(and players playing them) are supposed to be cultured(at least enough to be tolerated by society) people not a bunch of stupid apes understanding only the tongue of violence. Crew have Space Law to abide, SOP to keep in mind and legal department(IAA, lawyer, Magistrate). While security is here to enforce security when words are not effective.

 

[FPK]

 

Maybe I've just become too cynical. Let me rephrase that last post.

 

If the subject is acting in a dickish manner, but not in a way that poses a threat to station security, three possible solutions exist. One, analyze Space Law for a valid, legal reason to enforce order upon the subject, in hopes of curbing their behavior. Two, ignore the subject (seeing as they don't pose a threat to station security), and instead direct the victim to an IAA who could potentially solve the situation through negotiation or a clause in SL/SOP. Three, hold the subject up not to SL or SOP, but instead your own moral values of fairness and justice. Apply reasonable force/punishment, and be prepared to defend your actions from the legal department/admins. This third option should be reserved for when all other legal means fail, and should never be your first choice.

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

I have since added Civil Disputes to Legal Standard Operating Procedure. It is currently in its trial period.

 

Hopefully, this will work out.

 

If not, well, oh well.

 

Please contact me or Necaladun for any proposed change to it.