fandomhigh | Nation Building and the Origin of Government, Period 5, Class 3, Thursday, 1-20

Current Mood: pensive

Entry tags:

government

Nation Building and the Origin of Government, Period 5, Class 3, Thursday, 1-20

Today, class was meeting in the Danger Shop, which was only because Alex's students might want to speak with individuals themselves. ~~and so I can play with NPC icons~~

"Last night was a busy one, in your country," she said, once everyone had filed in to a replica of their usual classroom. "You asked the patrol guards to keep their eyes open for any suspicious or questionable activity, and they found a fair amount. The official tally is on the blackboard."

The tally, on the blackboard, was in no particular order and read as follows:

• Two men engaged in a barfight; both were injured, one seriously.
• An alleged would-be burglar entered the home of a resident. The resident fired a gun at the presumed burglar. The presumed burglar is in critical condition.
• A homeless man stole several food items, at gunpoint, from a grocery store.
• A woman discovered her husband in bed with another woman, and stabbed him.
• A CEO hired an assassin to kill the CEO of the company's chief competitor; the hitman succeeded.
• Two adult siblings engaged in what both claim was consensual sex.
• A woman has been printing and mailing out a newsletter which insults you and spreads lies about your regime.
• A man gave a prostitute money in exchange for sexual favors.

"The patrol guards placed these people in separate cells. This is where the real fun starts. None of what happened last night was, technically speaking, illegal. We haven't instituted a formal rule of law yet. That doesn't mean we can't punish any or all of those people, if we see fit to do so, but it does remind us that we might want to put together some laws, and announce them to the populace at large. The populace won't automatically follow all of your rules, but it's nice for them to at least know what's against the law, and what punishment is assigned each crime.

"Leaving aside the issue of retroactive legality -- this is a thought experiment, so we can do that easily enough -- which of these people broke the law last night? What mitigating circumstances do we want to take into effect, when issuing punishment? And what exactly are we going to punish our citizens with? Death? Exile? Imprisonment?"

Alex nodded to the doorway on the side of the room. "We can summon anyone you like, for you to speak with, in case you'd like to get a clearer view of the facts of these cases. Next week, we're going to talk big picture, putting down rules and coming up with guidelines, instituting a police presence and determining the fate of criminals. This week? We're going to handle just these cases. Who broke the law, what law should we have in place to guard against that behavior, and what punishment should the guilty receive?"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

For any of the guilty parties, what happens now? Do we detain them? If so, for how long? Do we rehabilitate them? If so, how? Do we execute them? Do we exile them? Explain what punishment you would hand out and why, as well as what reasons might influence their punishment.

(again, handle the criminals in groups or one at a time, or just tackle a couple of them, however you want to approach it. feel free to disagree with each other, and make this messy.)

"Execute the murderers," Squall decided. "The person who shot the robber, too. Now isn't the time to be lenient, with the country in chaos."

"A clarification," Alex said. "The woman's husband survived the stabbing. He's injured, but alive."

She considered for a few moments before adding, "The man who shot the burglar claims that he acted in self-defense. Does your answer change if the burglar himself was armed?"

"Oh." Squall frowned. He hadn't really considered that. And in considering it, it occurred to him to think about the woman's motive, which he hadn't bothered with before. "She wasn't very good at it, then. Fine, whatever. Let her go, and give her a divorce."

The other question was more straightforward, at least. "No," he answered. "Without any laws, it would be stupid for someone NOT to be armed. It WOULD change if the burglar didn't need the things he was stealing, though. Or if the homeowner couldn't spare them."

"I don't think her intent was to be 'good' at it," Alex said. "She was lashing out. I'm not suggesting that she doesn't deserve to be punished, only that in some countries, the law chooses to differentiate between premeditation and crimes committed in highly emotional states."

Alex tried to reason out the rest of it. "Let's say, for the sake of argument," she said, "that the burglar didn't need the items, but the homeowner could spare them. The homeowner claims that he was worried about the welfare of his family; the burglar thinks he shot out of spite."

"When we HAVE a law, we'll be able to afford to differentiate," Squall answered. "At the moment, there aren't enough guards to run an actual jail, so it's just a choice between execution or a warning."

As for the other scenario... "If the burglar didn't need the items, then he's guilty, too. He gets a very STERN warning before being let go. The homeowner still gets executed."

"That's a fair point," Alex said. "That we have no capacity for jail cells. Why execute the homeowner, and why spare the burglar? It was the burglar who put actions in motion."

Squall had to realize by now that their teacher enjoyed argued minutiae. Mostly just to see where everyone's perspective lay.

After having considered all the scenarios carefully and with a bit of a worried look on his face for what he assumed was going to be considered an unusual response, Alexander stood and said, "I believe they should all be released. I am not sure apologies are necessary; the guards were merely acting on their own sense of justice, as they each were. I would be concerned, however, about the homeless man. I would like to see what has lead to his predicament and what we might do to help. I feel that news of the woman who stabbed her husband should be released, so that the people realize the shame that has befallen that family. I would likely send men to keep an eye on the one who hired the hitman and the ones in the barfight to make them think twice about such actions in the future, and I feel the others quite had a right to go about the business as they did."

"'Keep an eye' how?" Alex asked, tackling that issue first. "Would you have the guards threaten them, or at least make it known to them that their behavior was unacceptable? Let them know that they're being watched, or followed?"

"To let them know," Alexander said carefully, "that the guards are aware of the type of activity they have chosen to engage in. And to remind them that other might choose to engage in it, as well."

"That may only encourage them to step up their activities," Alex said, "and to be more careful about getting caught. Do you have a contingency plan, in case that happens?"

"Fight fire with fire," Alexander said, "and serve to them what they themselves are serving. If, that is, the activity is indeed conflicting with the well-being of the society as a whole. A bar fight is just par for the course, I would believe, though if I had a man on my side who was more likely to succeed than others, that might discourage it from happening too often. And who am I to hold it against a man for deposing a...CEO or evil wizard or tyrannical dragon if it is best for everyone? I myself have done such things. But if a man is causing tyranny in disposing of innocents, then it is my duty to make sure that he is disposed of, as well."

"Does your response change based on the CEO's motivation?" Alex asked. "I don't think he was concerned with the good of the populace. More the good of his particular business, and ridding it of a key competitor."

Re: Discussion - Punishment - NAT03

daventryprince.livejournal.com - 2011-01-20 20:00 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion - Punishment - NAT03

glasses-justice.livejournal.com - 2011-01-20 21:02 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion - Punishment - NAT03

daventryprince.livejournal.com - 2011-01-20 21:04 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion - Punishment - NAT03

glasses-justice.livejournal.com - 2011-01-20 21:17 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion - Punishment - NAT03

daventryprince.livejournal.com - 2011-01-20 21:31 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Discussion - Punishment - NAT03

glasses-justice.livejournal.com - 2011-01-21 03:43 (UTC) - Expand

"The person who robbed the grocery store should be exiled," Sov announced. "And the... CEO too." They weren't entirely sure what that meant.

Alex offered Sov a quick flash of a smile. "It's a business term," she said, assuming the hesitation was unfamiliarity. "A CEO is a person who is in charge of a corporation. The rival was in charge of a corporation in direct competition -- perhaps they both sold brands of soda, or made similar cellphones. Should the person who carried out the hit also be exiled?"

Sov nodded, relaxing a little when they understood the full meaning. "Yes, both of them, but the CEO is ultimately responsible."

"So we're exiling the thief, and the murderer," Alex said, "as well as the man responsible for carrying out the deed. What happens to everyone else?"

"Killing a burglar is unnecessary, unless the burglar too was armed," Sov replied. "They should be captured and brought to justice, not killed at sight." They thought for a moment. "But defending ones property is also a right. Perhaps the owner of the house should make it up to the burglar's family in some way." That sort of thing didn't happen too often in Rer,

"As for the barfight, they both got what they deserved. Spreading lies about the government is sometimes considered a crime, but usually only when the government actually has something to hide." They paused. "The others don't make much sense. Of course breaking a vow to your chosen mate is a bad thing to do, but if the other person isn't around..."

"Would your answer change if the burglar was armed?" Alex asked. "Or if the homeowner had reason to believe the burglar was?"

She tapped her fingers lightly on the desk, choosing her words carefully.

"In ... this society," she said, "by which I mean the one Fandom resides in, by and large, and not necessarily your hypothetical country -- individuals often associate marriage or other life commitments to monogamy. Sexual intimacy is seen as being sacred, only to be shared with one another; sharing with another person is a violation of that bond, and your partner's trust, on a deep level."

"The people who were in the barfight's injuries should serve as punishment enough," Medusalith declared after some thought. "And they should be required to pay for any damages to the property. The man who shot the burglar was defending his home, and after the recent unrest I can hardly blame him for that, though of course I hope the burglar will recover. The man who stole from a store should be rehabilitated, so that he can find some useful work and will not need to steal food any more. He will have to return what he stole, and if that is not possible, repay the store owner. Er. Once he has money."

Those were the easy ones that she didn't think were overly influenced by Inhuman principles. Give her a moment to consult her notes and think about how to phrase the others in a more human way, covered by asking Alex, "Does that sound...reasonable?"

"Very much so," Alex said, giving the girl a reassuring nod. "We'll split any damages the bar owner might have between the two of them, 50-50. The burglar is in serious condition but isn't expected to die. The homeless man was detained with all of the food items he'd stolen, so those have been returned. In his case, rehabilitation may not even be necessary; he may prefer a paying job to theft."

"The couple where the husband committed adultery." Medusalith hesitated, then said, "The woman will have to be detained as punishment; we can't allow people to go around stabbing others, as much as I understand the impulse in her case. The man should also be punished for his adultery, possibly via monetary payment to his wife, and then they should be granted a divorce. The union is clearly untenable. If he is genetically compatible with the woman he was cheating with, I see no reason for them not to marry, but that will have to be referred to my Genetics Council."

Alex might be getting a little better idea of what a genocracy meant now.

"Should they be made to marry?" Alex asked. She had no opinion on the matter, but she was curious as to the girl's opinion. "If they're genetically compatible. They may not wish to, simply because they were in bed together. How long should we detain the wife?"

"If they liked each other well enough to break his marriage bond to engage in sex, I would hope they would be willing to marry," Medusalith said, sounding positively scandalized, "but if they are not, there's no reason to force them," Medusalith said. "And...under normal circumstances, the wife would have to be detained until trial, of course, and then if she's found guilty I would leave that sentencing up to the jury. If it were purely up to me, I'd say not very long at all. A month or so, perhaps. He'll live, after all." She gave a little shrug.

"Sadly, some people are willing to break their marriage bonds with anyone who is willing," Alex said. "Even people they hardly know. What kind of punishment would you have issued, if the husband had instead died?"

Just out of curiosity. She couldn't help poking at all the angles to see what her students came up with.

Re: Discussion - Punishment - NAT03

nohaircutsplz - 2011-01-22 07:34 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only