SD v Catchers 2020 Crim 8

SD v Catchers 2020 Crim 8

Date of judgment	9th September 2020
Judge	Judge Ivy Cactus
Charges	1 charge of Treason (Article 55 of the Criminal Code)
Verdict	Guilty of 1 charge of Treason
Sentence	4 month ban, 3 month forbiddance from the DLE
Applicable persuasive precedent	If counts of a crime are not specifically defined in the Criminal Code, a count is assumed to mean “one action”, 4 Violating statute and continually trying to ignore the law are actions that constitute “undermining the government of SimDemocracy” for the purposes of treason, 16.1 Violating an executive order undermines the President’s constitutional executive authority, and by extension, undermines the “constitutional order of the government of SimDemocracy” for the purposes of treason, 16.2

==

Introduction

[1]. The defendant, u/catchers123321 is being charged with one count of treason, due to allegedly holding on to the DLE discord server even when he had the legal obligation to do so.

What is one charge of treason?

[2]. Before moving forward I want to address an argument that appeared during the presentation of the prosecution's evidence. In this piece of evidence the, at the time, Attorney General, SeaOtter, stated that “This is the second time this has happened”, in reference to the defendant not handing over the server under two presidents.

[3]. The defense argues that this should be considered two separate charges, and that because the prosecution only charged the defendant with a single count of treason adding both times would be a trial by ambush and illegally editing the charges during the trial.

[4]. So what even is one charge of treason? Unlike some other charges such as Harassment, the definition of treason doesn’t specify what a single charge of treason is. Therefore, it’s deferred to Article 4 of the criminal code which repeatedly states that a criminal charge shall be “one action”.

[5]. So was catcher’s refusing to hand over the server under two presidents more than one action? The court finds that it isn’t. As I stated during the trial in my original decision “The changes that would require a separate action here are either the SST being different for a couple of days, or the president changing. I don't believe these to be particularly relevant. If a tyrannical sub supervisor is holding the sub hostage it does not matter if the president he's refusing to hand it over to, or even if the new sub supervisor that it hasn't been given to changes. It is still one action.”

[6]. The court’s decision to not declare a mistrial at that time is upheld here.

Defenses - No chance of sharing classified info

[7]. The first defense the court will be examining is that because the defendant was not going to be sharing classified info, and giving the classified info to the DLE whenever they requested there wasn’t any treason.

7.1 The defendant giving info to the DLE whenever they want is simply irrelevant so I won’t take time to dissect it.

[8]. On the front of not giving out classified info the defendant stated “yea i would have given the DLE the info for there reports and not given anything out that they did not want to”, which seems to point to him not giving out classified info. However, early the defendant had stated “i wanted to make a museum” when asked what he would do with the server. All of the info in the DLE would be considered classified, other than mixed in irrelevant messages and past declassified messages. To make a museum automatically points to releasing info the DLE would not want released. Therefore, this defense is rejected.

[9]. Was this defense even relevant? To an extent which is why I bothered to dissect it, but it really is only auxiliary to the charge, and may not have swayed the court even if it was accepted.

Defense - DLE allowed servers

[10]. Another argument raised by the defense is that because the DLE is only allowed 1 server and 1 backup server (as established in Article 6 Section 1 of the NERA) the DLE doesn’t have a legal claim to the server Catchers owned because the creation of a new server made the old one no longer DLE property.

[11]. However, I think what's more important is the emergency backup server part. It’s the belief of the court that not being able to access the DLE server constitutes an emergency, and is a valid use of the back-up server. The government's claim to their old server doesn’t disappear because they’re forced to use the back-up server.

[12]. Therefore this defense is wholly rejected by the court.

Defense - Nonce

[13]. The final defense raised is that because the belief that Catchers would share info from the server was based off of Nonce’s beliefs it’s simply irrelevant and based on wild personal whims.

[14]. As established in 8 the defendant himself said he wanted to share info, this argument is rejected by the court.

Did the Defendant commit Treason?

[15]. The court finds that the defendant did in fact hold onto the server, even though the NERA requires it to go to the SST, then continued to even after the president himself stepped in and issued an executive order forcing him to give the server to the SST Nonce.

[16]. Do these actions fall under the definition of Treason? The most relevant sections here are §1.3. And §1.5. Of Article 55 of the criminal code, which state “ Conspires or attempts to overthrow or undermine the government of SimDemocracy.” and “Conspires, or attempts, to undermine the constitutional order of the government of SimDemocracy.” respectively.

16.1 Does refusing to hand over the server undermine the government of Simdemocracy? I believe that it does. When you violate statute and continually try to ignore law you are undermining the senate’s authority, and by extension the state as a whole.

16.2 Do the same actions undermine the constitutional order of simdemocracy? While I don’t believe they do inherently, the court finds that by refusing to listen to an executive order an executive employee undermines the president’s primary executive authority, and by extension the constitutional order.

Sentencing

[17]. The prosecution recommended the defendant gets a one year ban from SimDemocracy “to show that what he did was unacceptable, and to hopefully prevent another fiasco like this from happening ever again.”. However, the court doesn’t punish people harder to make examples out of people. It will examine the crime as laid out by the Criminal Code.

[18]. The punishments available for Treason are between 2 months and a lifetime from simdemocracy. So between these bounds the court is to “§2. While determining the sentence, the court is to base it on the severity of the offense, the social harm caused, the damage caused to the victim (if applicable), the motivations of the offender, and the intent with which the offender has committed the offense; and any defences invoked.”. Taking into account the fact that the defendant planned on doing good with the server, however the crime was severe and harmed the DLE.

[19]. Overall the crime doesn’t warrant a 1 year ban, instead the court believes that a ban followed by forbiddance from office. Looking at all parts of the crime the court falls on a punishment of a 4 month ban, followed by 3 months of forbiddance from the DLE.

Verdict

[20]. The court finds the defendant guilty of Treason, and sentences him to a 4 month ban followed by 3 months forbiddance from the DLE.

[21]. Any and all decisions by the court may be appealed.