Voice (and how, sorry everyone. Class is in session.)

[thecook]

[The voice that addresses the network is deep. An adult male. The way that he speaks indicates he might've been a professor of some sort, once. There's the intent to impart knowledge, but also to invite debate. Engage, please. This old man in the button down and lumpy sweater and thick glasses wants to know what you think.]

Good afternoon. I'm Mr. Walter White, and I'm new here. Until today, I've been an observer. But it seems like things are getting a little out of hand. Some information might help to clear this up.

Let's start by addressing the concern of the legal system here. It seems that there wasn't a need for one until recently. Before that time, people hadn't been caught harming one another. The need for regulation and intermediaries was so infrequent that people generally handled things between themselves.

That's beginning to change now, and that's alright. It's a universal fact that throwing strangers together without direction as a cohesive unit will cause some friction. The debate we're having here recently, is whether we are able to punish these outliers or not, with no established system of law.

The good news is, the very act of separating and detaining them is the first step in the process. The system that's being established here will be familiar to those who, like me, come from North America, including Canada. Anyone from the British empire, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Sri Lanka, and a handful of other countries should be aware of this system. For those who aren't, let's explain briefly.

Common law is a set of rules which are determined over time by precedent. Unlike civil law, which requires a set of codifers to be established first, [ie the list of rules such "murder shall be punished by death" that were suggested] common law allows us to examine every case individually, present it to a jury if randomly selected peers before an elected official, and allow the punishment to fit the crime. This is the form of law that tends to crop up in societies which are ruled by the people. Civil law is usually seen under the rule of a select, wealthy few, as in oligarchies.

So the question is, do we continue establishing this common law, or do we throw that out and go for civil law instead? If we decide on civil law, we must establish a ruler. While this is usually done by force or birthright claim, that system might need some work here. Then, a strict set of codifers will be needed, which will be provided by the rulers.

To establish a common law, an impartial judge must be chosen to preside over a trial, and a jury must be selected randomly, of the population without a major bias. Legal representatives aren't necessary to establish standing precedents of law here where there are none. The job of the judge and jury would be to determine fairly what sort of punishment best fits each individual, and why.

The most important factor in a common law is a fair trial by a jury of unbiased peers, to clearly establish guilt and the need for a reasonable punishment to be set by a publicly appointed judge. It's similar to what Ms. Roslyn proposed, but it doesn't require anyone to step up and claim authority without public assent.

Of course, law isn't about making everyone happy. It's about establishing order. But stable systems usually are that way because the population largely considers them just. Systems considered to be unjust by the general population usually fall into the trap of anarchy, breaking and remaking themselves repeatedly from within.

Comments

Video;

[medivhal]

Spoken like a rational adult; however, which would you sacrifice, then?

Would you sacrifice order for the approval of the public or would you sacrifice the peoples' approval for the sake of unbiased rationality?

Which do you believe the people long for? Order or justice?

video

[thecook]

Even in an ordered society, the longing for justice has often led to disorder. From what I've observed here, i can guess which system will be more welcomed. The entire reason this colony of Exsiles existed before I arrived is that it's human nature to want personal freedoms. Then again, we're not all humans here anymore.

video

[medivhal]

It wouldn't make a difference. I've played adviser to a King and to councils of learned men.

Disagreements will be taken as personal affronts, regardless of any fair backing behind them. I've only found that as you add voices to a discussion, the entire point swiftly becomes distorted and manipulated by the loudest mouths.

Rather, you're all looking at things incorrectly. It isn't about what you want or even about what is right. It's about what is feasible for you to enforce.

audio

[vaccination]

Or people could not be massive dicks. But that's unlikely.

[thecook]

Ah, it's Ellie, isn't it?

[Boy has he ever seen you around.]

Voice

[changeitroundsome]

[Oh, hey roomie. Facilier's been quietly keeping an eye on the network, watching the bickering, the talks of changing things and finding nothing of interest, but this...]

Finally, someone around here starts making sense.

I've never been a big fan of the wealthy running things, myself. [Understatement of the century, there] Besides, with all the different worlds we have represented here, it would make a whole lot of sense to have something everyone can agree on. There ain't no way civil law could satisfy everyone around here. A mixed jury would give a much wider viewpoint that we'd need in these mixed and difficult times.

[And a jury...well, a jury can be swayed in ways a law cannot. If you have the means anyway, and Facilier certainly has the means and some to spare. It never hurts to think ahead]

[thecook]

Given the situation that led us here was mutiny against a few who were perceived to be in power, it might be true that a system with wider representation could be of some use, yes.

[crocodilesmiles]

I think I finally get it! What's been going on and all. It kinda makes more sense that everyone who does do something most people here thinks is bad gets looked at on their own, and being tried by the people you've got to live and work with makes sense too.

How do you figure out the impartial judge part? Voting? Trial and error?

[thecook]

Ah, good question, miss...?

What I meant by publicly appointed official was that you and I and everyone else here would have a chance to cast a vote and say "this is someone I feel will make fair and impartial decisions." That's all that a judge needs to do, but it's very important. Every sentence they deliver will be recorded and used to establish a precedent for future arguments in favor or against other defendants.

not here

[fullmeasure]

[but you can bet your ass he's keeping a very close eye on this, Walter]

[thecook]

[He won't notice that alas, Mike. He has no idea who you are.]

video

[highhealplz]

[ he might be in love
he just might be ]

We have so many varied people here, bringing varied customs and opinions with them, that I have to think common law would be by far the better fit. It seems like it would be almost impossible to establish a set of codifiers to match the expectations of everyone here.

[ and, that aside, he smiles widely ]

You're pretty well-spoken on this! Did you do this kind of thing at home?

[thecook]

[Alas, Walt is happily married. His wife seeing someone else aside, they're...working on that. But a positive response is great! Much better than people threatening to take matters into their own hands.]

Me? No, thankfully I never worked in law or politics. Basic politics and history are part of every school child's education where I'm from, and there's more in-depth study at the baccalaureate level.

It does seem like attempts to agree on crime and punishment across the board have had their issues, though, doesn't it?

audio;

[ensorceler]

It seems that few even considered 'civil law'.

[thecook]

That's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? So far everything I've seen was a discussion of civil or martial law, but maybe you have some additional information to share?

Voice;

[hellosailor]

You're American, right pal? Well, then usually the Judge alone decides the actual sentence for a criminal. Problem is, there are no precedents here. No baseline. [He laughs a little] Getting everyone here to decide on one judge that represents their ideal form of justice is not going to be easy. You've got some people talking about just letting everyone get away with a firm talking to, and other people insisting on slow, painful, public executions.

Thing about America is you've got a society that basically has the same concept of fairness and individual liberties. Same sort of morals, really. The whole damn country was founded on it. That's not the case here.

[thecook]

Hello. As I said, yes I am American, and yes a judge would hand down a sentence to a defendant who'd been determined by the jury to be guilty. And yes, the way a common law works is precedent is established by trial as situations arise.

You make an interesting point that a judge can't possibly serve everyone's ideal version of justice. This is true. In fact, no system will ever be able to serve everyone's ideal form of justice. It simply isn't possible unless we all agree, and history has shown us that this has yet to occur. What a judge will be able to do, is to hand down that sentence. Which is why choosing the right judge is important, and why they're publicly elected. In casting that vote, what the voter says is "you have my confidence to make a fair decision." Not necessarily an ideal decision, but a decision that can be the basis -the precedent you seek- for future instances.

If your argument is that civil law would be a better fit in this situation, that's fine. We can talk about that. But saying there's no basis of law in a place where we're trying to establish the law is redundant. Whatever we'd like to found this new society on, we're deciding that here and now, just as the founders of the new American society did when they decided to throw away the established precedent of Colonial rule.

voice;

[launderer]

[All the judging.]

You forgot to mention the part where you talk about the crimes you've committed. [The irony isn't lost on her, and she's not laughing.]

Re: voice;

[thecook]

Hello, dear. I hate to sound like a broken record, but let's do this again, shall we? Just like your friends told you, and just like I told you, I really don't know what you're talking about. So sweetheart, you're going to have to tell everyone for me.

Go ahead, I'll wait. And once you're finished with that, maybe you have an opinion on the actual topic at hand here, which is what type of law system might best serve this population. Which actually has nothing to do with me at all.e

NOT HERE totally stalking anything open

[ensorceler]

[ Oh. How awkward. ]

voice

[encharrneered]

[ Huff. ]

I would say you left out martial law, but there is no armed force of any such worth among the Transports or the Initiative.

Not here

[alittlesweptup]

[TRACKS THIS LIKE IT'S HIS JOB ETC]

[have_hat_will_travel]

Hrm... An interesting comparison, perhaps.

I would have some favor to Common Law - a more chaotic system - but such is my nature.

Indeed, that's part of the challenge here - we have to examine for the unusual cultures borne of non-humanity that many have here. The law is nothing without enforcement, but is naught but tyranny without understanding, after all.

text

[freezerburned]

great. another person telling us all what to do

if you want to join with the guys that are all still arguing about this i suggest you just throw a big party and pitch your ideas. last one awake wins

voice

[mallarkey]

[ ... He's taking notes. This "common law" and "civil law" stuff is useful to know. ]

Not sure if we need to worry about any wealthy few taking over if we were to put together a couple guidelines. People might, y'know, feel safer for it, I think.