[Passed] Citizenship Fraud Amendment

[Cormac]

Citizenship Fraud Amendment Section 1: Legal Code Amendment

(1) Article II, Section 1(5) of the Legal Code of the Osiris Fraternal Order will be amended as follows:

(5) Citizenship Fraud is defined as any attempt to provide false or misleading answers on one's application for citizenship in the Osiris Fraternal Order or any attempt to conceal alternate NationStates aliases during the citizenship application process.

(5) Citizenship Fraud is defined as any attempt to conceal one's complete identity as a NationStates player when applying for citizenship in the Osiris Fraternal Order, or any attempt to conceal past or present affiliation with any region or organization at war with or otherwise hostile to the sovereignty of Osiris.

I think our current definition of Citizenship Fraud is flawed, in that it is too stringent and prone to frivolous filing of criminal charges. What we're really seeking to root out with Citizenship Fraud is deliberate misrepresentation of one's identity, or deliberate omission of affiliation with a region that is hostile to Osiris, because of the danger such misrepresentation or omission poses to Osiran security. See, for reference, The Almighty Jesus Whale's total omission of any prior involvement in The Silver Isles, a region that participated in the 2013 Gatesville occupation of Osiris, until he was discovered to have resided there quite some time after being admitted to citizenship.

What we're not trying to do is have charges filed against someone that somebody else doesn't like, for forgetting they were a citizen of Nasicournia ten years ago. That has nothing to do with Osiran security; it's just forgetfulness, and not relevant.

I think the definition I've offered in this amendment better accomplishes what we're trying to do. Thoughts?

[Ridersyl]

I would prefer an amendment that fixes the issue without over-specifying the law, such as this:

(5) Citizenship Fraud is defined as any malicious attempt to provide false or misleading answers on one's application for citizenship in the Osiris Fraternal Order or any malicious attempt to conceal alternate NationStates aliases during the citizenship application process.

What do you think, Pharaoh?

[Cormac]

I would prefer an amendment that fixes the issue without over-specifying the law, such as this:

(5) Citizenship Fraud is defined as any malicious attempt to provide false or misleading answers on one's application for citizenship in the Osiris Fraternal Order or any malicious attempt to conceal alternate NationStates aliases during the citizenship application process.

What do you think, Pharaoh?

My concern is that leaves interpretation of malice to the Council of Priests, which could have two equally undesirable but very different effects:

1) It could lead to acquittals of citizens who deliberately fail to disclose affiliations with hostile regions if their intent isn't interpreted as malicious, leaving threats in the region as voting citizens.

2) It could lead to convictions of citizens who accidentally fail to disclose affiliations with non-hostile regions if their intent is interpreted as malicious, resulting in citizens who aren't actually threats being removed from citizenship.

I very much prefer as little ambiguity in our criminal law as possible, to avoid interpretations that may lead to bad decisions that will either be unfair to citizens or dangerous to Osiris, or both.

[Ridersyl]

Well, how about this?

(5) Citizenship Fraud is defined as defrauding the citizenship application process by concealing key information that would have otherwise caused the applicant to be denied.

I just don't want an amendment that a defense can nitpick 10 different ways, is all.

[Cormac]

Well, how about this?

(5) Citizenship Fraud is defined as defrauding the citizenship application process by concealing key informational that would have otherwise caused the applicant to be denied.

I just don't want an amendment that a defense can nitpick 10 different ways, is all.

I think that leaves too much open to interpretation, in the sense that the Council of Priests would then have to decide whether an application would have been accepted or denied if the omitted information had been included, with the prosecution arguing that it would have been denied and the defense arguing that it would have been accepted.

Unless the Council of Priests were to ask the Pharaoh, but the Pharaoh could lie, and at that point we would essentially be placing conviction or acquittal in the hands of the Pharaoh rather than the Council of Priests.

[Ridersyl]

It's either we leave much open to interpretation, or leave much open to the accused' defenses. Both have risk attached.

That said, I'll stop throwing personal amendments at you and support your original amendment now.

[Cormac]

It's either we leave much open to interpretation, or leave much open to the accused' defenses. Both have risk attached.

That said, I'll stop throwing personal amendments at you and support your original amendment now.

I'm still thinking over my amendment to address the concern that it leaves too much open for defense counsel to exploit to get someone acquitted on a technicality. That may be resolvable by changing my amendment's language a bit. If anyone has suggestions, please let me know.

[Cormac]

After talking to a few people, I think the language in the OP is probably sufficient. If there is no further discussion to be had, I would appreciate a voting citizen making a motion to vote.

[Gradea]

I motion this proposal to a vote.

[Transdavisia]

I second the motion.