Balstan, C/O Scribes

[Qari]

Honored Legate,

The removal of the criminal association law is somewhat alarming. This law has been raised and stricken once before, and now seems to be again.

Unless you broaden the language of 'conspiring' mentioned under "murder" or "assault", this would allow someone to commit crime through an intermediary, without consequence.

Further, under murder or assault - The language as written allows one to commit the act, or conspire to kill another person, and leaves the matter of "self defence" as a possible means of escaping consequence.  Ought a person be legally protected if both parties are verifiably planning to kill one another, and one of them strikes first only to claim it was 'done in self defense?'


Kidnapping : Simply rename this to  "Abduction". "Kidnapping" is an imprecise colloquilism and the only known cases of abduction in the Citadel were not committed against children.


Treason :

"Undermine or harm the legates" is unnecessary language that elevates the legate to a status where they stand above all. The previous language is more precise and prevents the more ill-intentioned Legates (Such as Argent) from claiming someone is treasonous for simply disagreeing with him. Let us not be the League that opened the door for executing political enemies. As Scholars, you and I value the weight of discourse well.

Perhaps the most prudent course to prevent mis-use here is to enact a requirement that a senior scribe, at least one legate, and an officer (sergeant or higher) of the legion must all agree that an act is treasonous, before a trial may proceed.  This will ensure the minimal bias and prevent trivial matters from going to trial.


On Espionage -

"Minor: Loitering in restricted locations without permission, such as the Legate's hallway or the Divan of War."   This is a unncessary law. Are those waiting for a meeting to be charged with a crime?


"Serious: Intentionally eavesdropping on the Legates' doors;"    This ought to be a minor crime, with the possibility of being elevated to serious if the matter to be discussed is known to be sensitive (A bellow being made to discuss war plans, announcing such so the eavesdropped has specific intent to spy on it)

You will note that the walls of the pyramid are thin, and the scribes often overhear the Legates. Are we to charge them all with serious crimes?


"or scrying the Accord Signatories or Legates."    The inclusion of the accord signatories here is troublesome. The astronomers and the priory actively scry upon the citadel, and each other, on a daily basis. Are we to open the door for them to flood you with inane requests to oversee trials each time they have a new disagreement?

This merely opens you, and the legion, up to headaches for a crime which cannot be proven by any mundane means. Estellise Azimi could simply -claim-  someone scryed upon her, and demand a capital trial takes place.  (She has actually done this before, and was the falsehood she used to initially revoke my divination license after I confronted her with information about her participation in Mari Blacke's murder)


On Laches -  This is an unneccessary addition.  Often it can take a great deal of time to build a proper case. At present there are only two such longstanding cases.  Mae's brooking with the entity known as the "Blood Star"  (Now called the "GoreHeart" by the orcs)  and Estellise Azimi's participation in Mari Blacke's murder, and her hiring of Leander Nifkil to kill Galen Castor. Both files remain open and the legion will continue to investigate.

You have attempted to put in a caveat for one fleeing the well and such, but often (Including in Azimi's case, as she disappeared for some time during the height of the investigation) critical witnesses or conspirators can also disappear, leaving confession at a later date one of the only ways these crimes can be prosecuted.  It is not malicious for the legion to do this and to suggest it become a crime is short-sighted and will allow many to escape consequence and the Wroth's Due.


Brooking :  Not all that comes from the Astral, is malicious or horror. Many of these entities would seem ethereal, or partially non-corporeal to the layperson. While having the appearance of 'spirits', many diviners who would conjure benign and non-sapient astral creatures may find themselves facing accusations of brooking.

I would recommend the removal of the word "spirit" from the law.  My proposal is hence:

Brooking: A person found guilty of making pact with or knowingly serving (or conjuring) djinni, otherworldly monstrosities, or horrors, has committed the crime of Brooking. Capital.