6.3 Aiding & Abetting Reform

[LoganFrost]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: Change

What law do you wish to change/add: 6.3 Aiding & Abetting

Why should this change/addition be made: Tie up a loophole that can be used by criminals

What is the aim of this change/addition: Basically, 6.3 says you are only aiding someone if they are/ were detained, arrested, or warranted. There is no infraction for people that assist people AT THE TIME of the crime. It should be changed so that it is illegal to assist in the crime.

Current Law: Any person who knowingly provides assistance to a person under detainment, arrest or warrant for arrest other than providing medical assistance or formal legal consul acts unlawfully. Assistance may be, but is not necessarily limited to advice, action and financial support.

 

[joey]

Suggested by a friendly Murtslizard:

"6.3 Aiding & Abetting
Any person who knowingly assists or encourages a person to embark in the commission of an offence under the Paralake Penal Code will be found guilty of an offence."

Gets rid of the loophole completely

 

[Chrissy]

Accepted for consideration by the council.

 

[Deleted member 4084]

@Samuel
After having this massive situation in which there were many loopholes uncovered I believe this should be changed, as it hasn't. I will also be suggesting an Accessory to Murder charge: If you were to supply a weapon directly for the reason of murder, be involved in the murder or be apart of the murder of an individual this gives liability for a lower, but harsh charge.

 

[blobvis 2.0]

@Samuel
After having this massive situation in which there were many loopholes uncovered I believe this should be changed, as it hasn't. I will also be suggesting an Accessory to Murder charge: If you were to supply a weapon directly for the reason of murder, be involved in the murder or be apart of the murder of an individual this gives liability for a lower, but harsh charge.

NO.
I have been an armsdealer for a really long time, I deal in many different firearms and they all directly will be involved for murder because well that's how perp works. An armsdealer is there to provide weaponry which isn't illegal therefore he has not the be charged for it. If this law you are talking about is going to be set up many officers will abuse it as it is not clear and very stupid.

 

[Deleted member 4084]

I

NO.
I have been an armsdealer for a really long time, I deal in many different firearms and they all directly will be involved for murder because well that's how perp works. An armsdealer is there to provide weaponry which isn't illegal therefore he has not the be charged for it. If this law you are talking about is going to be set up many officers will abuse it as it is not clear and very stupid.

I believe you maybe have understood me, or I haven’t made it clear. For the sheer reason of committing a crime would be that reason. Feel free to be an arms dealer, however, if, during a raid or such a person provides a weapon to another for the ONLY reason of committing a crime then they should face the legal system. This can be modified, however, the suggestion made itself in this thread should still stand.

I was put in a room, stripped off my items whilst a police officer and only one person could’ve been charged with murder, the other could not as they only had possession yet they aided the suspect in the crime, the law aiding and abetting states only “If they are detained or arrested...”

So this is a necessary change. If you are an arms dealer you are in the clear, however, if you supply the weapon during or right before a crime knowing the intention (if I gave my friend a pistol before a raid) then I am liable to consequences.

 

[Deleted member 4084]

Might I say many of you disagree but provide no reason as to why. Let me simply state this: this suggestion is not based on providing the weapon, it's based on assisting the person in any given state not just when they are detained. This whole thing causes a loop-hole, allowing criminals to partake in criminal actions but not be punished to the full extent of the law. Ignore the weapon dealing thing for now, it's not relevant right now.

Scenario:
I go to see Zac Henry down when he's a dispatcher, as I walk in, there is a male with a bat and a female stating "I have a bomb, get to the wall". As I got to the wall, the male zip-tied me and the female took my equipment given to me when I go on duty as an officer. At this point in time I do not have a service pistol. Continuing, the female is stood on the other side of the room 99% of the time. This backs up their argument of actually handling explosives, as they were to afraid to be near one with a deranged, deluded man with a bat whose intention is to murder an officer; from here, I am ordered to step on the bomb and so I did. The female was involved in aiding the suspect, who did explode the explosive and murdered the officer they intended to murder. I argued about charges and the specific law I could've got them under would be Aiding and Abetting or even Accessory to Murder (this is not a thing as I very shortly realised).

What could I get the female for? Posession of Explosives. Is that justice? No.
Is it realistic? No.

So what do I do, I go through each law and argue about why said female should be arrested and it was defended (I do allow the people to speak and defend themselves and give their take on why they believe that is not the correct punishment and if they do not understand why I am giving said punishement, I explain in further, greater detail).

This is a real scenario in which I was involved in.

The armsdeal was simply a suggestion. Ignore it if you must, maybe we're just not ready for it. But I was stating, before, and please do recognise the rest of the explanation before you recognise this; proving a person with a weapon for the sheer intent of committing a crime should be punished.
I can not be expected to be let off with no punishment for giving my friend a weapon with the intent of committing a crime, such as murder, knowingly. This could only be enforced if the officer seen a weapon given to another person right before a criminal act was committed. Sure, if it was a sale from the Bazaar or something then quite clearly, you have nothing to do with it. But giving a weapon to a weapon of your own to then go on to commit crimes is unjust and should be punished accordingly.

 

[TinySlayer]

https://paralake.city/legislation/130