Paralake Legal Academy

[yeshua]

This guide is quite different from others. It will not teach you how to "play" the game mechanically, but it will allow you to better understand how to argue your way through the IC legalities of PERP. It might be especially useful to PLPD players, but understanding the law is beneficial not only to those who enforce it, but also those who are subject to it.

Preface​

You can likely skip this section if you don't have a legal background.
This guide uses real-world legal techniques and logic. The author has a formal background in civil law systems. There might be a couple (dozen, hundred...) lawyers here hailing from Anglo-Saxon common law systems who will likely find some of the methods employed here objectionable. It is easy to argue PERP, an English speaking server set in a vaguely Anglo city should use common law in its legal aspects. I disagree, mainly for the reason that no courts exist in PERP, and case law therefore cannot be employed - while tools provided to us by civil law interpretations are sufficient to paint a comprehensive picture of a legal semi-system within the world of PERP. My conclusions are, in the end, in no way binding and you might simply disagree with them or come up with different interpretations. That's what law is, in the end.

The Paralake legal system at large​

Intro​

The IC legal system of PERP is composed entirely of a single document (the Paralake Penal Code or, moving forwards, the PPC) which has binding power over all citizens (players). There are no courts; the law is applied directly via officers of the PLPD. There are no other legal acts, although I will propose a interpretation contrary to that which in my opinion will discipline the legal system to the realities of a gaming server.

The PPC does not offer us its axiology, or in other words does not propose a system of values governing it. This makes systemic interpretation difficult. In the lack of professing universal (legally universal, ie. guiding the application of the law in all cases) values such as "freedom", "rule of law" etc. one cannot simply assume they exist (regardless of their legal status in real life Western democracies). There is room for one to attempt to derive a legal axiology from the laws themselves, but I find it objectionable to first derive values via interpretation, then apply values via interpretation.

The structure of the PPC in detail​

The PPC is composed of twelve sections, each containing articles, some articles containing paragraphs (not denoted but observable). While in server usage it is common to see laws being cited short form (ie. 5.5 PPC) I find it more illustrative to cite them long form (ie. Sec. 5 art. 5 PPC), my reasoning being that it helps better illustrate the connections within each section and the differences from other sections.

Section 1 ("Terminology") contains what one would refer to as a "legal dictionary". The definitions of the words and phrases within are not necessarily their common parlance definitions, but for the purpose of interpreting law, their Sec. 1 definitions (or "legal definitions) must be used. A contrario, (bear with me with the Latin, we'll get to it) any word which does not have its legal definition placed in Section 1 must be interpreted via common parlance (consequence of leges ab omnibus intelligenti debent).

All articles denoting a criminal offense (a "type") are structured (or can generally be reduced to being structured) as thus:

[Description of act] - [denotation of status as offense]
[Type of offense] - [Range of punishment]

Certain articles find themselves at odds with this structure and I believe them to be flawed (Sec. 7 art. 6 denotes a countertype to Sec. 7 art. 3-5 and not a type, for instance). In keeping with the status of this as a guide, I will refrain from further comment.

Concept - PPC as subject to server rules​

Even though IC the PPC is the only legal act in force, I propose that the PPC should always be interpreted in the spirit of the server rules, and never contrary to them. As an IC act, unless the server rules directly defer their norms to it, the server rules are de facto an act with higher power than the PPC. It would not be permissible to interpret the PPC such that a server rule is broken. This should always be kept in mind while considering your strategy.

Overarching rules of interpretation​

These rules find themselves here not because of their axiological basis (see the intro), but because I believe them to be universal good practices in legal interpretation, which find their base in logic, and not values. Keeping them in mind will allow you to make the law make sense.

Leges ab omnibus intelligenti debent ("Law should be comprehensible to everyone")
Self-explanatory. Interpretations should not stray outside of what an average person reading the law comprehensively would think (and interpret). This is why, outside of legal definitions (which are explicitly not common parlance), common understandings of words should be used. In doubt, use an English dictionary.
In addition, the nature of law as such (ie. a written code) means we must use literal interpretation (ie. interpretation stemming from the text of the law itself) as jumping off point to any other interpretation. The average citizen knows the law to the extent to which it is written, not to the extent that purely systemic or functional interpretation leads it to conclude.

Lege non distinguente nec nostrum est distinguere ("It is not ours to [distinguish where] the law does not distinguish")
If a word, phrase or concept is employed in one way in any given point of the law, one should not interpret in such a way to introduce distinctions where the wording of the law does not clearly state them. A contratio, to ignore overt distinctions where the law states they exist is also not permissible. To do otherwise is to step into the shoes of the lawmaker, instead of ones who applies law.

Exclusion of per non est interpretation
If a path of interpretation leads us to conclude that any part of the written law is superfluous (ie. it could not exist and the interpretation would still be the same), it must be discarded. We assume that each statement in the law has a reason to exist. This is also a consequence of using literal interpretation as the base for any interpretation.

Exclusivity of numerus clausus.
This is a special case of a contrario lege non distinguente. If the law provides us with a catalogue or list of items, this list may not expanded in any case. Listing of items is assumed as express intent of the lawmaker to limit this list to only the items listed. This can only be broken by the lawmaker using phrases like "such as", "among others", etc. when introducing the list.

Exclusion of the use of analogy to expand criminal responsibility
Interpretation which uses analogy (per analogiam and derivative reasoning) to expand the circumstances in which one can be held legally responsible is forbidden. This is a very important result of leges ab omnibus intelligent debent. Permitting one to apply the law in such a way that one can be held responsible for actions which are not expressly forbidden would result in anarchic application. Nullum crimen sine lege - no crime may exist without a legal norm to create it.

Legal reasoning​

The following is an example list of "legal reasonings", or logical rules to be applied when interpreting law. Their correct use enables one to get more out of the law than is expressly written in legal documents.

Reasoning per analogiam​

The analogy is perhaps the simplest reasoning one can use. Given that X scenario is regulated and Y scenario is sufficiently alike to X scenario, Y scenario should be regulated as X is. This is most commonly used to fix "holes" (a contentious topic in jurisprudence on its own) in legislation, ie. situations that the lawmaker did not predict but which would have been regulated had they been predicted. Keep in mind that it is not permissible to use this to argue that a person should be held criminally responsible due to the similarity of their actions to actions described in the PPC (see above).

Reasoning a contrario​

A contrario can be understood to mean the opposite of an analogy. Given that X is forbidden, Y must be permitted; given that X is allowed to be performed on objects ABC, objects which are not ABC can not have X performed on them. The nature of this reasoning - deriving from what is not in the text - can be quite shaky. It should be used with care.

Reasoning a fortiori​

A fortiori is derived from analogy and is based on the relationship between two properties or objects and takes the form of two different reasonings:

• a maiori ad minus
• a minori ad maius

To reason a maiori ad minus is to reason that since X is permitted, then Y, something that is "lesser" than X, must also be permitted. For instance, one could argue that since it is legal to kill in self defense, it must also be legal to wound in self defense.

To reason a minori ad maius is to reason that since X is forbidden, then Y, something that is "greater" than X, must also be forbidden. For instance, one could argue that since it is illegal to consume alcohol near schools, it is also illegal to consume alcohol inside schools.

The nature of this "greater" or "lesser" characteristic is highly dependent on the context of applying this reasoning. Notice that this is a form of analogy, and therefore cannot meaningfully expand criminal responsibility, generally speaking. Correct use of reasoning a minori ad maius is generally thought not to expand criminal responsibility, as the Y in any case should be contained within X (ie. the action is inside a subset of actions already forbidden).

 

[yeshua]

Paralake criminal law​

Intro​

The overwhelming majority of the PPC focuses around criminal responsibility. Of the twelve sections, 8 expressly deal with listing crimes (types) and punishments.

What is a crime?​

Discussing criminal law will make a lot more sense if we make some quick distinctions, which take us a bit further away from the common understandings of some words:

A type is a description of an act in legislation (in the PPC). For example, sec. 5 art. 4 PPC describes the type referred to as "fraud".

A criminal act is an action by a person which fits the description provided in a type. A criminal act in itself is not yet a crime, but every crime entails that a criminal act is committed.

A crime is a criminal act committed in circumstances which permit criminal responsibility of the perpetrator. In the case of PPC, it is possible for an individual to commit a criminal act, but not a crime. For instance, a person that kills another with intent, but in self defense, commits a criminal act which fits the type described in sec. 9 art. 5 PPC, but does not commit a crime due to the countertype in sec. 2 art. 1 PPC.

A crime has two "sides" to it - the objective and subjective.

The objective element is the criminal act, or more widely anything that pertains to the physical actions performed by the perpatrator. A criminal act can be both action or inaction. Inaction can only be punished if action was expressly required and was not taken.
The subjective element is the intent, or more colloquially what was "going through" the perpatrator's head as they were committing a crime. Crimes can be straightforwardly intentional, require a special form of intent (dolus coloratus), or unintentional (in which case negligence, the failure to take proper precautions to prevent a criminal outcome, takes the place of intent)

With all the above in mind, we can dive into some details.

Countertypes​

A countertype is a form of exonerating circumstance. The existence of these circumstances in tandem with a criminal act deprives that act of criminality (ie. re-legalizes it and stops it from having the status of a crime). The PPC lists the following countertypes:

Self-defense and the defense of others (sec. 2 art. 1 PPC)​

Any use of force used to oppose force (a threat) can be legalized, as long as:

• the force is justifiable and proportional
• the perpatrator believes that their use of force prevents
  • injury
  • death
  • loss of property or possessions
• the above belief is reasonable

As one can see, much like a crime, this has both an objective and subjective element. Interestingly, the subjective element is "objectivized" via the requirement of reasonable belief - the person must not only believe that the threat is real, but a hypothetical average person (reasonable person) should come to the same conclusion. Irrational use of force is not covered by this countertype.
One should also note that force should be used to repel force, or in other words an action. Inaction is not a form of force or threat, and it is never proportional to use force to dispel inaction. Tresspassing via refusing to leave a property when instructed, therefore, is not grounds for legalizing personal (private) use of force.

Necessity (sec. 2 art. 2 PPC)​

Any action can be dispelled of criminality, as long as:

• their actions are justifiable and proportional
• the perpatrator believes that their use of force is necessary to prevent
  • injury
  • death
  • loss of property or possessions
• the above belief is reasonable

This is very much analogous to art. 1, the key distinctions being that any action is covered by this article, and (even more importantly) the perpatrator must believe not only that their actions will prevent injury (death, loss of property or possessions), but are necessary in doing so. This is much narrower than art. 1, which posits only that the force should prevent the aforementioned outcomes. The requirements of necessity means that no alternative, legal solution that prevents these outcomes should exist. Only then will this article be effective.

Use of force by LEOs (sec. 3 art. 3 PPC)​

Any use of force may be used by LEOs, as long as it is reasonable and justifiable. As we can see, this excludes the analogous article's (sec. 2 art. 1 PPC) requirement of reasonable belief of prevention of (any) outcomes and proportionality. All that is required is that the use of force be justifiable (ie. have a basis in what the force is opposing) and reasonable, which can be interpreted as "an amount and form of force that would be employed by a reasonable person in a given situation". Of course, PLPD has internal policies on the use of force, but breaching these is a violation of policy, not the law.

General legality of actions by emergency service workers (sec. 4 art. 3 PPC)​

Any action performed by a govermental emergency service worker (PLPD, PLFD, PLEMS) is legal, as long as:

• their actions are proportional, reasonable and justifiable
• their actions are necessary for the effective execution of their duties

This follows the trend set by sec. 2 art. 1-2 of creating a countertype that is wider in scope, although stricter in requirements. It covers any action, but reintroduces the requirement of proportionality (in tandem with reasonability). More importantly, the action has to be necessary for the effective execution of their duties. This wording implies that the action either has to be a duty in itself (ie. direct execution of duties) or an action not expressly considered a duty, but that directly leads to duties being possible to execute, or otherwise makes such execution effective.

Countertypes related to the sale and transport of offensive weapons (sec. 7 art. 6-7 PPC)​

A person does not commit a crime relating to offensive weapons if they are:

• transporting weapons between places of secure storage, given that said transport is:
  • direct - ie. not interrupted by transport to any other place or in any other direction than to the destination secure storage
  • immediate - ie. may not take a prolonged amount of time, even if it direct
• selling weapons, given that:
  • the sale takes place in a property defined as a shop by the banks of Paralake
  • the sale is intended for the general public
  • the weapon is not being held by any person
  • the sale of the weapon is not intended to assist in the committing of any criminal act (!)

These countertypes are quite expansive and are mostly meant to account for the practicalities of handling weapons. The transport requirements are quite clear, in my view.

When it comes to selling weapons, special attention should be paid to the last point. Intent itself is grounds for punishment here. Since we are excluding criminal responsibility from those who do not have this specific intent (dolus colartus), those who do possess it are not covered and therefore are, in a way re-delegalized (root behaviour illegal -> specific behaviour legalized by countertype -> specific subset of said behaviour illegal again). Expressing this intent openly (ie. gun store with sign that encourages buyers to use the weapons for murder or robbery) is grounds for revoking this countertype and prosecuting the seller.

Lawful detainment (sec. 9 art. 4 PPC in fine)​

A person committing the criminal act of detainment does not commit a crime, as long as the purpose of said detainment is to facilitate prosecution or said person has commit a criminal act.
This deserves some special attention on the backdrop of interpretation. Looking at the law, one should see that both sec. 9 art. 4 PPC and sec. 7 art. 7 PPC use the term "criminal offense" and not "criminal act" or "crime". This countertype lead me to believe that the meaning of this phrase is what I termed "criminal act", as this detainment happens before police intervention and before said criminal offense can be judged to have been (or not have been) a crime. Interpretating it otherwise would create a "legal limbo" between the commitment of the act from sec. 9 art. 4 PPC and its impetus (ie. the actions of the person being detained) being conclusively judged as a crime. This is obviously undesirable.

Countertypes stemming from permission (sec. 11 art. 2, art. 4-5 PPC)​

These countertypes exclude the illegality of some criminal acts against property and possessions when the owner of said property or possession gives consent (permission) for these criminal acts to take place. Note their exclusive presence in section 11. This draws a sharp line between legal goods that their owner can dispense with (physical property widely defined), and which the owner can not dispense with (comp. sec. 9 art. 8 PPC). Consent should be present at the time of the act and cannot be retroactively withdrawn, but can be (in my view) retroactively given, therefore "sanitizing" a criminal act.

Attempted crime (sec. 6 art. 7 PPC)​

In general, iter delicti or the "road" a crime takes from inception to commitment takes the following shape:

1. Preparatory and planning actions
2. Attempt at commitment
3. Commitment of a crime

What interests us in this section is of course the first two elements.

Preparation is generally defined to mean all actions intended to enable the smooth commitment of a criminal act. Any act that makes it possible to commit a criminal act, or otherwise makes it easier to commit a criminal act, is within the boundaries of preparation. Generally speaking, all actions oriented towards the goal of committing a criminal act short of directly attempting to commit such act are part of preparation and planning.

Attempting crime can take different shapes depending on the characteristics of a crime.

Generally speaking, only intentional crimes can be attempted and planned - the lack of intent precludes unintentional crimes (such as manslaughter) from being attempted. Iter delicti of such crimes begins and ends at commitment.

If a criminal act is defined by its result, such as sec. 6 art. 2 PPC to the extent of "destroying" evidence or sec. 9 art. 5, the attainment of said result is necessary to consider a crime "committed" and before the result is finalized, the crime is still in its "attempt" phase.

If a criminal act takes the form of inaction, it is generally considered not to have been committed if the required action is still possible to perform. For instance, in sec. 6 art. 5, the cut off point for "attempt" to turn into "commitment" is when the person no longer requires medical aid, be it because they have died or because the person was saved due to the actions of another person after the perpetrator failed to contact EMS.

Conclusion​

I believe the above is sufficient to have a basic comprehension of how to apply (and how to protect oneself from improper application of) Paralake law. At a later date I may write up a full commentary of the PPC, with each type annotated and examined in detail. For now, this quick look should suffice. I might add onto this as I notice more things in need of attention.

 

[Weazel]

word...

 

[Jimmy Bovine]

This is what happens when a genius accidentally gets addicted to perp

 

[rxsm]

im too lazy to read the actual post but im confused on how you know this much in that timeframe

 

[Efan]

View attachment 16879
im too lazy to read the actual post but im confused on how you know this much in that timeframe

My guy took the pill and then started playing PERP

 

[netroak]

My guy took the pill and then started playing PERP

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

 

[Casey Heller]

Sticky this in Guides or PLPD.

 

[steelo]

you should never take both pills

 

[GP]

At a later date I may write up a full commentary of the PPC, with each type annotated and examined in detail

Please do someday! This is great.

I recently made a quick guide to gun laws, although it's not meant to be the same depth (plus, I barely have any legal background).
Again, this is excellent

 

[KeiwaM]

sure but i'm still gonna give you 10y 10k if i feel like you're being annoying

 

[Murtsley]

This guide uses real-world legal techniques and logic. The author has a formal background in civil law systems. There might be a couple (dozen, hundred...) lawyers here hailing from Anglo-Saxon common law systems who will likely find some of the methods employed here objectionable. It is easy to argue PERP, an English speaking server set in a vaguely Anglo city should use common law in its legal aspects. I disagree, mainly for the reason that no courts exist in PERP, and case law therefore cannot be employed - while tools provided to us by civil law interpretations are sufficient to paint a comprehensive picture of a legal semi-system within the world of PERP. My conclusions are, in the end, in no way binding and you might simply disagree with them or come up with different interpretations. That's what law is, in the end.

I appreciate your viewpoint here but I've got to disagree, a common law setting for those hailing from a common law country is unlikely to have any impact on their ability to interpret, apply, or otherwise advance within the system of the game. A civil law system is very much easier in its maintenance and its application. I for one could not imagine playing a game where law reports would be issued and would need to be read in order to maintain a functioning knowledge of the law - simple point of pragmatism should be considered.

In light of the present nature of our system (whereby an officer who suspects you of a crime is capable of determining guilt without the need of a tribunal) a lengthy system of precedents and complicated doctrines would only serve to confuse and delay efforts in gaining access or otherwise applying the law.

While I agree that within most (if not all) functioning legal systems these approaches are, broadly, very useful, they are unlikely to yield any fruit in practice within PERP simply because the best approach to dealing with officers is not that of adversarialism but that of tact and appeasement - looping back to my original point, an officer is capable of acting as judge, jury and executioner and to use the words of a rather controversial philosopher of late; No one man should have all that power. Trying to explain mens rea to a child of 14 years, and why your act of running over a police officer that was stood in the middle of the road lacked the necessitated intent to be murder is more than likely going to be met with a swift "Go fuck yourself" followed by a 10 minute YouTube video and a tough hit to the bank account than a jurisprudential discussion. Players are far better to take the bittersweet pill of dropping their ego and deal with 2 minutes of appeasement than 10 minutes in a small box.

On a more personal note: I really appreciate this kind of writing, it's a rare treat for someone to impart knowledge to another in this game in such detailed manner. I would make the point that it may be worth dropping the Latin terminology, it does very little in providing an explanation as the layperson does not understand it - it helps those who practice law, as it provides much needed of widely used and defined terminology (obiter dictum, ratio decidendi, among others being the most common) but only confuses and makes for disinteresting reading for the exact reader you are trying to target.

 

[Marine Putin]

This guy must be Saul Goodman.