Developing a Legal System for Neufreistadt

Law Society members may be interested to know that the development of a legal system for Neufreistadt has been given a major shot in the arm by one of our newer citizens, Ashcroft Burnham.

In a series of posts on the Neufreistadt forums, Ashcroft has set out comprehensive proposals for:

A court system with a professional judiciary
Jurisdiction, powers and enforcement
Jury service
Rules of evidence
Rules of procedure

With more to come! A process I hadn't anticipated beginning for several months has been accelerated by Ashcroft's considered contributions.

Thank you, Patroklus, for the very kind words about my posts; I am very much enjoying proposing ideas for the development of the legal system, and I should appreciate any feedback

I note you do not mention a system for enforcement, or a form of commercial code or other substantive rules. Just procedural. From what sources will the law to be enforced be drawn, and how will it be agreed upon?

~ Frank ~

Ah, Patroklus, you beat me to posting this here

Frank, the framework Ashcroft is proposing draws its power from the sovereignity of Neufreistadt as a self-governed community, which has indeed powers of enforcement that can be applied — namely, removal of land and money (as we all know, "banning" is a very weak method of enforcement, since anybody can come back as an alt).

While naturally these two methods of enforcement are also weak — when compared to the "powers" that, say, Linden Lab has, not to mention the powers granted to governments iRL (namely, suspension of your unalienable rights against your will) — they're the only ones that are indeed enforceable inside the framework of SL.

The agreement to those laws is the prerequisite of "citizenship" in Neufreistadt. Thus, a citizen voluntarily relinquishes his or her "absolute freedom" in SL (namely regarding total control over their land parcel, and in some cases, to money invested or placed in escrow) towards the government of Neufreistadt. If the resident decides, at a later stage, to be removed from citizen status, because they disagree with the system, they'll know that their land & investments will be forfeited as well. Of course, this is an extreme case. In the mean time, the citizen has several options — voting for a different government that will change the system more to their liking; getting elected for a government where they are in charge — until they take the "final step".

The more the citizen is involved in the city, however, the more they are willing to do "working within the legal framework", since they're stakes are higher. In RL, this is not unlike the situation of someone who suddenly finds out that emmigration is the only remaining option, after having exhausted all others.

Thus, the legal system, as proposed by Ashcroft, fulfills two requirements. It derives power from an elected, democratic government — thus it is a just system, which can be validated and changed by the citizens that live under that system. It also can be enforced effectively — although to a much lesser degree than in RL.

I would perhaps consider an analogy of "weak enforcement" something like the Kyoto Protocols and the many Carbon Credit exchanges it implemented. The system is opt-in, and you know the rules before you join. Joining allows your country (and the companies working in your country) to participate in the Carbon Credit exchanges (which can be very lucrative!), but you have to abide by the rules. If you don't agree with them, you can try to press/lobby for a change; but if you don't get your views accepted, you have basically two choices:

1) Pay all the due fines, and expect things in the future to go better, because after a while the stakes in the exchange are so high that "pulling off" is not worthy;
2) Abandon the Kyoto Protocol, and thus be unable to participate on its CC exchange.

So, while the analogy is naturally not perfect, it's a similar example to what Neufreistadt has to offer. Citizenship is an opt-in system, where you delegate two absolute freedoms to the City (the way to do whatever you please with your own land, and, to an extent, with [part of] your money). While you are inside the system — ie. while you are a citizen — you have duties and rights, and enjoy the legal protection of the system. You also have the power to change the system — by voting and getting elected. But you can opt-out — leaving behind all that you have invested there. One could argue that a new citizen would have low stakes, and thus would leave much faster than someone who had been around for a couple years and for whom the stakes of leaving are much higher. That is certainly true for the Kyoto Protocol as well!

Note that this oversimplification should not be interpreted that you release the right to own land and/or money!! Land is indeed owned, and your private ownership of it is protected (more so than in the rest of the SL, since a notarised document of your ownership is kept on archive). Money held in escrow, or somehow paid to the city as part of an investment (ie. land sales) is fully accounted for. You can buy and sell land inside the jurisdiction of city, for a profit, like you would do in any other place in SL. You can mortgage the land, give it away, use it for any project you fancy (within the covenants for zoning). It has the same value as "normal", non-covenanted land in the mainland — but it has also attached to it a certain additional protection, by having a legal system as a means to appeal in case something goes wrong...

Ahh, that, perhaps, is the disadvantage of reading the list rather than my whole post In that post, I go into detail about the powers of enforcement (which are reducable to banishment and forfeiture, as Gwynneth pointed out), and also explain that the source of substantive law is a combination of legislative acts passed by the Neufreistadt Representative Assembly, and, where those acts do not fully determine the outcome of the dispute between the parties, what will be the court's inherent power to resolve disputes between parties, and, by so doing, create binding judicial precedents: in other words, like a common law system of old (in medieval England, the King's courts had just such a power, which developed into the statute-modified body of common law that is still the basis of the law in England to-day: there has never been, for example, any legislative act in England prohibiting murder). The legislature (in Neufriestadt's case, the Representative Assembly) always has the power to overthrow judicial precedent on any given point of law by statute, thus preserving the sovereignty of the elected body over the unelected judges in deciding matters of policy, but still leaving the judiciary to deal with matters not foreseen by the legislature, or where the legislature, on behalf of the populace as a whole, is satisfied with the emergent common law on the point.

See my original thread (registration is not required for viewing) for a full justification of my proposal that the law in Neufriestadt be based on a common-law model.

Gwyneth's explanation answered my question. I've written before about the value of a land-escrow based system on which government and contract enforcement can be based. My interest is less in the method in which "laws" are adopted, than in the method in which they are enforced.

Forgive me if I do not read the whole text of material in which my simple question may be answered. Like a lazy reporter, I like to ask my question directly instead of doing homework.

The enforcement of the sovereign's will through dominion over lands and chattels is very old, very effective, and very solid. In SL, it does require a tradeoff of some control in return for some order. I've yet to hear another method that will be effective in SL.

Thank you, Gwyeth, for indulging my laziness.

~ Frank ~

What is intriguing about self-governing virutal communities such as Neufreistadt is that they operate a social contract in a very literal sense.