Imperial Law

[Morte]

IMTU stuff on imperial crimes: my conception is that not all of these are crimes that the imperium normally tries or prosecutes, rather they are activities that the imperium insists be illegal on all member worlds.

As somebody pointed out in the 1248 forum recently, murder may be an imperial high crime but it's not likely that the imperium handles all murder trials. There are too many. It insists that murder be illegal on member worlds, though, and it perhaps can get involved if it chooses to.

Semi-relevant example: the US federal government doesn't handle murder trials, they're the business of the states, but it did get involved in the Rodney King affair after public opinion found the state's handling of the matter unsatisfactory. As I recall the US goverment used civil rights laws (rather than murder laws), but the imperial legal framewrok might allow more direct overrides.

The imperium will tend to get more directly involved when it's something out of the ordinary (WMD vs cities) or of a fundamentally interstellar nature (trade, smuggling).

 

[jatay3]

(and it keeps the peons mostly happy to have illusions of Freedom).

Why is the peons freedom an illusion? It is true they don't have complete freedom. But no one has that.
Are they not free because they cannot control the Imperium as a whole? But all governments are to a degree distant and "authoritarian"; they are after all governing. There is no conceivable possibility that the "peons" could control the Imperium for it is too big and the time lag too great.
Or does their lack of freedom consist in the fact that the worlds they live in are vassals? But that would make the group more important than it's members. This is a rather nasty thought. As an example of where it can lead, I have read of a Philipine revolutionary who was dissapointed that the Americans weren't more tyrannical because he was becoming short of recruits. His cause was more important to him than the people that cause was supposed to serve.
And in any case group identification is rather arbitrary. Any given person can identify with several groups at once. And it leads to odd contridictions. The Indian Nationalists rejected the English-who had been there for three-hundred years, but accepted the Indian Moslems who were just as much "imperialists". And the first thing they did when the English left was to absorb nearby states(some of whom prefered the English) in the name of Indian unity.
Are the Imperial peons not free because they belong to a fixed hierarchical system? But that system is at the very high top,far beyond what most people could aspire to in any system. It is not fixed around their day to day activities(unless local law and custom make it so). There is plenty of room in the Imperium for the ambitious and creative to express themselves. And I don't think being deprived of the right to become Emperor is a great oppression.
The Third Imperium has much to say for it. It allows local self-government while ensuring relativly safe travel. Thus a given person can shop around among hundreds of societies to find the one he prefers. There is even room to create new societies. In other words they have the right to live as they please so long as they don't interfere with others right to live as they please. This right is of course limited: it cannot be otherwise(and of course the fact that you can live as you please dosn't mean you should).
There is little in the Imperial ideology that is strictly speaking unjust. Or in it's general practice. Oppression by Megacorperations and local governments, are faults of negligence in the Imperium(that is if they are capable of being prevented without sacrificeing something even more important). The Psionic persecutions were a specific incident not a general practice, and all governments except possibly that of Leichtenstein have simmilar things in their past. The Imperial government claims many rights that it shouldn't have(arbitrary "neutralization" of individuals). But it seldom uses them-indeed is incapable of using them more than rarely. Those times they are used are almost always against people whom the "can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen" argument can be made-no one forced them to become revoulutionaries or intriguers. That is not an excuse but it is at least a mild "extenuation".
To call the Imperium imperfect, or improvable would be true. To call it a massive insult to human dignity would not.

 

[Pagan priest]

To further the American law example, the feds could not bring murder charges against a person in most circumstances. While there is a federal law against murder, it is the state that has jurisdiction in most cases. If I were to shoot someone on the street outside right now, it is the State of California that would try the case. If I went to the nearest U. S. Navel base and shot someone, then the feds would arrest and try me. On the other hand, if I rob a bank, that is a federal case, and the FBI will be looking for me.

I would suspect the Imperial government would be similar. A crime comited on a mamber planet is the jurisdiction of that planet.

 

[jasper]

Ok let list what is against Imperium Law
Taking of ships or people in space.
Attacking Imperial Ships
Attacking/Killing of Imperial forces while in Imperial space. Sorry Charlie Loan Shark you broke Jarhead Jerry's knees at starport. You should have waited to went to Mom's Pawn shop on main street.
Failure to assist endangered ships when you were able to.
What else?

 

[jatay3]

Imperial Law is probably dependant on Imperial tradition. Custom is as important as the law. Indeed in England it is the law("unwritten constitution").
As an example of the importance of custom I will point out that had the Nazis at Nuremberg been tried under German law they would have hanged still. Probably even under the laws of the Third Reich. For murder(obviously), for treason(they were an obscure terrorist group long before they were tyrants). Not to mention constitutional irregularities(the title "Fuher" was not recognised by the Weimer constitution). If all else fails they could very arguably have qualified as "Enemies of the Fatherland"(the Fatherland didn't have much to thank them for). The law was ignored because it was fashionable to do so for those who had power in their regieme.
In the Imperium there would be a complex web of often contridictory customs and precedants about what is done, and what is not done.
Campaign: the Emperor gets it into his mind to assemble a general law code. The PC's are charged with doing research in various and sundry parts of the Imperium. This would work with an Attorney character. It might also fit into a Scout Campaign.

 

[jatay3]

Imperial Law is probably dependant on Imperial tradition. Custom is as important as the law. Indeed in England it is the law("unwritten constitution").
As an example of the importance of custom I will point out that had the Nazis at Nuremberg been tried under German law they would have hanged still. Probably even under the laws of the Third Reich. For murder(obviously), for treason(they were an obscure terrorist group long before they were tyrants). Not to mention constitutional irregularities(the title "Fuher" was not recognised by the Weimer constitution). If all else fails they could very arguably have qualified as "Enemies of the Fatherland"(the Fatherland didn't have much to thank them for). The law was ignored because it was fashionable to do so for those who had power in their regieme.
In the Imperium there would be a complex web of often contridictory customs and precedants about what is done, and what is not done.
Campaign: the Emperor gets it into his mind to assemble a general law code. The PC's are charged with doing research in various and sundry parts of the Imperium. This would work with an Attorney character. It might also fit into a Scout Campaign.

 

[Elliot]

Is Imperial law at its highest

1. custom (like the ancient pre Norman English
courts or African 'legal systems' pre European interference)

2. common law (Cases decided on an incremental basis on analogy with cases decided before - England after the Norman conquest and before tyrannical post war parliament's (Thatcher and Blair especially) wanting to control, regulate and interfere with everything, ditto for US states originally settled by the English)

3. civilian - (Cases decided by interpretation of a code or institutes - Ancient Rome, France, Imperial China, Germany, American states (state) settled by the French).

or a mixture or none of the above?

 

[jatay3]

Is Imperial law at its highest

1. custom (like the ancient pre Norman English
courts or African 'legal systems' pre European interference)

2. common law (Cases decided on an incremental basis on analogy with cases decided before - England after the Norman conquest and before tyrannical post war parliament's (Thatcher and Blair especially) wanting to control, regulate and interfere with everything, ditto for US states originally settled by the English)

3. civilian - (Cases decided by interpretation of a code or institutes - Ancient Rome, France, Imperial China, Germany, American states (state) settled by the French).

or a mixture or none of the above?


I would say all of the above.

 

[jatay3]

The Victorian Imperial law was something of a hodgepodge. Each province was governed to a large degree by the local custom. There was a controversy between those who wanted to standardize and those who wanted to continue, or increase reliance on local law. For this reason their were more natives who were lawyers than beareaucrats. The English had plenty of good administraters, but the need for local help in understanding local systems so necessity superceeded prejedice.
The Third Imperium would have a number of these things in it, including notably the argument between the "localizationists" and "standardizationists".
The main difference of course is that the Victorian Empire was governed by a ethnic caste system. It was social system not a legal one. Legaly every one was equal before the law. However some were more equal than others(by the way this system annoyed many English as well including the Queen and-sometimes-Kipling).
The Imperium doesn't really have an ethnic caste system. It does however have a birth caste system and an old-boys network. In many other characteristics it shares traits of the British Empire. However the Victorians had more control over matters than the Imperium. Victoria's vassals very rarely warred with one another to the degree that the vassels of the Imperium do; this would bring an almost sure visit from Her Majesties Navy. Most of the Kiplingesque troublespots involved tribes that were at the time outside the borders. By contrast internal war is a constant. So the Imperium could also be compared to the Holy Roman Empire-a collection of eternally bickering states with a central government acting as police. Only the Holy Roman Emperor was extremly weak-the princlings tried to make sure that the Emperor was either a dunce, or had few resources. They would do that in the Imperium as well. However the central government would usually be stronger by comparison to that of the Holy Roman Empire. But not to strong . It would have to pick and choose it's interventions.
By the way one deep, dark, secret that everyone would know would be the fact that probability of success would be a major factor in choosing an Imperial intervension. The Imperium depends on it's prestiege. For the same reason it will never, never admit the fact officially for that will imply lack of confidance.

 

[jatay3]

Most of the Kiplingesque troublespots involved tribes that were at the time outside the borders. By contrast internal war is a constant.

Clarifying typo: Internal war is a constant in the Imperium that is.
On the other hand most Imperium internal bickering is closer to the borders.

 

[flykiller]

Is Imperial law at its highest

1. custom (like the ancient pre Norman English
courts or African 'legal systems' pre European interference)

2. common law (Cases decided on an incremental basis on analogy with cases decided before - England after the Norman conquest and before tyrannical post war parliament's (Thatcher and Blair especially) wanting to control, regulate and interfere with everything, ditto for US states originally settled by the English)

3. civilian - (Cases decided by interpretation of a code or institutes - Ancient Rome, France, Imperial China, Germany, American states (state) settled by the French).

or a mixture or none of the above?

none. there would be no imperial law, there would be only local, planetary, and maybe subsector law enforced by one dominant world across a few captive planets. the closest thing to imperial law would be tax collections, the military law of the imperial navy and its relationship by treaty to local law, and the orders of the most senior admiral/noble on the scene. and except for the occasional altruist, the only time _they_ would get step in is if something was going on that threatened _their_ careers or business interests.

looking at each case separately:

custom only works for stable/static/stagnant tribes. it doesn't work in dynamic mobile societies.

common law isn't going to work across interstellar distances, involving thousands of worlds with their own thousand-year history of law.

statutory law won't work because one-size-fits-all laws usually fail on all counts.

seems to me that the imperium is more of an attitude than an entity.

 

[jatay3]

Custom would be provided by the sylean/vilani/solomani nobles, gentry and simple spacers that form a sort of intersteller culture, even though that culture has only tid bits of examples on a given planet. This Imperial culture would probably vary in time and space, but the variance would be slow and seamless so that a noble from one side of the Imperium might find it easier to talk with one from another than either would with their respective planetary counterparts(sometimes out
of snobbery, but often out of mere common background).
Of course many nobles would identify more with their planets but enough would identify with the stars to form a "glue".