Category:Justice in the United Citizen Federation

The legal system of the Federation is simple, clean and efficient, uncluttered by needless bureaucracy and laws that lend themselves to interminable parsing. It is the pinnacle of civilisation’s long search for a viable and comprehensive set of governing rules, a system designed to ensure the swift punishment of the guilty and the enduring protection of the innocent. It is a common misconception among some civilians that the UCF has two sets of laws – one for citizens, the other for civilians. This is simply not the case. All members of the Federation’s population not currently enlisted in Federal Service are bound by the same set of laws. However, in a dispute between a citizen and a civilian, the burden of proof often falls on the civilian – after all, the citizen has proven himself with a term of Federal Service.

Military Justice

In any discussion of UCF law, even one as broad and general as this, it is useful to begin with military justice. The framers of the Federal Constitution, the founders of the Federation, were all veterans, men and women who had served in the armed forced during the Disorders and who understood military justice best. As the Federal Constitution laid out the legal system of the Federation (though clearly it has been altered and augmented over the years), the laws written into it from the very beginning were derived from military justice.

However, it is important to remember that the founders placed a strong distinction between military service and civil life. Although civil law, which applies to both civilians and citizens who have left Federal Service, is rooted in military law, it is not the same thing. In most respects, it is a good deal softer. For example, a soldier who strikes a superior officer will be called before a court martial, either a field court martial (if he is lucky) or a general court martial. While a field court martial could only sentence the soldier to ten lashes of administrative punishment and a Bad Conduct Discharge, the general court could, and likely would, sentence him to death by hanging. However, if a citizen who has left Federal Service happens to strike a man who was once his superior officer, the most he could be charged with under civil law would be assault, carrying a punishment of five lashes in front of the Federal Building and a fine to be determined by the tribunal of judges.

As mentioned in the example above, military justice is almost always carried out in a court martial. Whether that is a field court martial or a general court martial depends on a number of factors, not the least of which is the generosity of the presiding officer who calls for one. While military justice does not permit legal counsel in the form of a lawyer at a field court martial, neither can a field court martial sentence a soldier to die. Obviously, it is possible for a soldier to commit a crime so egregious that his commanding officer is expected to kill him on the spot – no arrest, no filing of charges, no court martial. Putting a stop to traitorous conduct in the face of an enemy is one example of a situation in which the commanding officer is expected to perform this unfortunate duty.

Civil Justice

Civil Justice is the legal system enshrined in the Federal Constitution that governs crime and punishment for civilians and for citizens who are no longer in Federal Service. Drawn heavily from military justice by the founders of the Federation, it is nonetheless distinctive from military justice, as it is designed to serve a civilian populace. In very broad strokes, the civil justice system of the Federation works as follows. Anyone suspected of committing a crime is arrested by the police, who take him to the local Federal Building and offi cially charge him with commission of the crime in question. The accused is informed of his right to legal counsel, which he may either provide himself or request of the Federation. After a brief time of incarceration at the Federal Building, usually no more than a day or two, the accused and his counsel are brought before a single judge, who will arraign the accused and set a trial date. This date is usually within a single Earth-standard week, though the defending counsel may request a postponement. Such postponements are usually granted but, in any case, the trial must by law be held within 30 days of the arrest of the accused. Trials are conducted before a tribunal of three judges and are closed to the public. There are no juries under Federation law. After both lawyers, the prosecutor and the defender, have presented their cases, the tribunal retires to deliberate, a process that must be completed within 24 hours. Once the tribunal has reached a verdict, it is read to the accused, who is then either free to go (if he is found not guilty) or hears his punishment (if he is convicted of the crime). Punishment is carried out immediately.

Appeals

Though the Federal Constitution does provide for appeals of guilty verdicts, such appeals are extremely rare. The Federal Justice Division is the most advanced criminal investigation organisation ever conceived in human history, and brings such things as DNA and genome sampling, psychic testimony and indisputable forensic evidence to the trial. When the judicial tribunal renders its verdict, it will have carefully considered all the evidence placed before it. The tribunal is not hobbled by the requirement to set a guilty man free if there is the slightest hole in the case made by the prosecution but if there is such a hole, the judicial tribunal will note it and assign a punishment that can be overturned on a successful appeal. There have been arguments made, usually by the family of the criminal, that the tribunal overlooked some flaw in the evidence and wrongly sentenced an innocent man without leaving open the possibility of an appeal. In each such instance, the claims are thoroughly investigated. It is a credit to the skill and professionalism of the Federal Justice Division that all such investigations have found no fault on the part of the prosecutor or the judicial tribunal.

Civic Law

Separate from both Military Justice and Civil Justice is the area of civic law. This is the most frequently practised area of law in the Federation and, unlike the other two, does not concern itself with crimes and criminals. Rather, civic law is the portion of the Federation’s legal system dealing with everything that is not specifically a crime, from divorce to corporate challenges of UCF government policies to simple, run of the mill lawsuits. As with other portions of Federation law, civic law cases are argued in front of a tribunal of judges. There are some exceptions to this – for example, an uncontested motion for divorce can be resolved in front of a single judge, who must only approve the dissolution of the marriage. In any case where two or more parties are in disagreement, however, the case must be argued in front of the full tribunal. Engaging in a protracted civic law battle can be an extremely expensive proposition, which is absolutely intentional on the part of the Federation. The UCF has no desire to see its courts become bogged down by an endless procession of frivolous or unsubstantiated lawsuits and has taken measures to ensure that no more such cases pass through the doors of a Federal Building than can be avoided.

Unlike a civil justice (or most military justice) trials, neither side in a civic law case has the right to free legal counsel as provided by the Federation. Instead, each side must provide such counsel for themselves, with all concurrent expense. Further, the losing side in such a trial is always responsible for all costs incurred by the winning side in the prosecution of the case, a tremendous incentive not to file a lawsuit without a strong chance of winning. Lastly, if the tribunal can unanimously agree that the case was frivolous or unworthy of the court’s time, the tribunal may not only rule against the person or party bringing the case but may also assess fines up to the amount of the defendants’ legal costs to be paid directly to the Federation. These repercussions have almost entirely eliminated such cases from the Federation.

Actions Against the Federation

From time to time, the Federation will apprehend a criminal who is known to be a demonstrable danger to the Federation but will not have the evidence needed to convict him of a serious crime. For example, the police might arrest a man known to be the leader of a dust smuggling ring but be unable to charge him with any crime more serious than possession of less than one ounce of dust. In such cases, the Federal Justice Division prosecutor may elect to charge the man with ‘actions against the Federation’ rather than the comparatively minor crime of possession of such a small amount of dust. This umbrella charge has been an invaluable tool of the Federation in fighting the increasingly sophisticated crime rings that smuggle dust, guns or other dangerous contraband throughout Federation territory. A conviction for actions against the Federation may result in punishments up to and including death by hanging, and has provided the FJD with a means to help keep the Federation safe against even the most cunning of criminals.

Political Dissent

Though it might seem this way to an outsider, the Federation is not a single, monolithic entity, speaking with one voice. Rather, the Federation is made up of a cacophony of billions of voices, not all of which are always in agreement. Every citizen and civilian under Federation rule has the right to engage in political dissent, and is further protected by his right to free speech. There are, of course, some restrictions upon these rights. Free speech or not, it is still illegal to libel or slander another person, corporate body or governmental entity. More importantly, it is illegal to advocate the overthrow of the government. Advocating change in the laws, or advocating the ousting of a politician in the next election, on the other hand, are perfectly acceptable and extremely common forms of political expression found throughout the Federation. Stated more simply, it is perfectly acceptable for someone who disagrees with the law requiring special governmental permission to have more than two children to say something like ‘I think the law should be changed to allow people to have as many children as they wish’. On the other hand, saying something like ‘I think we should march on the Federal Council and hold them captive until they knuckle under and change the law to allow people to have as many children as they wish’ is sedition and may carry a penalty of anything from a public flogging to death by hanging. Obviously, this example is extreme but it does illuminate the difference between acceptable and unacceptable political discourse.

Political dissent is not something limited to individuals alone. There are many groups within the Federation opposed to one or more of the government’s practices who express that opposition through legal means. Such groups include New Justice and Mercy for Life, concerned citizens and civilians who believe the Federation’s penal system is too strict and inhumane, that such sentences as capital punishment and corporal punishment should be outlawed. Another such group is the Clean Stars Coalition, which is opposed to human colonisation outside the Sol System, particularly when it involves environmental configuration. Still another is the Alliance for the Moral Treatment of Animals, a truly venerable group that is older than the Federation itself and opposes, among other things, the creation and military use of neodogs. There are endless other examples of protest groups within the Federation – for every governmental policy, it seems, there is someone in the population who opposes it. So long as these groups keep their opposition lawful, however, they are free to protest as much as they like.

Punishments

Punishment under UCF law tends to be swift and direct. The Federation does not believe in lengthy incarcerations within a prison facility, as these have been proven time and again to be of little use either as a deterrent or as a means of rehabilitation. Of course, incarceration still exists and, though it is most often practised on the mentally ill, it remains a possibility for punishment in most crimes. However, the UCF usually prefers other methods of punishment when appropriate. Incarceration is an expensive venture for the state, which must house, feed and clothe the inmate. Putting such inmates to hard labour helps negate these expenses, which is why there is almost no such thing as an idle prisoner in the UCF. Still, the UCF would prefer to see a punishment that can be swiftly administered. Fines and flogging are the most common sentences handed down by judicial tribunals, though mutilation and hard labour are also known. Crimes such as murder, rape, actions against the interest of the Federation and other capital offences usually carry the death penalty, in which the criminal is sentenced to be hanged. Judicial tribunals are given tremendous latitude under the Federal Constitution in assigning punishment and will always take the circumstances of the crime into account when handing down such verdicts. From time to time, a judge will abuse this power and be removed from office but a position on a judicial tribunal is reserved for only the most sober and qualified of applicants, thus such removals are extremely rare. Whenever possible, a criminal’s punishment is carried out in public in front of the Federal Building, to serve as a warning to other criminals and as a welcome reassurance to the populace that the Federation is doing all that can be done to keep them safe and secure. This applies mostly to capital and corporal punishment – hangings and floggings. Though it is certainly possible to force a criminal to pay a fine on the steps of the Federal Building, it lacks the same impact and is never done.

Losing Citizenship

Losing one’s franchise as a citizen is a rare and terrible thing. Once the citizen has bought his franchise, has paid the dear price for it with at least two years of his life, it is not something that can be stripped away at a whim. Simply because a citizen has chosen to make enough of a nuisance of himself politically that he has become a persona non grata among the members of the Federal Council does not justify stripping him of his citizenship. Indeed, with his service to the Federation, he has more than paid the price to speak his mind – so long as he does not speak of overthrowing the Federation, of course. Rather, the loss of citizenship is almost always tied to the commission of a larger crime, usually one committed against the Federation as a whole. Simple crimes like theft and assault will not rob a citizen of his status, for example, but murder often will. Any citizen who is found guilty of participating in activities like arms running and drug smuggling, on the other hand, can certainly expect to have his franchise as a citizen stripped from him. Ultimately, the loss of citizenship is one punishment that cannot be handed down by a tribunal of judges. In those cases where the judges believe the crime is heinous enough to merit this punishment, they must petition the governor of the nation in which the case is being tried to review thecase and make a final decision. In almost all instances, the governor agrees with the opinion of the judges. Most often, the former citizen is unable to hear this portion of his punishment handed down, as the crimes that merit the loss of citizenship are usually so extreme that by the time the petition has reached the governor and returned, the former citizen has already gone to the gallows.

Personal Weaponry in the Federation

Since the earliest days of the Federation, immediately after the adoption of the laws governing the difference between a citizen and a civilian and what was required to earn sovereign franchise, it has been illegal for civilians to own most firearms. The only exception to this rule is for the wealthy civilian who wishes to own museum-type, archaic weapons. Even in this case, the civilian must apply for special permission for each weapon he purchases. Aside from this rare eccentric, however, and the population of Rhohan, no civilian in the Federation may own a firearm. The reasons for this are the same ones given when the law was first passed, and remain just as valid now as they were then. Many arguments in favour of gun ownership before the Disorders lauded the existence of a militia made up of civilians, who could defend the populace against any invading threat. However, those arguments were made in the days before the Mobile Infantry, before the Skinnies and the Arachnids. Such threats as are faced today can only be held back by a skilled and well supplied military. A civilians’ militia would only get in the way.

Of course, there is always the argument that appears from time to time that a well-armed populace is the best way to keep the government in check. However, like the previous argument, this one too dates from before the Disorders, to the time of the failed states that cared not one whit for their populations. The Federation, on the other hand, offers equal opportunities to everyone in its territory, ensuring everyone has access to the four things needed for a productive and happy life: shelter, food, security and a sense of freedom. As the zenith of human social evolution, the Federation’s policies negate the validity of this argument.

In the time before the Disorders, many people kept firearms simply for hunting. After the Earth was poisoned and blighted by nearly a century of nuclear, chemical and biological war, however, there was little left to hunt. Those species not wiped out by the years of warfare were pushed to the brink of extinction and hunting was quickly outlawed by the Federation. To some extent, that has changed in the time since with such enterprises as xenosafaris, in which wealthy citizens and civilians pay exorbitant fees for the opportunity to hunt strange and alien creatures in places like the Proxima Reserve on Iskander. This pastime has only come into vogue in the last 15 years and is one of the few opportunities civilians outside of Rhohan ever have to wield actual weapons.

It is important to note that the ban on owning personal firearms does not extend to citizens. Having earned their franchise with two years in the Federal Service, time in which they learned exactly how to handle and respect firearms, citizens are allowed by law to own them after leaving Federal Service. However, this is not widely practised nor encouraged by the government.