Bono vs Southeast (this time for real)

[Bono]

I wish to challange the constitucionality of the anti necromancy iniciative, on the grounds that it both imposes a cruel and unusual punishment, and violates the freedom of worship clause.

[Ebowed]

I would like to join the plaintiff in this case, specifically in regards to this initiative's violation of the Southeast's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, although I agree with his argument that this initiative unfairly violates one's freedom of religion as well.

[Emsworth]

Am I correct in assuming that this case is before the Southeastern Magistrate, and not the federal Supreme Court?

[John Dibble]

Well, seeing as I wrote the initiative, I think I'd have to recuse myself. I believe in a case like this the governor or lt. gov is supposed to appoint a neutral temp judge from the SE citizenry, IIRC. If that's not available, it would go to the next highest federal court, which seeing as we really only have one federal court would be you guys. Basically notify those two guys and see if they want to appoint someone, and if not the SC takes it.

[TomC]

I'd be up for hearing it- I did vote against it but not because I thought it was cruel and unusual or that it violated any right to worship.

But may I ask: when Bono speaks of its unconstitutionality, does this refer to the SE constitution or the Atlasian? If Atlasian, it might be better for the SC to hear it.

[John Dibble]

I'd be up for hearing it- I did vote against it but not because I thought it was cruel and unusual or that it violated any right to worship.

But may I ask: when Bono speaks of its unconstitutionality, does this refer to the SE constitution or the Atlasian? If Atlasian, it might be better for the SC to hear it.

Typically when challenging a state/regional law it is first heard in regional court, and the later brought to federal court via appeals if there is an appeal(though you typically can't appeal for something under a regional constitution unless there's some federal constitution/law conflict).

[Bono]

Am I correct in assuming that this case is before the Southeastern Magistrate, and not the federal Supreme Court?

Totally correct.

[Bono]

I'd be up for hearing it- I did vote against it but not because I thought it was cruel and unusual or that it violated any right to worship.

But may I ask: when Bono speaks of its unconstitutionality, does this refer to the SE constitution or the Atlasian? If Atlasian, it might be better for the SC to hear it.

Southeast.
I'm not going to challange a regional law based on the federal bill of rights, since I don't believe the federal bill of rights affects the regions.

[John Dibble]

I'd be up for hearing it- I did vote against it but not because I thought it was cruel and unusual or that it violated any right to worship.

But may I ask: when Bono speaks of its unconstitutionality, does this refer to the SE constitution or the Atlasian? If Atlasian, it might be better for the SC to hear it.

Southeast.
I'm not going to challange a regional law based on the federal bill of rights, since I don't believe the federal bill of rights affects the regions.

Well, as I said I'm recusing myself, so notify our undead abomination of a governor to appoint someone to act as a judge, and tell him TCash says he won't mind and that I wouldn't mind TCash either. I'll probably represent the Southeast on this.

[7,052,770]

I hereby appoint TCash to act as judge in this case.

X GOVERNOR HARRY

[John Dibble]

Well, if TCash will open proceedings we can begin.

*throws magistrate gavel at TCash* So you can use it in the case of course... *grins maliciously* BWAHAHAHAHA!

[TomC]

***ducks then grabs gavel off floor***

Well, okay then, proceedings may begin.

[Ebowed]

Initiative 144, as certified passed on July 24, 2006, with eight votes in favor and five against, states in part: "Those who violate the law by practicing necromancy or otherwise magically bringing the dead back to life shall be burned at the stake..."  Clause 32 of the Southeast Bill of Rights (Article VI of our Constitution) states "No magistrate, or court of law, shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments."

The punishment of execution by burning is currently not prescribed for any crimes except the participation in necromancy.  This method of execution, if used with burning wood, will either cause the convict to die from poison by carbon monoxide if the fire is large; if the fire is small, the convict will burn for several minutes in pain until death from heatstroke or loss of blood plasma.  If gunpowder is substituted for wood, it will explode on contact with the flames, providing a quick but painful death.  If the convict is not blown up, they may die from a combination of shock, burning of the lungs and air passages, or smoke inhalation, all of which will take a considerable amount of time to kill and cause extreme pain.  Historically, this method has been applied with the intent to cause as much pain to the convict as possible.

Over time in the last few centuries as standards have increased, this method has been phased out in favor of more humane methods such as hanging, death by firing squad, or lethal injection.  Its only known modern uses have been in undeveloped countries where witchcraft is still sometimes punished by death.  This is brought up not because of any particular importance regarding international precedence, but because of the fact that this method of execution has been near universally prohibited for so long due especially to its cruelty makes it an unusual punishment, the type that our Bill of Rights prohibits.

There is no doubt that burning at the stake has long been recognized as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.  The Anti-Necromancy Initiative is in clear violation of the Bill of Rights regarding this matter; any law prescribing execution by burning is unconstitutional under Article VI, Clause 32 of the Southeast Constitution.

[John Dibble]

Honorable Justice TCash,

I shall be representing the Southeast in defense of this initiative. My argument will be given in two parts, reflecting the two main constitutional questions this initiative poses. The first that has been brought up is that the initiative infringes upon freedom of religion, and the second is that burning at the stake is cruel and unusual punishment. I would assert that this initiative violates neither clause. Though the plaintiffs have only thus far addressed the latter of the two, I will first address the former.

144 does not violate freedom of religion

The ban on necromantic practices does not infringe upon religious rights. The initiative only bans necromancy as a means of bringing the dead back to life, as implied by 'or otherwise bringing the dead back to life...' - this does not ban the worship or necromantic gods, spirits, ect. Nobody is banned from believing in necromancy. What is banned is bringing the dead back to life through necromancy or other magics. This is much like we cannot ban Satanism or the worship of Aztec gods, but we can ban human sacrifices to Satan or Aztec gods because there is a pressing enough reason to do so. Normally one cannot ban a religious practice unless it poses a danger to others. Thusly, I must be able to show the court that necromantic practices and magic in general that brings the dead back to life is dangerous to innocents. To do this we must simply look at the results of necromancy.

The abominations created by necromantic magic used on human corpses are never safe. They are foul, evil, dangerous creatures that harm others. I will go down a list of such creatures.

1. Zombies


Zombies are a particularly nasty and common product of necromancy. These are corpses animated by necromantic magic, and sometimes voodoo magic, but they lack souls of their own. There is a general misconception that zombies only eat the brains of their victims, but this is not true - zombies eat all human flesh, though they find brains particularly appealing. Thusly these mindless creatures pose a threat as they attempt to devour the flesh of the living. Not only is this a problem, but if someone is bitten by a zombie and survives the attack, there is a chance that that person will become a zombie as well, possibly spreading the infection to others.

2. Animated skeletons


Like zombies, these things are mindless and soulless. However, they do not eat flesh. Typically they will attack anything other than the one that conjured them, unless the master is close enough by to will them not to. However, since the master may not always be around, these things are a danger to those nearby.

3. Vampires


Another being brought back to life through necromancy. Unlike zombies and skeletons, these creatures are self-aware. In truth, they are basically the person they were before death. However this new unlife comes at cost - the vampire must consume the blood of living humans. This is most often done by sneaking up to a sleeping person, using hypnosis, or outright attacking someone and biting them on the neck, sucking out the blood through fangs. As with zombies, certain varieties of this creature may pass on their condition to victims that survive.

4. Revenants


Revenants, like zombies, are animated corpses. However, the revenant is at least partially sentient, resembling the person they were in life, and most always rise shortly after the death of that person. A revenant is filled with some sort of purpose, and is consumed by that purpose - for only by fulfilling it may they rest in peace again. This purpose is most often to seek revenge on those who they feel wronged them in life, usually in the form of horrible curses such as a deadly sickness. It takes a twisted necromancer indeed to disturb the dead in such a way, but they do exist.

5. Liches


Ah the lich. The very pinnacle of necromancy, and becoming one is the true goal of any serious practitioner. The goal is to attain immortality in undeath. A living skeleton with all of the power(if not more) of the original necromancer that became it. But the price for becoming a lich is dark indeed. It requires years of practice of the necromantic arts, creating many of the creatures listed above(posing incredible danger to the populace), pacts with necromantic entities often involving human sacrifice or other darkness done unto the living. And of course they continue their arts after their undeath begins, further endangering the public with stronger and stronger abominations of death, twisting the corpses of loved ones into things that defy all decency in order to maintain their favor with the dark ones that allow them to maintain their 'immortality'. Generally they become even more twisted than they were in life, because they lose emotions like compassion and love. Truly this creature is a danger to the living.

On a side note, necromancy often involves defiling and robbing graves, and certainly many if not all forms of undeath inflicted upon a corpse can be considered a type of defiling corpses. These are also crimes under the law, so the banning of necromantic and other magical arts that bring the dead to life can also be considered an extension of these laws.


In summary, freedom of religion is not violated because the initiative only bans practices which pose a clear danger to the lives and rights of other citizens.

[John Dibble]

144 does not violate cruel and unusual punishment

Certainly under normal circumstances burning at the stake would easily be considered cruel and unusual punishment. However, given the nature of the crime in question I would assert that this is not the case.

Ebowed claims that burning at the stake is not used as a method of execution for any other crime, thus making it an unusual punishment. In this sense, he's right. But if the death penalty were to apply only to the crime of murder, that would make the death penalty unusual as well. But no serious court would consider the death penalty in violation of the unusual part of the constitution under such grounds. By unusual, I believe it tends to mean 'strange' or something similar - punishing an offense by dipping someone in a vat of chicken grease would be considered unusual certainly. Basically the idea of banning unusual crimes is that we must have punishments that make some sort of sense - they can't be silly or overly vengeful/humiliating in their nature. Thus, once again I must show that the punishment is necessary for this crime.

Execution by burning at the stake is the necessary type of punishment for necromancy. For normal crimes that merit execution, lethal injection or some other less painful methods are appropriate. However, necromancy is a special case. If you were to lethally inject a necromancer, there is a good chance that the dark magics residing in their body will bring them back as a form of the undead - and for the sake of the executioner they had better hope it not be as a powerful lich or a vengeful revenant. So long as a corpse remains, there is a chance that the execution will be reversed, even if only to a degree. Of course I'm sure you're thinking "Why not burn the corpse right after the injection?" - to this I answer that undeath can sometimes occur right after death, giving the executioner very little time to dispose of the corpse in some cases, putting him or her at great peril.

For the above reasons it is necessary that a method that simultaneously kills and disposes of the body at the same time be used in executing a necromancer. Another issue is that if the necromancer has already become a lich or some other form of the undead. In this case they may not have flesh at all in which to inject the poison, or poisons and bullets may be ineffective as methods of execution in some undead. Because fire is a shared weakness among almost all forms of the undead, using it as a means of execution for necromancy is only sensible. Thus, given these circumstances burning at the stake is not unusual in the sense meant by the constitution.

Now, as to cruel - it is not necessarily cruel enough to merit the punishment being labeled so by the courts. Many forms of punishment are easily considered cruel to at least some degree. Locking up a man and taking away his freedoms is certainly cruel, but it is not cruel enough that it warrants being called unconstitutional. Punishment in general involves some degree of cruelty - it's not really punishment otherwise, now is it? The idea of banning cruel punishments, when applied to execution, is that we should use the most painless method possible rather than inflicting unnecessary pain in the name of vengeance. Since I have shown that burning is necessary as a means of execution for necromancy, all that must be done is to make the burning as painless as humanly possible.

There is no particular method prescribed in Southeastern law for burning at the stake, nor is one stated in initiative 144(which only states the general method of execution). Therefore a method of burning by the stake can be employed that has the least amount of pain possible, and this court may decide such a method as the standard in this case's ruling or recommend an initiative be made to employ such a standard. But given that it has been shown that the method of burning is needed for execution in cases of necromancy, the court can not in good conscience outright ban this method for this type of crime. I would recommend the requirement that any necromancer or other form of wizard who is to be executed for violating the law set forth in Initiative 144 be given pain killers or anesthesia immediately before the fire is lit(provided the convict in question has skin and working nerves, and those that do not[liches, animated skeleton, some varieties of revenants] will not feel any pain), and that the method of burning be such that the convict's body is destroyed as quickly as possible(so no small fires and deaths by smoke inhilation[which is ineffective against most forms of the undead seeing as they don't breath]), or recommend to the governor that such a method be made the standard through initiative.

In summary, Initiative 144 does not inflict cruel and unusual punishment because the punishment is both necessary as a means of execution for the crime in question and may be done in such a way that little to no pain is experienced.

[TomC]

I would recommend the requirement that any necromancer or other form of wizard who is to be executed for violating the law set forth in Initiative 144 be given pain killers or anesthesia immediately before the fire is lit.

I thank everyone for their submissions.

Magistrate Dibble, based on 144 and how it is written, how can we be assured that your recommendation will be standard practice? If pain killers or anesthesia are not given, would you consider this a form of cruel and unusual punishment?

Does Secretary Bono intend to address the court? I don't believe we've heard an argument from the plantiff about how this violates the freedom of worship clause.

[John Dibble]

Magistrate Dibble, based on 144 and how it is written, how can we be assured that your recommendation will be standard practice? If pain killers or anesthesia are not given, would you consider this a form of cruel and unusual punishment?

The way the recommendation could be made standard practice is as I said - either you set forth the condition for all future uses of burning as a means of execution in your ruling(it practically becomes law in this manner) or you recommend that the governor make an initiative making the condition standard practice(or both, which would satisfy things in the interim). The latter would probably be preferred as codified law is more likely to always be followed.

I would consider any method of burning that did not take measures to minimize pain cruel and unusual, provided the one convicted to die has the skin and nerves with which pain can be felt. If there is an alternative way to minimize or eliminate pain in the process it could also be employed. The issue was not under consideration when I wrote the initiative, but I agree such conditions should become required.


---WARNING: silliness---

*suddenly and without warning, a necromancer burst into the court and attacks John Dibble*



Necromancer: Enemy of the God of Worms, I shall destroy you!

*As the necromancer begins to chant magic to summon forth a horde of the undead, John Dibble pulls out his hidden Gavel of Smiting (with +5 damage against the undead) and hurls it at the necromancer*

Necromancer: AIIIIEEEE!

*The necromancer flees the scene*

Sorry for the interruption, you may proceed your honor.
---Silliness ended---

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Pulls out a +2 backscratcher while waiting for the decision.



(Or it might cast the various Bigby's Hand spells, I forget which.)

[Bono]

Your honor, I'll be brief.
The Southeastern Bill of Rights states, in its fifth clause:
"Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to hold religious or philosophical beliefs according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no person shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for acting upon those religious or philosophical beliefs in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious or philosophical profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he does not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious or philosophical pursuits. "

It seems to me that practicing necromancy does not inherently disturb either the public peace or others. Dibble's examples are just hipothetical uses such practices could have. However, these law is not about such examples. It is about necromancy in general, affecting others or not. It does not make any distinction, and that is simply because if it did, such a law would be completely unecessary--such offenses are already criminalized in general law.


As for the matter of the punishment, the Southeastern Bill of Rights tates, in cause:
"No magistrate, or court of law, shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments."

This law mandates courts to impose a penalty that is certainly cruel, for all the reasons President Ebowed mentioned, and for public exposition and disfiguring of the body. Why should we deprive the executee's loved ones of even a token memorial to pay their respects to.

Aditionally, clause 17 of the bill of rights reads:
"All penalities ought to be proportioned to the nature of the offense.[...]"
It seems to me that if there is a case of a punishment not proportional to the "crime" is this one. If we do not even apply the death penalty to rape, why should we apply it to harmless mystical practices?

I rest my case.

[John Dibble]

Your honor, I'll be brief.
The Southeastern Bill of Rights states, in its fifth clause:
"Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to hold religious or philosophical beliefs according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no person shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for acting upon those religious or philosophical beliefs in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious or philosophical profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he does not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious or philosophical pursuits. "

It seems to me that practicing necromancy does not inherently disturb either the public peace or others. Dibble's examples are just hipothetical uses such practices could have. However, these law is not about such examples. It is about necromancy in general, affecting others or not. It does not make any distinction, and that is simply because if it did, such a law would be completely unecessary--such offenses are already criminalized in general law.

As I already stated, the ban on necromancy only applies to its use in raising the dead, as implied by 'or otherwise magically bringing the dead back to life'. The worship of necromantic gods, spirits, ect. is not banned. As to other uses of necromantic magic in bringing the dead back to life, it has never been shown that it can be used to bring back the dead for good. All those brought back by necromancy are changed from their original living selves - be it as a soulless, flesh devouring zombie or a malevolent lich intent on enslaving other corpses to his dreadful will to please his dark gods, the undead being poses clear and present danger to the rest of society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The execution need not be made public, and no such requirement of it being public was made. Only the means of execution is specified, and as has been stated it can be done in such a way that pain is minimized or eliminated. As far as denying the executee's loved ones of a token memorial, the ashes may be collected and placed in an urn if they wish. Cremation is not uncommon, is it? And I have explained the reasoning for needing to execute a necromancer in this way - the magics inhabiting the necromancer's body often result in the necromancer coming back to life as some sort of undead, who I have shown to be malevolent and dangerous in nature. Since this reanimation can occur quickly, for the safety of the state appointed executioner we must simultaneously execute and destroy the body to prevent this resurrection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The use of necromancy to raise the dead results in the enslavement of the corpse to the necromancer, and in some cases the twisting and enslavement of the very soul of the once living being that inhabited the corpse. Imagine if you would being trapped in your own corpse, compelled to harm innocents or even loved ones, a slave to the dark instinct or hunger the necromancer has forced upon you. In many ways such enslavement far exceeds rape. Not only that, the beings raised are malevolent in nature, as I have shown. Raising zombies creates flesh devouring monsters with no regard for human life, raising vampires creates blood sucking parasites that feed on the innocent, raising revenants create beings intent on horrible revenge against the living. Need I go on about the dangers to the lives and well being of innocents that such beings pose?

[TomC]

On July 24, 2006, the Southeast passed an initiative numbered 144:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Secretary Bono has sued, claiming the law violates a Southeasterner's right to worship as well as the "cruel and unusual" clause of the Bill of Rights (32).

This court finds that the punishment for necromancy is cruel and unusual. Without specific provisions to alleviate pain and suffering as well as to ensure a limit on public viewing of this stark punishment, I can not allow it to be invoked. As a temporary officer of the Southeast Court, I'm not willing to craft qualifiers and guidelines to what should be a legislative effort. Therefore, in it's current form, I strike down initiative 144.

I also question whether the punishment fits the crime. Magistrate Dibble gives plenty of great examples of problematic "beings" that may result from necromancy; however, many of the most stark violations by these beings are charges somewhat separate from the "raising of the dead" itself. For example, eating someone's brain and flesh might qualify an offender for the death penalty, I'm not convinced necromancy, in and of itself, is automatically so horrific that it deserves such an unusual punishment.

Further, the court has not been convinced that this law violates a right to worship and only voids it on the grounds it is cruel and unusual.

*** bangs gavel and tosses it back to Dibble.***

[John Dibble]

Fine then - apparently enslaving the souls of the dead isn't so horrible. Don't blame when when revenant Harry destroys Atlasia in a fit of revenge, or vampire Harry comes and sucks out your blood, or a plague of zombies made by lich harry devours the flesh of your children.

[7,052,770]

<massive triumphant evil laugh>

[John Dibble]

<massive triumphant evil laugh>

Don't think this is over, vile fiend!

[Emsworth]

<massive triumphant evil laugh>

Don't think this is over, vile fiend!

Are you appealing the decision?