Allow Captain to Pardon Minor Regs

[Guest]

Basically what it says. Allow the Captain to pardon all minor regulation breaks. This will reduce the amount of times that people who are needed are thrown in the Brig by Sec for insulting them and such.

We also need to keep in mind, these are not laws, they are corporate rules and the Captain should have atleast minimal authority to negate the minor ones as needed.

This would also give a point to the parole feature in Sec records.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

No. It is the job of security to prove or disprove guilt, not a corporate snake to stick his/her dick into everything because s/he can.

Referring to this post as to my reasoning.

Actually, lemme add one more thing.

A pardon implies complete and total absolution of the fact that a crime was committed, and that the person accused of a crime is not guilty of any of the charges set against them.

But it is very clear that when someone was charged with tangible evidence and were relayed by reliable sources (en masse, they tend to have their stock taken in) that the offender committed a crime, that a Captain may not absolve any criminal of any crime at all.

It is insulting to the integrity and investigative work of the security force to ever pardon someone who was at fault. If a person is not truly guilty of any face-value crime, then the evidence is not expected to pile up against them.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

Once again... This isn't 'guilt' minor regulations are only vandalism and the like. These are not laws, they are rules that are enforced with basically time outs. They're regulations.

[Guest]

Once again... This isn't 'guilt' minor regulations are only vandalism and the like. These are not laws, they are rules that are enforced with basically time outs. They're regulations.

 

The Head of Security can already issue warnings and early releases. I already do this myself as an officer because I know people hate brig time, provided they serve some of the sentence without any incident.

No.

[Guest]

Please stop saying no without further arguments. Explain why the highest authority on the station cannot issue a reprieve to a staff member that is about to sit in the Brig for only 10 minutes for a minor regulation breach, which is literally just a time out in the Brig.

You seem to have the 'Captain cannot interfere with justice' mindset. This is not a police force, or the law, or any sort of justice, these a rules, and managers I've seen IRL frequently cut people slack when they make little mistakes.

[Guest]

Stop saying no with little to no argument, it makes you seem like you're uneducated and just seeking to argue. Explain why the highest authority on the station cannot issue a reprieve to a staff member that is about to sit in the Brig for only 10 minutes for a minor regulation breach, which is literally just a time out in the Brig.

You seem to have the 'Captain cannot interfere with justice' mindset. This is not a police force, or the law, or any sort of justice, these a rules, and managers I've seen IRL frequently cut people slack when they make little mistakes.

 

You need to read my posts again.

Security can already do this. It's called an early release and warning. Everything goes on record. No one should have the power to excuse even the minor details, because every incident matters.

[PoZe]

Guuys. There is no need to pardon anything. You can pay fine or have your time - simple. If people disagree to pay fine for minor issue that they did knowing that, then they are to be forced to serve their time. Making pardon will eventually result for more insults and other conflicts.

P.S. Start to learn department payment system and don't forget that you have right to pay for minor charges, but it doesn't says that you are not being forced to serve the time in case of refusing to pay the fine.

[Jamini]

Once again... This isn't 'guilt' minor regulations are only vandalism and the like. These are not laws, they are rules that are enforced with basically time outs. They're regulations.

 

The Head of Security can already issue warnings and early releases. I already do this myself as an officer because I know people hate brig time, provided they serve some of the sentence without any incident.

No.

 

Uh. I' just going to point out that if the HoS can issue early releases and warnings.... the captain technically can too. The HoS is the cap's subbordinate. The HoSdoes not hav legally any mmore power than his boss.

This is exactly the samme as if a captain denies a station modification or law upload, or orders one It is the samme if he denies or permits testing over his RD's head, or orders medical treatment for a crewmember or a DNC over his CMO's head. Unless something is criminally unsafe, his orders are the highest athority on the station.

[Skull132]

Pardoning? No.

If the weight of evidence points towards the arrest and charges applies, then they get to suffer the punishment. The most the captain can do in that case is appeal for a lighter sentence, depending on the circumstances. Or, in the absence of a HoS, order it. However note, if the HoS is in place, the final call should rest with him. Both the captain and HoS should be mature enough to respect each other's lanes and authority, as such, the captain shouldn't go over the HoS's head unless absoloutely necessary.

Noow, let's talk about something else, but related: nulling an arrest/sentence.

If the arrest is made with no evidence backing it, or otherwise questionable/circumstancial evidence surrounding it, then the Captain should have the authority to call it into question. Along with a third party (an IAA or any other, preferably uninvolved head of staff will do), the evidence can be reviewed and the legality of the arrest brought into question. If the evidence produced is lacking, and can be objectively dismissed, then the Captain has the authority to null the arrest, charges, and any other forms of punishment applied.

Makes sense, and is simple, no?

[Guest]

I like it, makes sense.

[jackfractal]

So just to clarify.

In cases of security matters, if the Captain and the Head of Security disagree about a situation then the Head of Security is legally allowed to go through with their interpretation of the situation over the Captains objections?

That means that the Head of Security is in charge of the station.

It sounds silly maybe, but the thing they disagree about may be any of the Captains actions, and the Head of Security has the ability to incarcerate people and remove their ability to act.

For example:

Captain: "We are going to do this thing because of the following reasons."

Head of Security: "I disagree with those reasons and I don't want to do that thing. You are under arrest."

If the Captain's authority doesn't legally trump the Head of Security's authority then, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds, this is what will happen. We saw it happen in the complaint that started this whole conversation.

In addition, if the Captain doesn't have the authority to override Security in situations where they are breaking regulations without third party support, that further emphasizes their impotence and subservience to the Security department. If they can't issue corrections to their subordinates without someone else granting the authority to do so, then those subordinates aren't, by definition, subordinate.

If you had, say, the CMO disagreeing with the legality of an arrest, then requiring IAA/DO/Centcom backing to overrule security makes sense. The CMO doesn't have the authority to overrule them, but the Captain should be able to do it on their own authority if we want to continue to say that the Captain has authority.

It's fine if that's not what you want, but if that's the case we should clearly spell out that the entity in charge of the station isn't the Captain, it's the Security Department.

[Guest]

I might have used wrong wording by calling it a pardon in my Lawyer post. Under normal circumstances, if you fuck up, you've fucked up and no amount of favor can change that. However, Captain can already bring into question vague and bad sentences, so can anyone else. Proper discussion and investigation follows, as well as a conclusion if charges are valid.

Under not so normal circumstances such as:

• Station being devastated and low on staff, of which few present are urgently needed.
• Culprit being mentally ill, thus not being held accountable.
  
• Breach of regulations being tied to other departments/heads MO, such as department spacific neglect of duty (albiet, I'll say, almost no RD ever punishes their chucklefucky scientists). Security needs to take into account if the person had a permission from a head, and if yes, was the coresponding head even had the authority to allow such a thing. If they did, it falls on the head in question, not the culprit to defend themselves.
  
• Security being too occupied with more pressing issues, such as an officer 'insisting' on brigging someone for let's say Rraspassing during a nuke incursion. In this case, it might be just more simple to ignore the crime.

In these cases, it might really be preferable to overlook minor crimes for the time being, either by posponing the sentence or letting others come to a conclusion. These are in my opinion what people might call a acceptable pardon. Captain, in case of corresponding head not being present, might be tasked to represent the departments interests.

[Eliot Clef]

In addition, if the Captain doesn't have the authority to override Security in situations where they are breaking regulations without third party support, that further emphasizes their impotence and subservience to the Security department. If they can't issue corrections to their subordinates without someone else granting the authority to do so, then those subordinates aren't, by definition, subordinate.

 

I'm fairly certain that Skull has said that the Captain can override Security when they're actually stepping out of line. What he can't do is override valid regulatory breaches and the brig time resulting from that. This is, of course, some muddy water we're treading and it can be hard to determine what is legitimate and what isn't.

In the case of the incident with Ezra, the brigging was legitimate by the admission of the party subject to it (Nursie/Phoebe Essel), again unless I terribly misunderstood my conversation with her in ghostchat last night, which is what lead to this giant debate taking place across multiple threads.

[Skull132]

The thing about my wording is, I am very hesitant to outright say, "Yes, you can go over someone's head because you outrank them." That is mainly due to the fact that people are shits, and lack understanding of how command actually works.

But, hey, since we want to be treated like adults:

The Captain has overriding authority with every single decision, as long as his decision falls in line with Corporate Regulation and the Station Directives (during standard operation). During non-standard operation, the decisions made by the Captain do not have to fall in line with Corporate Regulation and the Station Directives.

In either case, the actions of the Captain are reviewed afterwards. That is to say:

• His orders cannot be overturned once issued.
• Any review of his orders is to be conducted after their execution, unless the order is an outright and clear violation of Corporate Regulation or Station Directives on code green. On code blue or higher, orders are to be followed without question between receipt and execution.
  
• If found guilty by an investigative party (IAA or CC), then they are punished after the fact. Not during.

 

But I would like to still remain an advocate to the side of, "Hey, I should trust my HoS, and he should trust me!"

[Chaznoodles]

I believe the Captain can already bend Space Law somewhat, though can't break it. Letting people out on parole instead of pardons for the time they'd spend in the cell would be a better choice, and gives a use to the Parolled status.

[Skull132]

Okay.

Now that we're actually back on topic. Does anyone have any issue with what I posted here and here?

[Guest]

Nupe.

[Guest]

Okay.

Now that we're actually back on topic. Does anyone have any issue with what I posted here and here?

 

No issue at all.

[Tainavaa]

Now here's the kicker in regards to Skull's thing. It sounds good but at that point we may or may not be keeping the prisoner for longer than they'd actually be in for. If they've done something like infiltration, constant assault, or assault with major injury or anything that is an inherent security risk to let them be without being cleared first, that person has to stay in the holding cell until their charge or they're cleared.

I've seen people get upset because I keep potentially dangerous people in holding while we deal with processing them. To which I can only respond "thems the breaks."

[Skull132]

Actually, really easy to bypass that one.

Inform the prisoner. Give him options: "Dooo you want a tracking implant for the duration of the investigation, do you want to wait it out, do you want an officer escorting you?"

Give him the choices, see what he does.

[Tainavaa]

The tracking implant I can see. However having an officer escort them would probably just he very impractical.

So I guess there's at least one more option.

[Skull132]

Ultimately, the problem in question is solvable.

[jackfractal]

Thank you for the clarification Skull. I don’t have any problem with your explanation. It aligns perfectly with how I thoughts things were supposed to work.

That being said, I think it may require an additional clarification. Specifically in regards to the perspective expressed by these quotes:

 

The Captain's perspective is irrelevant if the arrest was in the bounds of the law.

 

Skull32 defined what Ezra ATTEMPTED to do, and what Captains ARE allowed to do, as a nullification of an unjust sentence. Ezra believed he was correct about this, and I believe he was acting in good faith, but he was wrong.

By definition, Ezra could not issue a legal nullification of a legitimate sentence to any degree. Not a reduction, not a "pardon", nothing. His actions here had no legitimacy. He believed the sentence to be illegitimate, but we know for a fact that he was wrong about this.

 

In these quotes we see a perspective where the ‘objective truth’ of a situation is given primary importance.

It doesn’t matter, according to this perspective, if the Authority Figure believes themselves to be acting within their authority. What matters is if the actions of the Authority Figure makes decisions that contradict the ‘objective truth’.

I put scare quotes around this because there is, of course, no objective truth. There are instead different interpretations of the same situation.

What ‘objective truth’ stands for in this scenario is the collective consensus of a group of people. We’re usually talking about the collective consensus of the Security Department.

I think we need to clarify that the Captain’s judgement is more important and holds the weight of law while the collective consensus of others does not.

If the Captain says that a person is to be freed because they were unlawfully detained, it doesn’t matter if you think that they weren’t. It doesn’t matter if your buddy thinks that they weren’t. It doesn’t matter if the Detective or the Head of Security thinks they weren’t.

It doesn’t even matter if the person in jail thinks that they weren’t.

Even if, later, after they have been provided with additional evidence, the Captain themself changes their mind, they were still acting correctly, in the moment, based on the evidence they had at the time .

The Captain is in charge, which means their opinion is the one that matters, and they are not obligated to explain themselves or to agree with group consensus.

If they had to do that, that would be democracy, not a quasi-military hierarchy.

Now, I’m of the opinion that a Captain who doesn’t listen to their security department on security matters is an idiot, just like a Captain who doesn’t listen to their CMO during a viral outbreak is an idiot. Both of them should be reprimanded by their superiors and probably shouldn’t be in command in the first place.

That being said, there are times when the Captain needs to be able to give an order and have that order be obeyed, even if the people they’re giving the order too think it goes against the ‘objective truth’ of the situation.

So, to boil this down, Skull, can you clarify whose opinion is given legal authority in situations where there are conflicting perspectives. Is it the Captain or is it the consensus of the other people involved?

[Skull132]

I think you pretty much answered this question yourself, no?

The thing is, if don't have time, then the objective truth flies out of the window until the situation is resolved. This usually applies for code blue worthy situations or higher. At that point, you go into the territory of, "My order is literally the law, and I can fuck you up if you choose to disobey it, and try to throw the book at me instead of following my orders." The orders issued in this vain are never questioned in the middle of a situation (unless they go into the completely inhumane territory), but are instead reviewed afterwards. Punishment, if required, is then issued after the fact.

Now, if you have time, however. Your orders still have a lot of weight to them, but there's more space to question them and review them. If you have time, the Captain is required to review the matter with the security team. He isn't required to agree with them, oh no, but he is required to involve them, and to give them a proper chance of explaining their point of view (as opposed to just jumping over this stage and making a conscience call in the previously noted, higher risk situation). The hopeful end state is an agreement on how to proceed, a consensus (which isn't a term that the militaristic hierarchy lacks familiarity with, contrary to your belief), or an agreement to disagree.

[jackfractal]

I did have an opinion myself, but you're head dev so I can cite you if this comes up again.

And I do know that consensus is often desired in hierarchies. You don't usually get to stay in charge if you can't convince your subordinates of the correctness of your actions. I was talking about specific instances where there is no consensus between an Authority Figure's opinion and those of their subordinates. In those cases, you're saying that Nanotransen's Space Law is on the side of the Authority Figure?