3 replies
December 2024

avatar The Author

Comments migrated from WordPress:

1 reply
December 2024

january1may

There might be somewhat of a problem here…

I imagine there would be quite a few otherwise well-meaning travellers would would surprisedly find themselves on the facing end of the “criminal record including convictions on charges valid under Imperial law” clause for With Justice For All-adjacent reasons.
(For the Earthicans in the audience: as far as I can tell by the definition, a speeding ticket would probably qualify. Many other options that IOTL fall under summary offence laws - including, and not limited to, jaywalking - would almost certainly qualify.)

(There’s a good chance I’m significantly misinterpreting things, but that sounds plausible to me. In practice I imagine it’s probably handled on a case-by-case basis, which the wording of the clause fortunately allows.)

1 reply
December 2024 ▶ january1may

avatar The Author

Yeah, bit of a misinterpretation here.

The intended interpretation of including convictions on charges valid under Imperial law is that you were convicted of a crime which you would have been charged with and convicted of, had you committed it in the Empire.

Things like speeding¹ (unless you manage to do so so egregiously as to elevate it from an infraction² to actual reckless endangerment³) or jaywalking⁴, by and large, aren’t even crimes under Imperial law. They’re breaches of administrative regulations or contractual matters between you and the odocorp. Not covered here, unless your perpetual pushing the bounds of the contract leads to a legal breach.

Virtually all of our mala prohibita crimes get thrown out at this point, too, since Imperial law is extremely focused on mala in se. (Those of us subject to systems like the US one where 90%+ of cases are resolved through plea-bargaining to escape stacked extra sentencing may also have cause to appeal on the grounds that our native justice system is, to sum it up, some bullshit.)

And while this is selective application (per the “may” front-loading the clause), they aren’t generally interested in misdemeanors⁵ that are either old, or for which you’ve paid and regret.

So it’s not quite as tricky as all that to navigate this clause. For your average Earthican, probably easier to manage than signing the I-180.


  1. Especially since major roads don’t even have speed limits outside the leftmost lane.
  2. Local jargon for “breach of administrative regulation, vis-a-vis criminal law”.
  3. Or hazardous intoxication, which is the charge for all forms of “X under the influence”. You can’t be charged with reckless endangerment on the grounds that you aren’t able to know that you’re doing so, so instead they charge you with rendering yourself incapable of knowing.
  4. Unlikely, anyway, since they prefer to keep vehicular and pedestrian traffic apart under all circumstances. Might be criminal in the form of “trespass” there, but roads don’t work like that where you’re from, are you?
  5. Which in the local jargon means “minor enough to be handled by summary process, accused’s option”. Also “we don’t take your citizenship for doing this, this time”.