Treason guidance
(legal guidance for treason) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
However, if the meeting was with an eternal under [[Amity_and_enmity#Enmity|enmity]] then: | However, if the meeting was with an eternal under [[Amity_and_enmity#Enmity|enmity]] then: | ||
*for an archmage (or similar titleholder) interacting with their realm of responsibility the magistrates will presume that they were just doing their job; but | *for an archmage (or similar titleholder) interacting with their realm of responsibility the magistrates will presume that they were just doing their job; but | ||
*the magistrates may draw an adverse inference against anyone else. | *the magistrates may draw an adverse inference against anyone else. If so this is likely to lead to a conviction for treason. | ||
[[Category:The Law]] | |||
[[Category:The Empire]] | |||
Latest revision as of 21:47, 19 April 2017
Legal treatment of dealings with eternals
When a citizen is accused of committing treason with an eternal (or herald) it is not uncommon for there to be little evidence of what actually transpired. Consequently magistrates follow some simple guidelines.
If magistrates have satisfactory evidence regarding an interaction between a citizen and an eternal (or herald) then they will judge that evidence to determine if treason was committed or not.
If there is no satisfactory evidence (because it was a secret meeting or similar) then if the meeting was with an eternal under amity or neutral then (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) the magistrates will presume everything was above board.
However, if the meeting was with an eternal under enmity then:
- for an archmage (or similar titleholder) interacting with their realm of responsibility the magistrates will presume that they were just doing their job; but
- the magistrates may draw an adverse inference against anyone else. If so this is likely to lead to a conviction for treason.