NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, here is the premise of this worthless thread. In many fictional urban fantasy worlds (p. ex. Harry Potter, Death Note, etc), magic or other such manipulations are ignored by the population at large. This results in an interesting notion, due to the fact that the laws made by and for the population at large frequently fail to apply (cf. Death Note, where writing one's name on a notebook kills the person through cardiac arrest, or Harry Potter, in which obvious stunts such as changing someone into a weasel can't be construed as a crime per se in most penal codes).

What I'm asking, mostly for RPG purposes (I have been on a Bleach campaign lately) is: In such settings, the law would be effectively powerless against such stunts? And no need to limit to "killing someone through magical means that are untraceable" or "Baleful Polymorph"; other things, like even using magic to make a volcano appear in the middle of an urban center can apply.

How would it work both in Constitutional and Customary systems when there is no explainable connection between saying a few words and someone dying/changing into a weasel/has his city get volcanoed to ashes? Or even if it is, in the polymorph case, what could it be construed as that might be a crime?

Murder is murder no matter how its done, so the note book stunt would be punishable.

The Ferrat incident in Harry Potter(it was a Ferrat, not a weasle), might be assault or harrasment, though I'm really not sure. Of course, in that world its under a sepperate set of laws, with the agreement and knowledge of the British PM, so I have no idea.

Quick question: would the PM's collaboration in concealing the wizarding world without, apparaently, informing others in his government be legal in Britain?

Quick question: would the PM's collaboration in concealing the wizarding world without, apparaently, informing others in his government be legal in Britain?

Nice question too, but I think the PMs do not really know of the magical world. IIRC they think the visits are hallucinations. But as for the other rules, I meant in the "muggle" world, so to speak. Keeping in mind that Harry Potter was just an example. Other examples could be used.

Nice question too, but I think the PMs do not really know of the magical world. But as for the other rules, I meant in the "muggle" world, so to speak. Keeping in mind that Harry Potter was just an example. Other examples could be used.

Read chapter one of book 6. They most certainly do.

Personally I think they should have gotten Blair to appear as himself in that scene. It would have added a nice touch of realism, and Blair's already acted himself on The Simpsons. In truth it seems only natural that one should move from politics to acting, and vice versa.

Read chapter one of book 6. They most certainly do.

Personally I think they should have gotten Blair to appear as himself in that scene. It would have added a nice touch of realism, and Blair's already acted himself on The Simpsons. In truth it seems only natural that one should move from politics to acting, and vice versa.

If they make a film from book 6 and Blair appears in it, it'll be his crowning moment of style. :D

Just to add, since NERVUN is here: Attempting not to kill the entire population of the world, but to turn it into a sort of living, conscious tang named LCL, would it be seen as murder?

:D

Read chapter one of book 6. They most certainly do.

Personally I think they should have gotten Blair to appear as himself in that scene. It would have added a nice touch of realism, and Blair's already acted himself on The Simpsons. In truth it seems only natural that one should move from politics to acting, and vice versa.

Well it should be either Tony Blair or John Major considering the 6th book is set in 1997, so depending what time of the year it is then one of the two should be placed in.

Well it should be either Tony Blair or John Major considering the 6th book is set in 1997, so depending what time of the year it is then one of the two should be placed in.

Blair would be nicer. He's a tool, but he would be nicer.

Blair would be nicer. He's a tool, but he would be nicer.

Yeah true, plus I think Blair has a bit more star power than Major

Yeah true, plus I think Blair has a bit more star power than Major

That and he's more widely known currently. Regardless, I'll try not to hijack my own thread now and wait for a lawyer. :D

Okay, here is the premise of this worthless thread. In many fictional urban fantasy worlds (p. ex. Harry Potter, Death Note, etc), magic or other such manipulations are ignored by the population at large. This results in an interesting notion, due to the fact that the laws made by and for the population at large frequently fail to apply (cf. Death Note, where writing one's name on a notebook kills the person through cardiac arrest, or Harry Potter, in which obvious stunts such as changing someone into a weasel can't be construed as a crime per se in most penal codes).

What I'm asking, mostly for RPG purposes (I have been on a Bleach campaign lately) is: In such settings, the law would be effectively powerless against such stunts? And no need to limit to "killing someone through magical means that are untraceable" or "Baleful Polymorph"; other things, like even using magic to make a volcano appear in the middle of an urban center can apply.

How would it work both in Constitutional and Customary systems when there is no explainable connection between saying a few words and someone dying/changing into a weasel/has his city get volcanoed to ashes? Or even if it is, in the polymorph case, what could it be construed as that might be a crime?

I'm not sure how you can reference Death Note and Harry Potter and still have to ask this question. Murder by mystical means is murder. As proven by both noted series.

I'm not sure how you can reference Death Note and Harry Potter and still have to ask this question. Murder by mystical means is murder. As proven by both noted series.

That according to the authors - I want to see according to law. Besides, even that answer by an attorney would only solve the murder issue, not the ferret transformation.

(He said, writing a sentence that's unlikely to have ever been uttered).

That according to the authors - I want to see according to law. Besides, even that answer by an attorney would only solve the murder issue, not the ferret transformation.

(He said, writing a sentence that's unlikely to have ever been uttered).

Intentionally causing the death of another human being, without legal justification or defense is murder, regardless of the means.

As for transforming into a ferret, no law exists against transforming into other animals in a literal sense, however in a broader perspective it would most likely fall under the category of criminal mayhem, intentionally causing disfigurement to another.

Intentionally causing the death of another human being, without legal justification or defense is murder, regardless of the means.

As for transforming into a ferret, no law exists against transforming into other animals in a literal sense, however in a broader perspective it would most likely fall under the category of criminal mayhem, intentionally causing disfigurement to another.
Of course, the problem is proving it. What evidence of these magical acts would be admissible in a court, I wonder? I think it would be stretching the limits of eyewitness testimony, eh? "Well, she turned me into a newt!...I got better."

PS: I love phrases like "criminal mayhem" and "criminal mischief." "Mayhem" is one of my favorite words. ;)

Intentionally causing the death of another human being, without legal justification or defense is murder, regardless of the means.

As for transforming into a ferret, no law exists against transforming into other animals in a literal sense, however in a broader perspective it would most likely fall under the category of criminal mayhem, intentionally causing disfigurement to another.

Nice. I'm pretty sure there is some sort of law on that sense in Brazil as well. Thanks. That oughtta make things tougher on my character in the game, but thanks. ;)

Of course, the problem is proving it. What evidence of these magical acts would be admissible in a court, I wonder? I think it would be stretching the limits of eyewitness testimony, eh? "Well, she turned me into a newt!...I got better."

Well yes, but I read his question to be "would it be illegal" not "would it be provable". I think it would take a far better attorney than I to win that particular case for the prosecution...

PS: I love phrases like "criminal mayhem" and "criminal mischief." "Mayhem" is one of my favorite words. ;)

Criminal mayhem based purely on the name just sounds like the most fun crime ever.

On a serious note, I'm not sure, but I think the last time a court tried to prosecute a magical crime in real life was the Salem Witch Trials (1600s). They relied on so-called "spectral evidence," which amounted to pretty much eyewitness testimony and claims of people being magically attacked right there in the courtroom itself. The Trials ended when judges from Boston, sent up to see what the fuck was going on up in Salem, basically disallowed alll the "spectral evidence," thus leaving no basis for the charges at all. Since that time, no such "evidence" has been admissible in a criminal court in the US, as far as I know.

Of course, the problem is proving it. What evidence of these magical acts would be admissible in a court, I wonder?

With the Death Note, a book that kills someone whose name is written on it through cardiac arrest, I'm thinking it might be done through testing in the court with animals. After the third attempt the defense probably would be hard-pressed to argue "coincidence".

Just to add, since NERVUN is here: Attempting not to kill the entire population of the world, but to turn it into a sort of living, conscious tang named LCL, would it be seen as murder?

:D
Well, given that the whole world did indeed end up as LCL... you'd have one hell of a time finding a judge and jury. :tongue:

Well yes, but I read his question to be "would it be illegal" not "would it be provable". I think it would take a far better attorney than I to win that particular case for the prosecution...

That sorta depends. If the killing spell is a "routine" - meaning a set of words and procedures anyone non-trained can learn by memorization to perform - or an artifact, such as the Death Note, that has a simple procedure - write down the name while thinking of the victim's face - you could show it on animals, for instance, no? Or, well, in a very deserted area in the case of a volcano...

On a serious note, I'm not sure, but I think the last time a court tried to prosecute a magical crime in real life was the Salem Witch Trials (1600s). They relied on so-called "spectral evidence," which amounted to pretty much eyewitness testimony and claims of people being magically attacked right there in the courtroom itself. The Trials ended when judges from Boston, sent up to see what the fuck was going on up in Salem, basically disallowed alll the "spectral evidence," thus leaving no basis for the charges at all. Since that time, no such "evidence" has been admissible in a criminal court in the US, as far as I know.

I'm not sure, but I think their was a wearwolf trial in Europe in the 20th century. And I beleive their was an Italian Woman convicted of paranormally setting things on fire in recent years as well.

As for transforming into a ferret, no law exists against transforming into other animals in a literal sense, however in a broader perspective it would most likely fall under the category of criminal mayhem, intentionally causing disfigurement to another.

No. It's not criminal mayhem.

Well, given that the whole world did indeed end up as LCL... you'd have one hell of a time finding a judge and jury. :tongue:

You kidding? People all joined together. You have just about EVERY judge and jury there, EVER. :p

With the Death Note, a book that kills someone whose name is written on it through cardiac arrest, I'm thinking it might be done through testing in the court with animals. After the third attempt the defense probably would be hard-pressed to argue "coincidence".
The problem being of course that the laws are based upon science and the findings thereof. Logical deductions in other words. Given that magic is, by its nature, outside the realm of science, it would be hard to prove causation in a criminal court.

A civil court, however, where such things as emotional distress is a benchmark, you might have better luck.

You kidding? People all joined together. You have just about EVERY judge and jury there, EVER. :p
Given that everyone is merged together though, it'd make it damn hard to find ONE judge and 12 people to serve on a jury (Or, given that this is Japan, 3 judges and 9 people as the jury).

I'm not sure, but I think their was a wearwolf trial in Europe in the 20th century. And I beleive their was an Italian Woman convicted of paranormally setting things on fire in recent years as well.
Well, that makes me feel very slightly better about Americans. :D

No. It's not criminal mayhem.
Oh, yeah, Clarence Darrow? Well, what kind of mayhem is it, then? Eh? Eh?

The problem being of course that the laws are based upon science and the findings thereof. Logical deductions in other words. Given that magic is, by its nature, outside the realm of science, it would be hard to prove causation in a criminal court.

But one can argue that X "coincidences" are beyond reasonable doubt, no?

Given that everyone is merged together though, it'd make it damn hard to find ONE judge and 12 people to serve on a jury (Or, given that this is Japan, 3 judges and 9 people as the jury).

You're kidding. The number of jurors in Japan is "ku"? There must be plenty of jokes around that. :p

(The three judges is more normal for me, basically because three judges do judge appeals here.)

[QUOTE=Muravyets;14009921]Well, that makes me feel very slightly better about Americans.QUOTE]


I think I read about a case in which a ghost's testimony was effectively introduced as evidence as well. I'll see if I can provide quotes tomorrow. Good night.

Heikoku, if you're not already familiar with this, check it out:

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding2.htm

It's a ginormous and very redundant world building questionnaire for sci-fi/fantasy writers, meant to be used in bits and pieces. There are a few sections that address how magic works and fits into one's fictional reality, including a number of questions about magic, crime and law. If you're not already using them, they might help formulate whatever it is you're trying to formulate.

I just finished using these questions for two stories I'm working on, one of which is set in modern reality, so I needed to figure out how I wanted magic to fit into this real(ish) world of ours. Since my story is set in modern Vermont, I have it that the legal system is pretty much blind to magic and does not acknowledge its existence. Crimes committed by magic would have to have some non-magical evidence to link the perpetrator to them in order for a case to be won or a guilty verdict delivered.

Heikoku, if you're not already familiar with this, check it out:

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/worldbuilding2.htm

It's a ginormous and very redundant world building questionnaire for sci-fi/fantasy writers, meant to be used in bits and pieces. There are a few sections that address how magic works and fits into one's fictional reality, including a number of questions about magic, crime and law. If you're not already using them, they might help formulate whatever it is you're trying to formulate.

I just finished using these questions for two stories I'm working on, one of which is set in modern reality, so I needed to figure out how I wanted magic to fit into this real(ish) world of ours.

It's a World of Darkness-style Bleach setting. Meaning, it's just like OUR world with magic being kept a secret. ;)

But thanks!

But one can argue that X "coincidences" are beyond reasonable doubt, no?
How though? You'd have to get the magic user to cast spells X amount of times in front of the jury. Now, I don't know about you, but when I'm on trial for murder, I'm not going to react how I would kill someone for the jury. ;) So, you're left with testimony from witnesses, nice, except that I would bring in an expert for the defense to testify that what you're claiming is impossible under the laws of science.

Like I said, you'd be rather hard pressed to prove it.

You're kidding. The number of jurors in Japan is "ku"? There must be plenty of jokes around that. :p

(The three judges is more normal for me, basically because three judges do judge appeals here.)
Well, the jury system hasn't started yet, and most people are more annoyed and worried with being called to judge others than the number of them.

How though? You'd have to get the magic user to cast spells X amount of times in front of the jury. Now, I don't know about you, but when I'm on trial for murder, I'm not going to react how I would kill someone for the jury. ;) So, you're left with testimony from witnesses, nice, except that I would bring in an expert for the defense to testify that what you're claiming is impossible under the laws of science.

Like I said, you'd be rather hard pressed to prove it.


Well, the jury system hasn't started yet, and most people are more annoyed and worried with being called to judge others than the number of them.

Well, the "how" was only for routine spells and artifacts - A Death Note, for instance - that anyone can use. And the "test victims" can be animals - or animals soon to be sacrificed for this or that reason.

It was just a bad joke. But Japan doesn't HAVE a jury system yet? It shouldn't have introduced it. I'm no believer in the jury system, mainly because people (in some areas, myself included) are idiots. :p

Anyways, I gotta go to bed. See you folks tomorrow. :)

No. It's not criminal mayhem.

That was....entirely unhelpful.

Oh well, thanks for your worthless input. Anyway, one could argue that it's either mayham or some form of battery, depending on your jurisdiction

Well, the "how" was only for routine spells and artifacts - A Death Note, for instance - that anyone can use. And the "test victims" can be animals - or animals soon to be sacrificed for this or that reason.
Animals would be rather hard, for Death Note at least because, IIRC, you have to know the victims name.

It was just a bad joke. But Japan doesn't HAVE a jury system yet? It shouldn't have introduced it. I'm no believer in the jury system, mainly because people (in some areas, myself included) are idiots. :p
No, or rather one was introduced during the Taisho Democracy, but quickly abandoned at the beginning of Showa. In an effort to allow greater transparency to Japan's criminal justice system, a jury system is going to start in 2009. Personally, I'm all for it as I'd MUCH rather be judged by my peers than a professional justice who, well, at least in Japan, have had some bad and questionable rulings or problems; like falling asleep on the bench.

Of course, I'm also American so the right to trial by jury is one of those givens for me. My Japanese wife however is terrified that she could be called to judge others and her undergrad degree was in law from a Japanese university.

Animals would be rather hard, for Death Note at least because, IIRC, you have to know the victims name.

You do. Which is why you can name the animal first.

I imagine such things would be illegal, but you're fucked if you're going to actually try and get a conviction.
"He turned my client into a ferret, Your Honour!"

if you are going to suppse magical actions occurring in the real world you would have to also suppose laws regulating such actions both criminally and legally.

would marriage vows taken under the influence of a love spell be binding? does "this is not the droid you are looking for" constitute interfering with witnesses? what would the punishment BE for turning someone into a ferret--it would obviously be illegal.

unless you are supposing a scenario where magic suddenly and unexpectedly appears in the normal world all of these issues would already be settled law. what those laws might BE is up to the supposer but they would already exist.

if magic has always existed but suddenly comes to light i would suggest that there would be an extreme backlash against those who have been underground criminals wreaking havoc on the world without the consent or knowledge of the normal citizens.

if you are going to suppse magical actions occurring in the real world you would have to also suppose laws regulating such actions both criminally and legally.

would marriage vows taken under the influence of a love spell be binding? does "this is not the droid you are looking for" constitute interfering with witnesses? what would the punishment BE for turning someone into a ferret--it would obviously be illegal.

unless you are supposing a scenario where magic suddenly and unexpectedly appears in the normal world all of these issues would already be settled law. what those laws might BE is up to the supposer but they would already exist.

if magic has always existed but suddenly comes to light i would suggest that there would be an extreme backlash against those who have been underground criminals wreaking havoc on the world without the consent or knowledge of the normal citizens.

I figure that or the characters will have the added inconvenience of hiding their existence from the police and other normals.

Okay, here is the premise of this worthless thread. In many fictional urban fantasy worlds (p. ex. Harry Potter, Death Note, etc), magic or other such manipulations are ignored by the population at large. This results in an interesting notion, due to the fact that the laws made by and for the population at large frequently fail to apply (cf. Death Note, where writing one's name on a notebook kills the person through cardiac arrest, or Harry Potter, in which obvious stunts such as changing someone into a weasel can't be construed as a crime per se in most penal codes).

What I'm asking, mostly for RPG purposes (I have been on a Bleach campaign lately) is: In such settings, the law would be effectively powerless against such stunts? And no need to limit to "killing someone through magical means that are untraceable" or "Baleful Polymorph"; other things, like even using magic to make a volcano appear in the middle of an urban center can apply.

How would it work both in Constitutional and Customary systems when there is no explainable connection between saying a few words and someone dying/changing into a weasel/has his city get volcanoed to ashes? Or even if it is, in the polymorph case, what could it be construed as that might be a crime?

No, the law would not be, but enforcement would be a difficult problem in cases where the modus operendi is unclear. I've just gotten into law school, so I can't yet tell you about the criminal aspect, but to give an example in civil procedure, generally speaking turning someone into a weasel would qualify as a battery and probably intentional infliction of emotional distress for the purpose of filing an intentional tort law suit. This is because battery is generally defined as the intentional causing of harmful or offensive contact with another, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that most reasonable people would find suddenly becoming a weasel very offensive to their sensibilities.

IIED is still new area of law, so it hasn't been precisely laid down yet, but it broadly speaking applies when conduct outrageous and offensive enough to be considered beyond the pale disturbs a person's mental tranquility (it's roughly speaking an expansion off of the tort of assault, which works on the same principle except in that case you're only losing mental tranquility as a consequence of your apprehension of imminent battery), which, as before, turning a person into a weasel qualifies. In point of fact, given that people don't know about magic and therefore are unused to magical events happening, they're probably more likely to side with the plaintiff in establishing damages, since it's easier to find something so freakish outrageous in conduct.

So to come back to your point, no, I don't think the law itself has any problem bringing in supernatural events into its jurisdiction or applying them to existing statutes. The problem is mainly that in any trial you have to establish to some set standard of proof that an offense actually occurred as a consequence of the defendant's action. As such, absent any clear knowledge of how magic works or some anti-magic task force that can sniff this stuff out, if someone were to actually cast Power Word: Death on you or I, I strongly doubt that any prosecution would occur because they could never establish beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard of proof for criminal statute of homicide) that the word's spoken, even if overheard, had any connection to the event of death.

No, the law would not be, but enforcement would be a difficult problem in cases where the modus operendi is unclear. I've just gotten into law school, so I can't yet tell you about the criminal aspect, but to give an example in civil procedure, generally speaking turning someone into a weasel would qualify as a battery and probably intentional infliction of emotional distress for the purpose of filing an intentional tort law suit. This is because battery is generally defined as the intentional causing of harmful or offensive contact with another, and I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that most reasonable people would find suddenly becoming a weasel very offensive to their sensibilities.

Offensive, yes, however I'm unsure if battery would be an appropriate cause of action, merely because the law (obviously) does not recognize the see of magic against a person as a "contact". Your comments about IIED seem correct however

edit: by the way, you make an error common to most 1Ls. "modus operandi" more refers to habit or commonality of actions of specific criminals. IE if someone robs a bank in the same way, the pattern and habit of his actions is his modus operendi. It also refers to actions common to the commission of a specific crime.

If you are refering to the general actions that bring about the criminal conduct, the term you're most likely looking for is "actus reus"

I figure that or the characters will have the added inconvenience of hiding their existence from the police and other normals.

I added a mental flaw to mine. He's very much an otaku that came into contact with the supernatural, so he would ENJOY showing off his new powers to the world, even in the hopes of making the world seek these things out more. Though he can't make weasels of people, he does can, for instance, put someone under a crushing weight using a sheet of paper, use them to burn things without visible fire or acid, and other things. The other questions were mainly because I found myself curious as well. :p

Offensive, yes, however I'm unsure if battery would be an appropriate cause of action, merely because the law (obviously) does not recognize the see of magic against a person as a "contact". Your comments about IIED seem correct however

edit: by the way, you make an error common to most 1Ls. "modus operandi" more refers to habit or commonality of actions of specific criminals. IE if someone robs a bank in the same way, the pattern and habit of his actions is his modus operendi. It also refers to actions common to the commission of a specific crime.

If you are refering to the general actions that bring about the criminal conduct, the term you're most likely looking for is "actus reus"

Thanks for the pickup about actus reus. I'll remember that in the future.

But that being said, courts have extended contact (I guess it's per jurisdiction, but hey, I've been in classes month) to include actions that affect your person that don't involve one person directly touching another. For instance, if I were to shout a racial epithet at you and yank something out of your hands or pull your hat off your head, even if I've not actually touched you, by touching the hat I've still committed a battery because the hat was something integrally associated with you at the time of the contact. Also, if I knowingly dump water on you from above, or cause water to be dumped on you through an action I know with substantial certainty will lead to the water hitting you, that's also a battery. I don't think it's much of a stretch, provided the courts understand magical means of contact, to extend existing battery torts (it's important to note this is civil; I've just barely gotten to actus reus in crim. law) to the situation in question.

But that being said, courts have extended contact (I guess it's per jurisdiction, but hey, I've been in classes month) to include actions that affect your person that don't involve one person directly touching another. For instance, if I were to shout a racial epithet at you and yank something out of your hands or pull your hat off your head, even if I've not actually touched you, by touching the hat I've still committed a battery because the hat was something integrally associated with you at the time of the contact. Also, if I knowingly dump water on you from above, or cause water to be dumped on you through an action I know with substantial certainty will lead to the water hitting you, that's also a battery.

I'm aware, but the point I'm making is that in both examples, either me, or something I am holding/manipulating makes physical contact with you, or something that you are holding/manipulating. We could eve extend it further, and I could take the metal pole I'm holding in my hand, and strike it against the metal pole you are holding in yours. Even though I never touched you, it is still a battery, as I intentionally caused the pole, an extension of me, to make physical contact with the pole that is an extension of you. But the important part to note there is physical contact

For a civil battery to be a batter something must actually touch there must be contact. If I throw a magic potion on you which turns you into a ferret, fine, battery, I caused the physical potion to make contact with your physical self (or your hat, or the thing in your hands, or anything that's an extension of you).

But if I just wiggle my fingers, say some magic words and *poof* you're a ferret...there's no contact here, I haven't touched you, I haven't caused any physical intrusion onto yourself or those things in your immediate possession. Battery requires that I intentionally cause myself, or such thing that I have control over, to make physical contact with you, or such thing in your immediate possession such that it is an extension of your self.

Battery requires that I touch you. Or cause something to touch you. Or touch the thing that you're holding. Or cause something to touch the thing that you're holding. For magic finger wiggling and transmutation, there's no physical contact. So no battery.

I can't see the problem. You have an expert witness who advises if it is possible or not. In the Potter universe, you don't even need an expert witness. There were criminal cases and as there is obvious cause (wand, a word that sounds latin maybe) and effect (ferretification or death), it's just like a normal trial.

In a world where only a very small amount of people can do magic, it is unlikely you could get the expert witness and then the judge and jury would pretty much suggest the person making the accusations was a crack pot. If they went too far trying to "get justice", they may even end up locked up in an institution for the insane.

In a world where only a very small amount of people can do magic, it is unlikely you could get the expert witness and then the judge and jury would pretty much suggest the person making the accusations was a crack pot. If they went too far trying to "get justice", they may even end up locked up in an institution for the insane.

True - the main one I asked was about ferretification (for instance) with A LOT of witnesses. Suppose a guy decided to play "let's change everyone's genders" inside an entire mall, knocking him out would or not be self-defense (turns out it would, as per Neo's response), the guy would or not be punished (preferably by people unafraid of having their genders changed) and so on. Basically the issue of no ex post facto law applying. As for Death Note, the argument could be made by showing the book's powers...

My answer, of course, depends on whether or not I'm shacked up with a 20 year old Elizabeth Montgomery.
http://maproomsystems.org/images/blogimages/blog1/sampinup.jpg

My answer, of course, depends on whether or not I'm shacked up with a 20 year old Elizabeth Montgomery.
http://maproomsystems.org/images/blogimages/blog1/sampinup.jpg

Fair enough...

Okay, here is the premise of this worthless thread. In many fictional urban fantasy worlds (p. ex. Harry Potter, Death Note, etc), magic or other such manipulations are ignored by the population at large. This results in an interesting notion, due to the fact that the laws made by and for the population at large frequently fail to apply (cf. Death Note, where writing one's name on a notebook kills the person through cardiac arrest, or Harry Potter, in which obvious stunts such as changing someone into a weasel can't be construed as a crime per se in most penal codes).

What I'm asking, mostly for RPG purposes (I have been on a Bleach campaign lately) is: In such settings, the law would be effectively powerless against such stunts? And no need to limit to "killing someone through magical means that are untraceable" or "Baleful Polymorph"; other things, like even using magic to make a volcano appear in the middle of an urban center can apply.

How would it work both in Constitutional and Customary systems when there is no explainable connection between saying a few words and someone dying/changing into a weasel/has his city get volcanoed to ashes? Or even if it is, in the polymorph case, what could it be construed as that might be a crime?

In worlds where magic is unknown by the majority of people then there can be no laws regulating it. Beyond "welfare queens" and "late term abortion" it really is hard to regulate things that don't exist.

But most such settings have internal legal structures within the "magical community."

The Harry Dresden books have the White Council. Harry Potter has the Ministry of Magic. Vampire: The Masquerade has the Camerilla. Buffy the Vampire Slayers has the Watchers and Myriad secret cults charged to guard against this mystical threat or that.

In the Anita Blake Vampire Hunter books magic is largely known and there are all sorts of laws passed by worldly authorities, such as minimum sentencing laws for black magic (death penalty), laws against werewolves working as school teachers, and a vampire church in which admitted vampires who can prove it receive the same tax benefits any other church gets.

True - the main one I asked was about ferretification (for instance) with A LOT of witnesses. Suppose a guy decided to play "let's change everyone's genders" inside an entire mall, knocking him out would or not be self-defense (turns out it would, as per Neo's response), the guy would or not be punished (preferably by people unafraid of having their genders changed) and so on. Basically the issue of no ex post facto law applying. As for Death Note, the argument could be made by showing the book's powers...
anyone who exercised that kind of power would be killed by a mob as soon as they figured out he was the one who did it.

if you are going to suppse magical actions occurring in the real world you would have to also suppose laws regulating such actions both criminally and legally.

would marriage vows taken under the influence of a love spell be binding? does "this is not the droid you are looking for" constitute interfering with witnesses? what would the punishment BE for turning someone into a ferret--it would obviously be illegal.

unless you are supposing a scenario where magic suddenly and unexpectedly appears in the normal world all of these issues would already be settled law. what those laws might BE is up to the supposer but they would already exist.

if magic has always existed but suddenly comes to light i would suggest that there would be an extreme backlash against those who have been underground criminals wreaking havoc on the world without the consent or knowledge of the normal citizens.

But magic in most fiction represents how a person has gone beyond the normal system. In a literal/non-supernatural setting it would be a person who is high-up in government, very rich and influential, or a powerful gangster who controls his criminal empire through blackmail and extortion. People against whom even the honest police are powerless and by extension so are the people they protect.

It would also be people who by their own talents, intelligence, and determination are able to succeed against such powerful forces. Like the rare instance when a relatively unknown lawyer manages to win lawsuits despite overwhelming financial power or influence of their opponents, or the opposition of public opinion.

Magic represents any ability to beat or control "the system," that most people don't have.

yes but if one supposes a world where magic exists, it doesnt just exist for one guy. it exists for some class of people whether by association or by genetics. and if it exists, there are laws covering it. no lawyer or legistator would let the opportunity pass....they would probably have to pay tax or govt fee on each spell cast.

yes but if one supposes a world where magic exists, it doesnt just exist for one guy. it exists for some class of people whether by association or by genetics. and if it exists, there are laws covering it. no lawyer or legistator would let the opportunity pass....they would probably have to pay tax or govt fee on each spell cast.
I'm not entirely sure about that. There are lots of activities that people engage in that require joining a group, getting training/education, etc., but which are private activities which are not regulated by the government at all. For instance, you don't need a state license or to pay a special tax to play soccer, or organze a gardening club, or join the Freemasons, yet all of those are more or less organized group activities that the public is aware of.

Also, I don't see a real world legal system of this day and age taxing or regulating people according to their genetic traits. If the ability to do magic is genetic, then why and by what justification would it be regulated? It would be like imposing taxes or regulations on people based on their eye color or height.

I also balk at the suggestion that, if it existed, there would be laws specific to it on the grounds that "legal" is the default condition of everything that the law does not specifically address. Even in a world where magic was common knowledge and openly practiced, there would not necessarily be laws about it unless there was a specific reason or need to regulate or restrict some part of it. Just its existence is not enough to assume the law would have a system in place to deal with it.

I can't see the problem. You have an expert witness who advises if it is possible or not. In the Potter universe, you don't even need an expert witness. There were criminal cases and as there is obvious cause (wand, a word that sounds latin maybe) and effect (ferretification or death), it's just like a normal trial.

I think the question is not "could you get a conviction in a wizard's court", but more, "could you win a case in non-magical society". In the Potter universe, wizards are not convicted in muggle courts.

I'm aware, but the point I'm making is that in both examples, either me, or something I am holding/manipulating makes physical contact with you, or something that you are holding/manipulating. We could eve extend it further, and I could take the metal pole I'm holding in my hand, and strike it against the metal pole you are holding in yours. Even though I never touched you, it is still a battery, as I intentionally caused the pole, an extension of me, to make physical contact with the pole that is an extension of you. But the important part to note there is physical contact

For a civil battery to be a batter something must actually touch there must be contact. If I throw a magic potion on you which turns you into a ferret, fine, battery, I caused the physical potion to make contact with your physical self (or your hat, or the thing in your hands, or anything that's an extension of you).

But if I just wiggle my fingers, say some magic words and *poof* you're a ferret...there's no contact here, I haven't touched you, I haven't caused any physical intrusion onto yourself or those things in your immediate possession. Battery requires that I intentionally cause myself, or such thing that I have control over, to make physical contact with you, or such thing in your immediate possession such that it is an extension of your self.

Battery requires that I touch you. Or cause something to touch you. Or touch the thing that you're holding. Or cause something to touch the thing that you're holding. For magic finger wiggling and transmutation, there's no physical contact. So no battery.

Hrm. That's true. I believe I was assuming that in order for magic to effect you, it has to make contact with you. I guess it comes down to what the consistency of the wave/particle governing magic is. I don't believe that blowing smoke on a person is a battery, but shining a laser on them can be in certain contexts. I suppose it would have to depend on whether magic is more like the laser or the smoke.

I think the question is not "could you get a conviction in a wizard's court", but more, "could you win a case in non-magical society". In the Potter universe, wizards are not convicted in muggle courts.
That's what I addressed in my 2nd paragraph. In a non-magic society, unless the evidence was incredibly compelling, no chance. You would need video evidence, reputable witnesses, and even then there'd be problems as they may be cast aside as group hallucination, fakes, etc.
Magic is completely non - sensical. It disobeys all of natures laws. Very few people are willing to accept proper magic in a full on Harry Potter kind of way.

That's what I addressed in my 2nd paragraph. In a non-magic society, unless the evidence was incredibly compelling, no chance. You would need video evidence, reputable witnesses, and even then there'd be problems as they may be cast aside as group hallucination, fakes, etc.
Magic is completely non - sensical. It disobeys all of natures laws. Very few people are willing to accept proper magic in a full on Harry Potter kind of way.

True, but you mentioned how convictions had been acheived in Harry Potter, which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is could you make a case in a non-magical court.

True, but you mentioned how convictions had been acheived in Harry Potter, which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is could you make a case in a non-magical court.

And since the given condition was a world in which the general population is ignorant of the existence of magic then the answer would have to be "no."

Governments can't legitimately pass laws against things that the general public believes do not exist. That's why witchcraft is no longer illegal in the Western World, though it was when people believed it existed.

True. Unless magic became common knowledge in nonmagical society, you wont be winning a lot of cases.

True, but you mentioned how convictions had been acheived in Harry Potter, which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is could you make a case in a non-magical court.
I know we are having a heated debate in another thread, but come on.:rolleyes:
This was my original postI can't see the problem. You have an expert witness who advises if it is possible or not. In the Potter universe, you don't even need an expert witness. There were criminal cases and as there is obvious cause (wand, a word that sounds latin maybe) and effect (ferretification or death), it's just like a normal trial.

In a world where only a very small amount of people can do magic, it is unlikely you could get the expert witness and then the judge and jury would pretty much suggest the person making the accusations was a crack pot. If they went too far trying to "get justice", they may even end up locked up in an institution for the insane.
It is quite obvious that I discussed 1 case in 1 paragraph, another case in the 2nd paragraph.

I know we are having a heated debate in another thread, but come on.:rolleyes:
This was my original post
It is quite obvious that I discussed 1 case in 1 paragraph, another case in the 2nd paragraph.

I take offense to the implication that I'm simply picking a fight because of an argument in another thread. I may have been a little too picky, but I was simply trying to discuss and clarify the question at hand. It is you, not I, who are dragging that other dispute in here. It is you who are attempting to smere me publicly, and it is you who are proving yourself to be a dishonest jackass. I did not bring it up, you did.