Crim191-1

King's Brief: Crim191-1p

==========================================
 Docket Number: Crim191-1 - Rex v. Nyght
==========================================
 Brief for the King, submitted by Dynauld
==========================================

Sire,

Strange events occurred in our fair land on Tempest 23, 190. Bilanx knows full well that the Dark Gods have their followers in Sable, and that is of course, respected as part of the Balance that must be maintained, however one person's right to worship as they see fit, stops at another soul's skin, as it were, under the Law.

In this case, a young Psion named Mack strove to discover the dark paths of Set, and as such, sought out His Cleric, Nyght. Nyght counseled him on the religious rites and practices of that cult, and then by her own testimony, began to speak of killing.

I quote from the scribed words she gave to Private Bandle:

   Nyght: When I was done, he asked, 'Can I kill you?' meaning me.
   Bandle: He did?
   Nyght: I laughed and told him he could try.
                . . .
   Nyght: He then wanted me to suggest someone he could kill instead.
   Bandle: And you responded with?
   Nyght: I suggested he attack Myrth, because Myrth had earlier offended me.
   Bandle: I see, and did he [Mack] do so?
   Nyght: Mack demanded that I bring Myrth to him... I refused to do this.
          Myrth then left the Realm ... to study, I suppose.

And the words Mack gave to Onslaught:

   Onslaught: Nyght told you to kill Caffin, what did she say exactly?
   Mack: To be accepted by Set, to kill someone. At first she said to kill
         Myrth, then she said just kill anyone.

As I'm sure the Court has guessed -- Mack proceeded to kill Caffin, a harmless youngster and recent immigrant to Sable, shortly after this conversation with Nyght. He has confessed this, is charged with the crime, and I doubt not that the case will be before this bench shortly.

Nyght's defense in this crime is that she at no time told or encouraged Mack to kill Caffin. However, even disregarding Mack's testimony above, this is a fallacy. Nyght's own words clearly show that she intended Mack to kill Myrth, and to claim that she did not encourage Caffin's death is similar to complaining that one gave someone a Wand of Lightning to kill Person A, and they mistakenly slew Person B instead. The crime of setting the murder in motion still exists, Nyght still sought to have Mack slay someone, therefore the Conspiracy charge is valid.

Nyght's hands are certainly as bloody as Mack's in this affair, and I firmly hope that the Court punishes her within the full extent of the law.

Defense Brief: Crim191-1d

=============================================
 Docket Number: Crim191-1 - Rex v. Nyght
=============================================
 Brief for the defendant, submitted by Nyght
=============================================

I plead not guilty in the charge of Conspiracy to Commit the Muder of Caffin. Please allow me to the events and the motivations for my actions.

All throughout my counselling of Mack in the religion, he continually asked about being able to kill, when he would be allowed to kill people, and whom he could kill. When I was done talking, I asked him if he had any questions. That is when he asked if he could kill me and led to the conversation that I presented in my earlier testimony. You will note that in both my and Mack's testimony that I at no time told him to kill Caffin. In fact, when Mack brought up the name Caffin, I was about to tell him no, but Mack ran off before I could stop him. His testimony that I told him to kill anyone is a lie. Neither I nor my church promotes random killing. Secondly, I had very specific reasons for asking that Myrth be killed. Earlier that day, Myrth had offended me several by making me the butt of several embarassing jokes and humiliating me in public. Such public humiliations are a mar on a lady's honor and reputation. Surely I can call for a person to defend me in such a situation. Also, since (at the time) Myrth had a slight reputation as a mage and I felt that Mack would be defeated. This would have caused two things ... the attack on Myrth would teach him a lesson about manners, and Mack's expected defeat would perhap make him less eager to go around attacking citizens. For as a cleric, is it not my job to give such lessons to prevent the citizens from engaging in foolishness?

Alas, it was not to turn out like this. Myrth went into the back reaches of the library where only mages are allowed and returned to his studies. Then the foolish Mack went out and, against my wishes, slew Caffin. I admit that I perhaps could have done more to prevent him from going kill-crazy, but nothing can be done now.

And as for Dynauld's bizarre claim that ordering the death of one person equates to ordering the death of any person, I have this to say: If this court orders my death, but the executioner kills Fugazi instead, I doubt the court would be satisfied. In fact, I would expect that the executioner would be in a great deal of trouble. I ordered Mack to attack Myrth to defend my honor ... his subsequent murder of Caffin is inexcusable and his feeble attempt to blame me is an outrage.

Nyght, Priest of Set, loyal subject of the King

Judgment: Crim191-1j

=========================================
 Docket Number: Crim191-1 - Rex v. Nyght
=========================================
 Decision of the King's Bench
=========================================

Facts

Mack, a psion, killed Caffin on Tempest 23, 190. This is undisputed. Mack is a devotee of the religion of Set, and Nyght is Set's ranking priestess in the kingdom of Sable. Mack and Nyght have had discussions related to the killing of other citizens, in which certain murders have been discussed.

There are two major issues of law and one major issue of fact in this case.

1. Issue of Fact: Did Nyght order Mack to kill Caffin
2. Issue of Law: If a first party orders a second party to kill a third party, is the first party guilty of a crime.
3. Issue of Law: If a first party orders a second party to kill a third in the name of religion, but the second party slays a fourth party instead (in a fit of religious zealotry), is the first party guilty of a crime.

Issue of Fact: Did Nyght order Mack to kill Caffin

Interview #1 - Private Bandle interrogating Nyght

Nyght: When I was done, he asked, 'Can I kill you?' meaning me.
Bandle: He did?
Nyght: I laughed and told him he could try.
[skip ahead]
Nyght: He then wanted me to suggest someone he could kill instead.
Bandle: And you responded with?
Nyght: I suggested he attack Myrth, because Myrth had earlier offended me.
Bandle: I see, and did he [Mack] do so?
Nyght: Mack demanded that I bring Myrth to him... I refused to do this. Myrth then left the Realm ... to study, I suppose.

Interview #2 - Private Onslaught interrogating Nyght

   Onslaught: Nyght told you to kill Caffin, what did she say exactly?
   Mack: To be accepted by Set, to kill someone. At first she said to kill Myrth, then she said just kill anyone.

The facts show that Nyght and Mack did discuss the subject of murder. Nyght denies ordering Mack to kill Caffin. Even Mack's statements do not clearly demonstrate an explicit order by Nyght to kill Mack. Given these facts, and in absence of any other information, the evidence does *NOT* support a finding that Nyght ordered Mack to kill Caffin.

Issue of Law: If a first party orders a second party to kill a third party, is the first party guilty of a crime.

Even if the facts did show that Nyght ordered Mack to kill Caffin, Nyght has committed no affirmative act. It has not been shown that Nyght supplied Mack with weapons, enchantments, blessings, healing, divinations, or any other actual assistance in the killing of Caffin. At best, all that could be shown would be that Nyght preached to Mack that Mack should kill Caffin to show his loyalty to Set. It is the holding of this court that if a cleric, duly acknowledged by one of the 13 deities of the Aether, gives an order to kill in the course of preaching or religious consultation, and the order is carried out, the cleric is not guilty of a crime. This holding does not exonerate the actual murderer. It only goes to the recognized cleric who gives the order in the course of religious services. Further, if the cleric gives even the slightest bit of actual assistance, the cleric cannot utilize the defense provided by this holding. Consequently, this defense cannot be used by non clerics or by their followers.

Issue of Law: If a first party orders a second party to kill a third in the name of religion, but the second party slays a fourth party instead (in a fit of religious zealotry), is the first party guilty of a crime.

Religious zealotry is a reality of this multiverse. It would be dangerous and unreasonable for the law to assert that such religious devotion was antithetical to mortal society. Clearly, to do so would risk the wrath of one or more of the deities of the Aether. As the courts of law are a temporal embodiment of the deity Bilanx, it is obvious that they could not consciously act in a manner directly opposed to the will of the Aether as a whole.

Thus, the court concludes that if a duly recognized cleric generates a "murderous fervor" by his or her preachings to his or her followers, the fruit of this fervor is the responsibility of the follower and not of the cleric. Truly, if a cleric is able to generate such a fervor it is assuredly a result of the channeling of divine forces through his or her speech and preachings, and not a mere act of mortal will. Again, this defense is very limited in scope, and if a cleric assists mortals in any of their murderous actions in any active, cognizable way, the defense of Crim191-1 would not apply. Of course, this defense cannot be used by non clerics or by their followers.

Summary of Holdings

In concordance with the opinions rendered above, Nyght is found not guilty of all charges.

-Judge of Sable