TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface  page1

Chapter 1: Communism and Law

 1.1. Law produced together  page2
 1.2. Method of production of law  page3
 1.3. Utilization of law -part 1-  page4
 1.4. Utilization of law -part 2-  page5
 1.5. From Law of Exchange to Law of Distribution  page6
 1.6. Multilayered legal system  page7

Chapter 2: Charter of the Commons' Convention

 2.1. From the national constitution to the people's charter  page8
 2.2. Unified Structure of the Charter  page9
 2.3. Contents of the Charter of the Commons' Convention -Part1-  page10
 2.4. Contents of the Charter of the Commons' Convention -Part2-  page11
 2.5. Contents of the Charter of the Commons' Convention -Part3-  page12
 2.6. Interpretation and application of the Charter  page13

Chapter 3: System of Environmental Law
 
 3.1. Positioning of Environmental Law  page14
 3.2. Fundamental Principle of World Global Environmental Law  page15
 3.3. Basic principles of the World Global Environmental Law  page16
 3.4. Unified Environmental Code  page17
 3.5. Enforcement of Environmental Laws  page18

Chapter 4: The System of Economic Law

 4.1. The Significance of Communist Economic Law  page19
 4.2. Economic Planning Law -part 1-  page20
 4.3. Economic Planning Law -part 2-  page21
 4.4. Corporate Organization Law  page22
 4.5. Labor Relations Law  page23
 4.6. Land Management Law  page24

Chapter 5: Civic Law System  

 5.1. Contents of Communist Civic Law  page25
 5.2. Citizenship Law -part 1-  page26
 5.3. Citizenship Law -part 2-  page27
 5.4. Property Rights Law -part 1-  page28
 5.4. Property Rights Law -part 2-  page29

Chapter 6: The System of Offences Law 

 6.1. From criminal law to offences law  page30
 6.2. The essence of the offence  page31
 6.3. Classification of offences  page32
 6.4. Various correctional treatment systems -part 1-  page33
 6.5. Various correctional treatment systems -part 2-  page34
 6.6. Juvenile treatment systems  page35

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

 7.1. Communist Litigation laws  page36
 7.2. Civic justice system  page37
 7.3. Economic justice system  page38
 7.4. Offences justice system -part 1-  page39
 7.5. Offences justice system -part 2-  page40
 7.6. Civil protection justice system  page41
 7.7  Impeachment justice system  page42
 7.8. Jurisprudence justice  page43

Chapter 8: Overview of Legal Profession Law

 8.1. Certified Lawyer and Notary Public  page44
 8.2. Independence of the legal profession  page45
 8.3. Judicial Artificial Intelligence   page46
 8.4. Public legal profession   page47
 8.5. Private legal profession  page48

Chapter 8.5.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 8: Overview of Legal Profession Law

8.5. Private legal profession

The private legal profession, which is the field of activity for communist legal professionals in the private sector, can be broadly divided into independent legal practitioners and those employed in the legal departments of corporations and other private organizations.

While the former, independent legal practitioners, are the most typical form of private legal profession, their actual nature differs significantly from that of independent legal practitioners in capitalist societies.

In a communist society without a monetary economy, the act of earning monetary income through legal work is not possible, and legal work is therefore a free service. Therefore, law offices take on a character strongly oriented toward public service, and profit-driven law firms as do not exist.

Furthermore, since there is basically no court system, there is almost no litigation representation work available except in the field of impeachment justice. Instead, in some judicial procedures, certified lawyers have a monopoly on the legal position of legal representative or legal attendant.

○ Legal representative: Represents the parties in various hearings and oral proceedings, and provides useful explanations and arguments.

○ Legal attendant: Attends and assists in hearings related to offences laws and reviews by the Correction and Probation Commission, and protects the rights of the parties involved.

Furthermore, due to the principle of independence, communist legal professionals are prohibited from engaging in legal advisory services that create a relationship of subordination to clients by providing exclusively favorable legal advice to specific individuals or organizations, due to the principle of independence. Therefore, the position of permanent legal advisor is not recognized.

On the other hand, employed legal professionals are professional staff members who belong to the legal department of a private organization such as a corporation and handle the organization's legal affairs, but at the same time maintain their independence as legal professionals. Therefore, while they are subject to the general duty of loyalty of an employee, their legal judgments are not subject to interference from outside, nor from the organization's management or other internal departments.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 8.4.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 8: Overview of Legal Profession Law

8.4. Public legal profession

To clarify the overall structure of the communist legal profession, this section and the next outline the specific domains of legal practice. This section examines the public legal profession as civil servants.

The representative example of legal professionals belonging to this domain is the judicial profession. While the judicial profession generally refers to judges within a court system, under a communist judicial system that fundamentally lacks a court system, it is a collective term for judicial professionals performing specific roles as listed below.

All these judicial positions are appointed by the Commons' Convention of a specific level for a fixed term, following prescribed procedures, from among certified lawyers listed on the judicial candidate roster maintained by the Association of Certified Lawyers. They are not appointed through a bureaucratic system based on individual selection examinations, etc.

○ Equity Commissioner: Arbitrating civic law disputes

○ Truth Commissioner: Uncovering the truth behind antisocial offences

○ Tribune: Defending fundamental human rights and civil liberties

○ Judge Delegate of the Commons' Convention Jurisprudence Committee: Conducting statutory interpretation of laws and regulations 

○ Judge Delegate of the Commons' Convention Charter Committee: Conducting statutory interpretation of Commons' Convention Charter

○ Impeachment Court Judge and Prosecutor: Conducting an impeachment trial of public officials and civil servants

Incidentally, notary public, whose role grows in importance in communist society lacking a court system, is public official but are not included among judicial officer who perform judicial functions themselves. Notay public constitute a special case within the public legal profession, operating independent law office.

Furthermore, staff in the Commons' Convention Legislative Support Bureau and legal affairs departments established as internal divisions within and other Commons' Convention-administered agencies are also legal affairs officers appointed from among certified lawyers or assistant certified lawyers, belonging to the public legal profession.

These legal affairs officers are also not included in judicial positions, but their duties must be protected from interference outside their departments due to the principle of independence of the legal profession.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 8.3.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 8: Overview of Legal Profession Law

8.3. Judicial Artificial Intelligence

As we have seen, the communist judicial system, except in the field of impeachment justice, does not rely on the traditional judicial institution of courts. Consequently, it cannot accumulate precedents of court decisions, or so-called case law. That said, there is an accumulation of precedents demonstrated by judicial bodies in various fields, and these serve a role comparable to case law.

However, such judicial precedents are no longer recorded in the form of printed case law collections. Instead, a system is introduced where they are stored in dedicated artificial intelligence. This can be called “judicial AI.”

Generally, when AI is put into practical use, its functions can be distinguished into three categories: a reference function that extracts vast amounts of stored data as needed; an advisory function that seeks appropriate solutions for specific cases; and a decision-making function that renders judgments on particular matters.

Of these, judicial AI should possess only reference and advisory functions; it must not be granted decision-making capabilities. That is to say, judicial decisions must always be made independently by human legal professionals, and delegating decisions to AI is impermissible. In other words, the principle of “independence of the legal profession” discussed previously also extends to independence from AI.

The reference function of judicial AI is, so to speak, comparable to a case law database. It enables legal professionals to access and utilize all judicial precedents stored within the AI. This reference function also grants access rights to the general public, thereby serving the purpose of disclosing information on judicial precedents.

On the other hand, the advisory function of judicial AI allows legal professionals, when performing their duties, to consult the AI for reasonable solutions based on precedents for the case they are handling, with the AI providing the response. Since resolving cases requiring judicial decisions should generally follow precedents from similar past cases to uphold legal equality and stability, it is meaningful for legal professionals to first utilize the advisory function of judicial AI to obtain its responses.

Therefore, access to this advisory function of judicial AI is granted only to practicing legal professionals, and access by the general public is restricted in principle. However, law school students mentioned earlier may be granted access for educational purposes.

It must be reaffirmed that this advisory function does not mean the AI makes judgments in place of human legal professionals; that is, the AI has no decision-making authority.

 Therefore, since the AI's responses are merely advisory opinions and are not binding, it poses no issue whatsoever for legal professionals to render judgments differing from the AI's responses when they ultimately determine that changing established precedents is necessary.

The details regarding the functions and operation of judicial AI as described above must be clearly stipulated as provisions in a dedicated law that itself forms part of the legal profession law.

Furthermore, since AI must also be democratically managed by the Commons' Convention and protected against misuse or autonomous runaway, an Artificial Intelligence Management Center will be established under the Commons' Convention of all Zones to centrally manage all AI deployed in the public sector. Judicial AI will also be managed by this center.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 8.2.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 8: Overview of Legal Profession Law

8.2. Independence of the legal profession

Communist social governance structures move away from the classic separation of powers, consolidating all power in the Commons' Convention, the people's representative body. Therefore, judicial power cannot be separated from the the Commons' Convention, and classical concepts such as "judicial independence" are invalid.

However, it is a universal rule of the judiciary that judicial power must not be subject to external interference or be biased in favor of the interests of any particular individual, organization, or social group, and must maintain a high degree of neutrality. To realize this rule, the communist judicial system guarantees the independence of the legal profession.

"Legal independence" refers to the ability of the two types of legal profession we looked at last time, certified lawyer and notary public, to make independent decisions in the performance of their duties without external interference. Certified lawyers also serve as a source of human resources for various judicial positions, and their independence is guaranteed not only while they hold judicial positions, but also while they are engaged in private legal practice in the private sector.

For example, even a certified lawyer working in a corporation's legal department is not subject to interference from other internal organizations or departments in the performance of his or her duties. This guaranteed independence prevents corporate-wide fraud, such as in-house legal advisors attempting to legally cover up wrongdoing at the direction of management.

Furthermore, certified lawyers are not permitted to serve exclusively as legal advisors to specific individuals, companies, or other organizations. This is because such exclusive legal work would require a continuous, reciprocal relationship with the client, making it impossible to maintain the independence of the legal profession. Individuals, companies, and other organizations will have to consult and request legal advice whenever they need it.

On the other hand, law offices privately run by certified lawyers and notary public offices staffed by notaries are guaranteed the right to be free from casual searches and seizures by investigative agencies and other law enforcement agencies. Searches and seizures at such locations for investigative purposes require a special authorization warrant issued by the Tribune for Habeas Corpus.

Furthermore, legal professionals enjoy special treatment in terms of job security. While in various judicial positions, dismissal and other disciplinary action must be based on a ruling by the Commons' Convention Impeachment Court is. Even while in the private sector, disciplinary action against certified lawyers and notaries public can only be taken by their professional association.

Professional associations of the legal profession are guaranteed a high degree of autonomy by law, and their internal operations are not subject to external supervision or interference, including from the Commons' Convention. However, as quasi-public organizations, they may be subject to audits by the General Tribune of the Commons' Convention.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 8.1.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 8: Overview of Legal Profession Law

8.1. Certified Lawyer and Notary Public

The administration of justice, which applies the law and resolves various disputes, requires the existence of legal professionals who specialize in legal affairs and judicial duties. As discussed later, the use of artificial intelligence in the judicial field is being promoted, but it is none other than human legal professionals who operate this technology.

While there is no unified law defining the qualifications and authority of legal professionals, this chapter will provide an overview of the various laws that provide for the legal profession, collectively referred to as "legal profession law."

With the exception of the area of ​​impeachment justice, the nature of the legal profession under a communist judicial system that does not rely on the traditional court system is significantly different from that under capitalist societies. Since there is basically no court system, the position of judge naturally does not exist, nor does the position of prosecutor, who represents the state in court, primarily in criminal cases.

Meanwhile, while lawyer specializing in legal affairs is indispensable in the private sector, its main duties will no longer be courtroom arguments, and so it will be reclassified as a new professional occupation known as certified lawyer rather than attorney.

In addition, the equity commissioner, truth commissioner, tribune, and other judicial positions we have seen so far will be appointed from among certified lawyers through prescribed procedures. In that sense, certified lawyers will become a unified source of human resources for all judicial positions.

On the other hand, the absence of a court system will make the duties of notary public, who specialize in official certification, important. Notary public has a long history of preparing notarized deeds attesting to contracts and other legal relationships, and because it play a crucial role in preventing legal disputes before they occur, it will be given a clear new position as a second legal profession alongside certified lawyer.

Training for certified lawyer and notary public is only available through the law school, which is one of the academies for highly skilled professionals. This means that only after graduating from law school and passing the certified lawyer or notary public qualification exam can one legally practice as a legal professional.

However, to ultimately become a certified lawyer, one must first pass the initial stage of the two-stage examination. The duties of an assistant certified lawyer are limited to supporting roles within the public legal sector, as well as within the private legal sector such as legal departments of corporations and other organizations, which will be discussed later. Those assistant certified lawyers cannot independently perform duties as a legal practitioner.

After gaining a required number of years of experience as an assistant certified lawyer and passing the final exam, one becomes a full-fledged certified lawyer. This reflects the fact that in communist societies, professionals are generally trained through an apprenticeship-like process, rather than being granted lifetime status through a single exam.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.8.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

7.8. Jurisprudence justice

The jurisprudence justice is a judicial branch that conducts legal review to resolve legal interpretation disputes that arise when each branch of the judiciary applies laws and regulations. Under the Commons' Convention system, interpretation of laws and regulations is exercised by the Commons' Convention itself, which enacts the laws and regulations, thereby ensuring thorough democracy.

Within the jurisprudence justice, a distinction is made between constitutional review, which concerns the interpretation of the Commons' Convention Charter (hereinafter simply referred to as the Charter), which serves as the highest law, and general legal review, which concerns the interpretation of general laws and regulations other than the Charter. Constitutional review is carried out by the Charter Committee established in each Zonal Commons' Convention, while general legal review is carried out by the Jurisprudence Committee established also in each Zonal Commons' Convention.

Both committees have the dual role of serving as standing committees of the Commons' Convention while also exercising judicial power of legal principles. Therefore, in addition to the general delegates who are involved in proposing amendments to the Charter itself, the Charter Committee also includes special delegates (judge committee members) appointed from among lawyers who are solely responsible for constitutional review, and the Jurisprudence Committee is made up entirely of special delegates (judge committee members) who are lawyers (see my article for details on the status of special delegates).

As we saw in the previous articles judicial bodies in each judicial field may be forced to interpret laws and regulations, including the Charter, when handling the cases they are responsible for. In such cases, they have the initial authority to issue their own legal interpretation. A party dissatisfied with a decision based on that legal interpretation can request a legal appeal from one of the committees mentioned above.

The committee that receives the request reviews the validity of the initial legal interpretation and decides whether to approve it. If not, it issues a decision on its own interpretation and remands the case. The judicial body that receives the remand must then proceed with the case again, based on the committee's interpretation.

Incidentally, because the Charter regards the World Commonwealth Charter as the ultimate unified source of law, if there is a suspicion that the interpretation of the Commons' Convention Charter Committee regarding a Zonal Charter violates the World Commonwealth Charter, the dissatisfied party can file an international appeal with the World Commonwealth Charter Council.

The Council is the final and sole judicial authority regarding the interpretation of the World Commonwealth Charter. The ruling will be a universal precedent that will equally bind all Zones that make up the World Commonwealth, and the jurisprudence justice of each Zone will be obliged to conduct their decisions based on this premise.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.7.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

 

7.7. Impeachment justice system

The impeachment justice is a special judicial branch that tries corruption, abuse of power, and other misconduct in the course of official duties by public officials and quasi-public officials. It is the only exceptional judicial branch that employs a court format within the communist judicial system, which is essentially devoid of a court system.

The judicial branches that fall under the category of impeachment justice include the  Commons' Convention Impeachment Court, which tries misconduct by sitting delegates to the Commons' Convention and public officials directly appointed by the Commons' Convention ; the Special Human Rights Court, a special impeachment court that tries cases of human rights violations committed in the course of official duties by public officials and quasi-public officials; and the Corruption Tribunal for Public Officials, which tries cases of corruption committed by public officials and quasi-public officials not directly appointed by the Commons' Convention.

Of these, the Commons' Convention Impeachment Court and the Special Human Rights Court are non-permanent judicial branches established on a case-by-case basis, while the Corruption Tribunal for Public Officials is a permanent judicial branch. Although it is a judicial body, it does not have a criminal punishment system, so the main sanction imposed on those found guilty is dismissal, and depending on the circumstances, they may also be subject to a fixed or indefinite suspension or permanent deprivation of their civil rights. If a person's civil rights are suspended or revoked, they will no longer be able to hold any public office.

The Commons' Convention Impeachment Court is a special tribunal established for each Commons' Convention Impeachment Court in a Zone and in each level within a Zone. Its primary audience is Commons' Convention delegates, with a secondary audience consisting of various judicial positions directly appointed by the Commons' Convention for which status protection is strongly required to ensure neutrality. This is followed by other positions directly appointed by the Commons' Convention.

Because the Commons' Convention Impeachment Court takes the form of a trial, it begins with an indictment procedure similar to that of a criminal trial. A panel of prosecutors is appointed for this purpose, but before that, the Commons' Convention Impeachment Committee conducts a preliminary investigation and decides whether or not an impeachment trial is necessary.

Once the Impeachment Court is established, the appointed panel of prosecutors has the authority to conduct various compulsory investigations, if necessary, with a warrant from the Tribune for Habeas Corpus, but does not have the authority to detain suspects for long periods of time. Their authorities are limited to arresting suspects and questioning witnesses.

Once the panel of prosecutors has completed their investigation and decided to indict, a panel of judges is appointed. The panel of judges, consisting of a lawyer and two Commons' Convention delegates, hears and renders judgment on the charges. The defendant is guaranteed the right to submit counterarguments against the prosecutors' evidence, but appeals are not permitted against judgments and trials are finalized after one trial.

Corruption cases involving public officials and other individuals not covered by the Commons' Convention Impeachment Court are heard by the permanent Public Officials Corruption Impeachment Tribunal. As a permanent judicial body, the Tribunal's Prosecutor's Office can directly indict suspects without a preliminary investigation. Trials at the Public Officials Corruption Impeachment Tribunal are composed of a professional judge and two citizen jurors who hold Commons' Convention delegate licenses.

Special Human Rights Court, on the other hand, primarily concerns public officials and other individuals in a position to exercise coercive power over citizens. The establishment of such courts is decided by the Tribune for Habeas Corpus upon request from a citizen alleging human rights violations by a public official.

Apart from the fact that it is an emergency institution, the procedural flow of the trial is similar to that of impeachment trials for corruption of public officials. However, if the trial determines that the offender has strong antisocial tendencies and requires correctional treatment similar to that of ordinary offenders, the responsible person will be referred to the Correction and Probation Commission.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.6.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

7.6. Civil protection justice system

Civil protection justice is a judicial branch whose primary mission is to protect fundamental human rights and civil rights through a judicial position called the Tribune. However, it does not have a unified organization; instead, the General Tribunes and the specialized Tribunes appointed for each specialized field independently resolve cases under their respective jurisdictions.

Furthermore, each Tribune can exercise compulsory investigation powers and take corrective measures for problematic cases that he or she independently identify, without the request of the parties involved. This distinguishes civil protection justice as being proactive, going beyond passive dispute resolution.

Since Tribunes each perform judicial functions, they have judicial authority to summon and interview witnesses and issue orders to submit various types of evidence. Violators of these orders are subject to contempt of justice.

Furthermore, Tribunes can issue final judicial rulings or decisions. Tribunes' rulings are issued in the form of corrective orders, which can result in contempt of justice sanctions for noncompliance. However, the case may be terminated without a decision and with a non-binding recommendation for correction.

The General Tribunes are the Tribunes with the broadest authority. They are appointed by the  Commons' Convention in each Zone and are responsible for all legal authorities under the jurisdiction of their Commons' Convention, resolving complaints and disputes regarding the application of laws and regulations and law enforcement, as well as auditing compliance with laws and regulations.

The duties of the General Tribunes extend beyond protecting individual rights to the public interest of maintaining a fair society through supervision of legal authorities and other public organizations.

There will always be multiple General Tribunes appointed, but each exercises their authority independently and independently of the Commons' Convention.

Meanwhile, the most of the important specialized Tribunes is the Tribune for Habeas Corpus. This position is dedicated to habeas corpus, hence the name the Tribune for Habeas Corpus.

Its most important duties are in the field of offences justice, and involve issuing various types of compulsory investigation warrants such as arrest warrants, search and seizure warrants, and surveillance warrants for wiretapping and filming, as well as protecting the rights of suspects, and also convening the Truth Commission and requesting reconsideration, as we saw last time.

In addition, it is also responsible for issuing writs of habeas corpus and directly releasing people who are being illegally or unjustly detained, whether privately or publicly, upon request of such persons, their relatives, or third parties. The Tribunes for Habeas Corpus are appointed to each region by the Commons' Convention of a Provincial Area (or a Zonelet in the case of a federal Zone), which is a broader autonomous body that determines its jurisdiction for each area, but the Tribunes for Habeas Corpus always exercise their authority alone and independently of the Commons' Convention.

Other examples of specialized Tribunes include:

〇 The Information Tribune

This is a civil rights Tribune for handling complaints and disputes regarding the handling of personal information in organizations that accumulate personal information, both public and private, and for investigating and resolving problematic cases.

〇 The Labor Tribune

This is a civil rights Tribune specializing in the protection of basic labor rights. It also handles various cases of harassment in the workplace. However, in the case of corporations, except for cases of harassment that can be immediately filed with the Tribune, a two-stage dispute resolution system is adopted, whereby the monitor intervenes upon request of the parties and resolves cases that could not be resolved by the company's internal labor arbitration committee .

〇 The Anti-Discrimination Tribune

This is a Tribune responsible for dealing with various cases of discrimination committed by individuals or groups, providing relief to discriminated parties and eliminating discrimination.

〇 The Children's Commissioner

This is a Tribune specializing in the protection of the rights of minors. It is responsible for resolving disputes regarding children's human rights in general, including bullying. The name "Commissioner" reflects the intention that they will represent children who are not yet mature enough to assert their rights.

Furthermore, while these specialized Tribunes are appointed by the Commons' Convention of each intermediate local autonomous authorities and large cities, they exercise its powers independently and independently of the Commons' Convention.

In addition to the listed above, new Tribunes Protection, excluding the Tribune for Habeas Corpus, can be established in individual fields depending on the circumstances, and such establishment, consolidation, and abolition are left to the policy of each Commons' Convention with appointing authority. 

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.5.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

7.5. Offences justice system -part 2-

As mentioned last time, if, after the investigation is completed, the suspect expresses his or her intention to contest the alleged facts, the process of clarifying the facts will be entrusted to the Truth Commission, a judicial body that specializes solely in clarifying the facts.

The Truth Commission is a deliberative body of five people: two lawyers (one of whom is the chairperson), one expert specializing in a field other than law, and two ordinary citizen representatives who hold delegate licenses to the Commons' Convention. It is a non-permanent body that is convened whenever necessary based on a request for the Tribune for habeas corpus.

Before the Truth Commission begins its deliberations, a preliminary screening is conducted to organize the evidence. The preliminary investigators inspect the evidence sent by the investigative authorities, and organize only the competent evidence that has been confirmed to be legal, and submit it to the Truth Commission. At that time, the preliminary investigators can summon and interview the suspect, witnesses, and other related parties as necessary.

Since the Truth Commission is not a judicial system to try criminals, but a system purely for clarifying the truth of a case, there are no public prosecutors as prosecutorial professionals, and suspects do not become "defendants" who have filed charges, but remain "suspects" throughout the process.

Thus, the Truth Commission's deliberations do not become an exchange of claims and proofs between the parties as seen in criminal trials, but rather focus on reconstructing the facts based on the evidence submitted. In such cases, suspects are merely summoned and interviewed as witnesses as necessary for the Truth Commission's deliberations.

However, when summoned and interviewed by the Truth Commission, all witnesses, including suspects, may request the assistance of a legally qualified attorney to assist them in their testimony, but the attorney may not testify on their behalf.

The Truth Commission's deliberations are in principle open to the public, but in the case of juvenile cases, they are open only to the parties involved, including relatives, victims, and independent observers selected from third parties.

Once the Truth Commission has completed its deliberations, it will issue a decision setting out the facts that have been clarified. This is equivalent to a verdict in a criminal trial, but rather than being presented in the form of a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict, it is presented descriptively in the form of a report detailing the truth of the case. Therefore, if it cannot be definitively proven that the suspect is the real perpetrator, he or she will not be found "not guilty" but will instead be described as an unknown perpetrator.

Any suspect who is dissatisfied with the Truth Commission's decision may request a new deliberation from the Tribune for Habeas Corpus. In this case, a second deliberation will be held by members entirely separate from the first Truth Commission, and regardless of the conclusion of that hearing, a third trial cannot be requested.

If the Truth Commission's decision finding the suspect to be the true perpetrator is finalized, the case will then be referred to the Correction and Probation Commission, which decides on the treatment of offenders.

This Commission is a permanent institution composed only of experts in correction and probation, and decides on the most appropriate treatment after scientifically examining the details of the perpetrator's offence, offence history, personality traits, and mental and physical medical history. In the case of juvenile cases, a special review is conducted by the Juvenile Subcommittee of the Correction and Probation Commission, which is composed of experts on juvenile issues.

The Correction and Probation Commission's deliberations are held in private, but the respondent offender may have a lawyer or other person with specialized knowledge of correction and probation assist them as an attendant.

A party who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Correction and Probation Commission may request an appeal review by the Central Board of the Correction and Probation commission, which is the appellate board for the Correction and Probation Commission, but regardless of the conclusion of the Central Board, they cannot request a third trial.

Even after the decision has been finalized, the Correction and Probation Commission will be tasked with following up on the offender from the start of treatment to its completion, and will have the authority to renew treatment terms as well as the authority to supervise and correct the status of treatment implementation. This includes the authority to take necessary supervisory and corrective measures in response to complaints from offenders while treatment is being carried out.

To that extent, the Correction and Probation Commission can be said to be a unique judicial institution with a mission spanning two judicial areas: offences justice and civil protection justice, which is responsible for protecting human rights during the treatment implementation process.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.4.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

7.4. Offences justice system -part 1-

Offences justice system  refers to the field of justice system that aims to clarify illegal acts and take action against those who commit them. It is equivalent to criminal justice in capitalist society, but it is not called "criminal" because communist law does not have a penal system.

Needless to say, the starting point for offences justice  is the clarification of the facts of the offence, but while in the criminal justice process, the clarification of the facts and punishment are usually carried out together in the form of a criminal trial, in offences justice the process of clarifying the facts and the treatment of the offender based on them are clearly distinguished and completely separate. This is because the two processes are essentially completely different.

The beginning of uncovering the facts of an offence is a formal investigation by an investigative agency. Communist investigations are carried out by a dedicated investigative agency, not the police. With the abolition of the monetary economy, there is no class difference between rich and poor, and public safety would be maintained at an extremely stable level in a communist society, so there is no need for a powerful security agency such as the police, and in fact it does not exist (see my article).

If necessary to pursue an investigation, investigative agencies can request the issuance of an arrest warrant or search and seizure warrant from the Tribune for Habeas Corpus, a type of judicial position tasked with protecting the personal safety of citizens, and conduct a compulsory investigation. On the other hand, the Civil Patrollers, who are quasi-public servants whose main task is offence prevention, can also make arrests in the act of committing an offence without a warrant.

A suspect who is taken into custody is immediately summoned to habeas corpus for a public hearing. If it is determined as a result that continued detention is no longer necessary, the Tribune for Habeas Corpus must order the release of the suspect.

Incidentally, if a body is discovered that has died from an unnatural cause other than obvious illness, an autopsy is carried out by the coroner, a public professional independent of the investigative agency. The autopsy results are finally confirmed after a public hearing by a inquest presided over by the Tribune for Habeas Corpus.

Once the investigation is completed, the evidence collected by the investigative agency is temporarily sent to the tribune for Habeas Corpus. The tribune for Habeas Corpus will summon the suspect for questioning again, and if the suspect fully admits to the alleged facts, the case will be sent to the Correction and Probation Commission, which decides how to treat the offender. If the suspect denies all or part of the alleged facts, it will decide to convene the Truth Commission to clarify the facts.

If we compare this with traditional criminal justice, the procedure of indictment by a public prosecutor, which has been standard in the criminal justice process since the Napoleonic Codes after the French Revolution, does not exist in communist criminal justice, and as mentioned above, it is a system in which the processes of investigation, fact-finding, and treatment are organically linked through the Tribune for Habeas Corpus.

Furthermore, minor offenses and juvenile delinquency that do not require any measure beyond a warning are dealt with by the Civil Patrollers issuing official written warnings as part of offence prevention activities, and formal investigations are omitted.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.3.

 👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

7.3. Economic justice system

Economic justice system refers to the area of ​​justice system that aims to resolve disputes over economic law. There are four areas of economic law: economic planning law, business organization law, labor relations law, and land management law, which is included in economic law in the broadest sense. The content and method of handling disputes vary depending on each area.

Among these, there is little room for disputes to arise regarding the Economic Planning Law. This is because economic plan is norm that are jointly formulated by the business organizations that are the subject of the plan through the Economic Planning Conference (hereinafter simply referred to as the "Planning Conference"). However, if a business organization violates the plan, the Planning Conference can request the suspension of production activities that violate the plan and sanctions against the officials and employees involved.

Such countermeasures and sanctions against violations of the plan are implemented through the Hearing Board which are established within the Planning Conference. The Hearing Board is an independent subsidiary body whose members are neutrally selected and whose decisions cannot be influenced by the Planning Conference, and the accused party is guaranteed an opportunity to defend and refute.

With regard to business organization law, disputes over management decisions between management bodies and worker representative bodies or cooperative members are anticipated. These are handled internally by granting quasi-judicial functions such as injunctions to auditing bodies. This is not an official judicial system, but rather a system that should be called intra-company justice, in which disputes are handled autonomously within the company.

Complex disputes that cannot be handled by auditing bodies are handled by a neutral corporate dispute arbitration committee made up of external lawyers, except in the following cases of labor disputes.

Labor disputes are expected to occur in relation to labor relations laws. However, since labor-management conflicts are sublimated in communist enterprises, serious labor disputes are not usually expected, but individual disputes over working conditions, etc. may arise between workers and their companies.

Such labor disputes are first handled by a labor arbitration committee, a third-party organization within the company. This is an arbitration body made up of lawyers with no vested interest in the company, and is also a type of intra-company justice system.

All enterprises, except for small-scale cooperative labor groups, are required to have a permanent labor arbitration committee, and labor disputes must first be arbitrated by the labor arbitration committee within the company, except for harassment cases in which a jump lawsuit to the Labor Tribune is permitted.

In most cases, the dispute is resolved at this stage, but if it is not resolved, it is left to public resolution by filing a lawsuit with the Labor Tribune. This is part of the civil protection justice system, which resolves labor disputes professionally. As will be explained again later, the decision of Labor Tribune is final.

The land management law, which has an intermediate position between civiv law and economic law, does not normally allow for disputes over land between private individuals, let alone between private individuals and public corporations. This is because in communism, land is an ownerless natural property that does not belong to any person, and each Zone manages it through a land management agency (hereinafter referred to as the "management agency").

However, private individuals can own buildings on land that are real estate for a specified purpose with the permission of the management agency, and can also transfer land use rights with the permission of the management agency However, if a dispute arises between a private individual and a management agency over such land use rights, it is resolved by the Land Use Rights Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Tribunal"), an independent subsidiary of the management agency.

The Land Tribunal is a decision-making body made up of lawyers, and the management agency and the opposing party can each present evidence, present their arguments, and fight, but the decision of the Land Tribune is final.

In addition, when a private individual occupies a specific parcel of land without the permission of the management agency, this constitutes illegal occupation, and in severe cases where violent or fraudulent means are used, the individual may be charged with violating the land management act and may be subject to offence proceedings as described in the next section 4.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.2.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

7.2. Civic justice system

Civic justice system refers to the area of ​​justice system that aims to resolve disputes over civic law. Civil law is composed of citizenship law and property rights law. The latter property rights law portion contains content equivalent to civil law in capitalist societies, and serves as the legal standard for resolving disputes over rights and obligations between private individuals.

However, as has been mentioned many times, in a communist society without a monetary economy, disputes over money do not arise in the first place, so most disputes can be resolved through negotiations between private individuals.

However, disputes that cannot be resolved through negotiations need to be resolved publicly by the judiciary. Arbitration by the Equity Commissioner is prepared as a judicial procedure to publicly resolve such civic law disputes.

This is similar to the settlement under the current judicial system, but there is a major difference in that settlement is a means to avoid a definitive judgment, whereas with the Equity Commissioner's arbitration, all cases are resolved through arbitration, without any definitive judgment in the first place. In civic law disputes involving non-monetary disputes, arbitration is more appropriate than adjudication.

The arbitration procedure by the Equity Commissioner is initiated by the petition of one or all of the parties to the dispute, and the parties present evidence and present their respective arguments. In that sense, it has elements similar to a trial.

The Equity Commissioner examines the arguments of the parties and the evidence on which they are based, and presents an appropriate arbitration proposal from a neutral standpoint. The arbitration ends when all parties accept the proposal. As long as there is a party that does not accept the proposal, arbitration continues, and there may be several arbitration proposals.

The arbitration by the Equity Commissioner has final effect, and a final arbitration proposal cannot be overturned unless new evidence is found that would change the arbitration result. However, if new evidence is found that would change the arbitration result, re-arbitration may be conducted at the request of a party.

The provisions regarding the arbitration procedure by the Equity Commissioner are included in the civic law, and a separate law such as the civil procedure code is not enacted.

In contrast to the above, the citizenship law portion of the civic law has a strong public law character and concerns rights and obligations that are not likely to become the subject of disputes between private individuals, and is therefore not subject to the arbitration procedures of the Equity Commissioner. If a dispute does arise in this area, it will be subject to civil protection justice as a human rights relief case, which we will look at later. 

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 7.1.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 7: The System of Litigation Law

7.1. Communist Litigation Laws

In capitalist society, the ultimate embodiment of the monetary economy, disputes and crimes over money occur constantly, so a strong judicial system is essential to quickly and compulsorily adjudicate disputes in a broad sense, including crimes. This is usually done through an authoritarian institution called the court, and various procedural laws exist that define the details of the trial procedure.

In contrast, in a communist society where the monetary economy is abolished, disputes and crimes over money will naturally disappear. However, if conflicts are an inevitable part of human society, the need for judicial power to publicly handle the disputes that still inevitably arise will not disappear.

However, in that society, the necessity for judicial trials is no longer necessary, and therefore there is no need for a system of courts that authoritatively adjudicates lawsuits. A more flexible and non-authoritarian judicial procedure for resolving communist disputes is sufficient, and such a procedure is also more effective for resolving them. To get a rough idea of ​​these communist judicial procedures, one may recall that they are similar to the various systems of non-contentious procedures and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures that are implemented as a supplement under the current judicial system.

Laws that serve as the basis for judicial procedures that do not rely on the formula "judicial proceedings = trials" can be collectively called "litigation law," but of course this is not a single law; they are broadly categorized by type of dispute, with individual procedural laws established for each.

To list them, they can be broadly divided into six areas: civic justice, which deals with civic law disputes; economic justice, which deals with economic law disputes; offences justice, which deals with the clarification and treatment illegal acts; civil protection justice, which deals with human rights relief and complaints against public authorities; impeachment justice, which deals with impeachment cases of public officials; and jurisprudence justice, which deals with the interpretation of laws and regulations, including constitutional review to examine violations of the Charter of the Commons' Convention. In the following sections, we will look at each of these six judicial areas individually.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 6.6.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 6: The System of Offences Law

6.6. Juvenile treatment systems

Communist offences law, which does not have a penal system, relativizes the distinction between treatment for adults and treatment for juveniles, so there is no need to prepare a separate juvenile law.

However, the extreme policy of treating adults and juveniles completely equally is not adopted, and appropriate exceptions are made for the treatment of juveniles, taking into account the characteristics of juveniles who are still developing.

The basic principle in juvenile treatment is to respect the plasticity (flexibility) that preserves the possibility of personal growth because they are minors. This is not denied as an idea even in the juvenile law, which is based on the penal system, but in the juvenile law, which is established as an exception to the penal system, the more serious the crime, the greater the desire to punish the juvenile offender, and the idea of ​​plasticity tends to be pushed aside.

In contrast, in communist juvenile treatment, respect for plasticity is a guiding principle that is implemented without exception. For this reason, the concept of a "juvenile" is not defined formally by the legal age of adulthood, but is determined according to the biological and medical stage of development.

Therefore, for example, a person who has reached the legal age of adulthood but is considered to be a minor in terms of their developmental stage due to a developmental disorder or intellectual disability will be recognized and treated as a "juvenile."

Conversely, a person who is a minor in terms of the law but is judged to be at a developmental stage equivalent to that of an adult - the closer a minor is to the legal age of adulthood, the more likely they are to be recognized as such - will be recognized and treated as an "adult."

With the concept of juveniles thus made flexible, the treatment given to offenders who are recognized as juveniles is of two types: "educational observation" and "transfer to a correctional school."

"Educational observation" is a treatment that could be considered a juvenile version of probation for juveniles with low antisocial tendencies, but it places more emphasis on education than adult probation.

"Transfer to a correctional school" is a type of restrictive treatment aimed at juveniles with strong antisocial tendencies who are difficult to rehabilitate through "educational observation," but unlike adult correctional facilities, it allows for correction to go hand in hand with academics.

Furthermore, juveniles who are referred to custody for specific problematic behavior (delinquency) that does not constitute a serious offence, or juveniles who have committed a minor first offence such as shoplifting, are removed from the juvenile treatment route and sent directly to the appropriate juvenile welfare institution for welfare protection measures.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 6.5.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 6: The System of Offences Law

6.5. Various correctional treatment systems -part 2-

As mentioned in the previous article, offenders with severe anti-social tendencies who are in great need of correction are given correctional treatment in a correctional facility. There are various policy possibilities for classifying this correctional treatment, but the more simple the treatment system is and the more consideration it gives to human rights, the better.

In this respect, correctional treatment under communist offences law is different from criminal punishment in that it is not a punishment proportional to the severity of the crime, and therefore the period is not presented in numerical terms from the beginning, such as 1 year, 10 years, etc.

However, from a human rights perspective, it is not appropriate to make all treatment indefinite, so a "renewable term system" in which a predetermined legal period is used as one unit = term, and terms are renewed according to the progress of correction seems to be more appropriate.

Here, a term means one unit of a correctional program with a period set in advance by law. The basic unit of term is divided into three ranks, from type 1 to type 3, depending on the subject's level of correctional need, and the length of each term increases in increments of two years with each rank increase.

For example, the term for the type 1 correctional treatment is one year, the term for the type 2 correctional treatment is three years, and the maximum term for the type 3 correctional treatment is five years. These terms will be renewed in line with progress of correction.

In addition to these subclassifications according to the degree of need for correction, there are also further classifications based on whether psychiatric factors such as mental illness are found to have been the cause of the individual offences.

If, as a result of the assessment, the treatment given when these are not found is called the A treatment, and the treatment given when these are found is called the B treatment, the most detailed classification would be to separate each of the types of correctional treatment listed above into the A and the B treatment.

Assuming that even the renewed maximum correctional treatment does not result in progress to a level where rehabilitation is possible, life custodial confinement, which holds a target for life, marks the limit of correctional treatment, but as this is different from a punishment such as life imprisonment, all corrective efforts are not abandoned, and there is still room for social rehabilitation once correction has progressed.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 6.4.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 6: The System of Offences Law

6.4. Various correctional treatment systems -part 1-

Instead of having a penal system, communist criminal law provides various treatment systems to promote the correction and rehabilitation of offenders. These can be classified from several perspectives, but first of all, there is a distinction between treatment of persons and treatment of objects, depending on whether the target is a person or an object.

Of these, treatment of objects is only confiscation. Confiscation is a treatment that encourages rehabilitation by giving a certain admonition by taking away illegally obtained items, and confiscation is sufficient for simple theft such as shoplifting and possession of prohibited items. In addition, monetary deprivation equivalent to a fine cannot exist in a communist society where the monetary economy is abolished.

All types of treatment other than confiscation are treatment of persons. If we classify them from the perspective of the place where the treatment is carried out, they can be divided into restrictive treatment carried out in correctional facilities and non-restrictive treatment carried out in the general society. The selection depends on the need for correction, that is, the degree of progression of antisocial tendencies.

Most offenders do not have very advanced antisocial tendencies and would be eligible for non-custodial treatment. Probation is a typical example of non-custodial treatment, but community service work under probation can also be included.

Another exceptional non-custodial treatment is medical supervision, where offenders who have mental illness but do not have advanced antisocial tendencies are kept under observation while being required to undergo treatment.

In contrast, some people who need intensive correction in correctional facilities are subject to restrictive treatment. This is similar in appearance to the current imprisonment system, but since it is "treatment" and not "punishment," it is simply called "correctional treatment."

Such correctional treatment can be further subdivided depending on the characteristics of the target, such as antisocial tendencies and whether or not they have a mental illness, but this will be discussed in the next article.

By the way, there may be debate as to whether we should have a system of lethal measure as the ultimate mean for incorrigibles who cannot be corrected through normal correctional treatment. Since it is nearly impossible to scientifically or medically prove "incorrigibility," and it is difficult to operate such a system as a fair and error-free measure, the system of lethal measure is ruled out. ＊

However, for those who are found to have antisocial tendencies that are extremely difficult to correct, correctional treatment will be terminated and a system of lifelong detention will be provided in which they will be detained for life for the sake of social defense; however, as correctional science, which researches and develops correctional treatment techniques, advances, it is likely that these individuals will become extremely rare.

＊However, lethal measure shall be given to those who have systematically and led or initiated the commission of crimes against humanity such as genocide; this is an extermination measure carried out based on transnational world law with the aim of thoroughly preventing the recurrence of crimes against humanity (see again footnote in Chapter 6 (1)).

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 6.3.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 6: The System of Offences Law 

6.3. Classification of offences

In classical criminal law, crimes are often classified according to the legal interests that are violated, such as life, body, or property, but this can also be said to be a system that corresponds to the individual correspondence between crimes and punishments that is established in advance.

However, in communist offences law, which determines treatment according to the degree of need for correction, this formal classification method based on the legal interests that are violated is not adopted. Instead, a classification based on the social nature of the offences is adopted.

As such a classification, four types can be distinguished: economic offences, offences related to daily life, offences against the person, and political offences.

Economic offences are offenses that disrupt economic order, and typical examples include production and distribution activities that violate the economic plans that are the pillars of the communist economy, and the illegal occupation of lands that become bona vacantia (ownerless) in a communist society.

Since such economic offences are often committed by organized groups, punitive measures such as forced dissolution or suspension of operations may be imposed on the organizations themselves, in addition to individual perpetrators.

Offences related to daily life are the ones that violate the peace of civic lives, and include a wide range of offences, including property offences such as theft, as well as acts that violate privacy such as trespassing, wiretapping, and voyeurism. Numerically, this category comprises the largest number of offences.

However, many offences that fall into this category are only mildly antisocial, so overall the majority of cases will require only protective treatment such as probation.

Offences against the person are the ones that violate a person's life or body, and include assault, injury, murder, and sexual offences.

In terms of the pathology of the offender, these offences are the most serious and include difficult-to-treat cases in which a severe antisocial personality trait is recognized, so they will likely occupy a central position in correctional treatment.

Political offences are special offences that undermine the political stability of society, such as insurrection or violent sabotage. As the means by which they are committed are any of the three offences listed above, they usually constitute a complex offence.

Offenders in this category often harbor specific ideologies, beliefs, or faith, but they are not guaranteed the special status of so-called "prisoner of conscience," and are given correctional treatment as complex offenders.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 6.2.

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 6: The System of Offences Law 

6.2. The Essence of the offence

Under the communist offences law, an offence is not understood as an immoral act that goes against morality, but as an antisocial act that disrupts the order of the community. In that sense, the punishment given to the offender does not have the connotation of moral condemnation, and such condemnation and treatment are essentially separate.

Looking more closely at the essence of an offence, it is understood as a material-mind complex consisting of the physical result of the violation of a legal interest and the offender's intentional act. In this respect, the communist understanding of offences is not biased towards either materialistic act-consequentialism or idealistic actor-psychologism.

In this way, the basic type of offence is an intentional act that causes specific physical damage, and negligent acts are generally not considered to be offences, but gross negligence, which is a severe form of negligence, and professional negligence by professionals who are required to exercise a high degree of care, are perceived as offences because they are second only to intentional acts in their antisocial nature.

On the other hand, defensive counterattacks, such as those typified by self-defense, are natural biological reactions and therefore do not constitute illegal offences in the first place. The same can be said of invasive acts performed properly as legitimate professional acts, such as a doctor's surgical operation. Far from being anti-social, such legitimate professional acts are actually socially beneficial.

The  illegal offences referred to here are to be distinguished from administrative violations. Administrative violations are acts that violate administrative regulatory regulations, and their legal effect is administrative penalties such as the revocation of certain qualifications/licenses or the suspension/revocation of civil rights, not corrective treatment. A typical example is a violation of road traffic laws.

Incidentally, traditional penal systems are embedded with the thesis of responsibility, symbolized by the slogan "No punishment without responsibility." In other words, punishment is considered to be a legal reaction imposed on the basis of the perpetrator's responsibility for past criminal acts.

As a result, those who are mentally incompetent at the time of the crime cannot be held responsible for their crimes, and are treated as legally innocent, which often causes social ripples.

Even in communist offences laws, "responsibility" is not denied, but it is not retrospective responsibility for past actions, but prospective responsibility in which the offender should improve and rehabilitate himself/herself for the future.

Therefore, there is no such thing as no corrective treatment due to incompetence, and even if the influence of mental illness, etc. is recognized as being strongly related to the offence at the time of it, they are not exempt from corrective treatment at all. As will be discussed later, in such cases, therapeutic treatment incorporating psychiatric treatment programs is given. 

However, when it is determined that the mental or intellectual disability of an offender is severe and difficult to cure, and therefore that corrective treatment cannot be expected to have any real effect, the offender may be exempted from treatment due to the impossibility of treatment and may be subject to medical and welfare protection measures, but this would be a highly exceptional case.

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 6.1

👉The table of contents so far is here.

Chapter 6: The System of Offences Law 

6.1. From Criminal Law to Offences Law

A true communist society would not have a penal system. Punishment is the ultimate right-denial measure imposed by state power, which only exists on the premise of state sovereignty, and in a communist society where the state is abolished, it would lose its basis for existence.

On the other hand, if there is a system that professes to be communist but retains the penal system in its entirety, it would not be a true communist society, but would remain a nominal communist society that still retains the framework of the state.

However, the absence of a penal system, of course, does not mean that the solution to crimes will be left to extralegal lynchings or revenge. Instead, a new system will be introduced to correct and rehabilitate criminals instead of punishment.

In this respect, it can be considered that the path of progress from retributive punishment to educational penal punishment, which has already appeared within the framework of the reformist penal system, will be taken a step further, removing the framework of punishment and transforming it into a treatment whose sole purpose is the correction and rehabilitation of criminals.

However, when it comes to "educational punishment," the nature of punishment will still remain, but when it is transformed into treatment whose sole purpose is the correction and rehabilitation of criminals, crimes will no longer be understood as moral "sins" but as serious violations that require special treatment. 

Therefore, in a communist society, there is no "criminal code" that defines crimes and punishments, and a code of law called the "offences code" corresponds to the "criminal code" in the sense that it is a law that defines violations and the treatment for those who commit specific offences. The "offences code" is a law that predetermines what acts constitute violations and prescribes the treatment that can be selected for them and the content of such treatment.

This principle of Nulla poena sine lege scripta (Latin for "no penalty without written law"), is not very different from traditional criminal law under continental law system. However, since the treatment of a offence is determined not by the severity of the legal interest violated by it, but by the degree to which the perpetrator needs to be corrected, the treatment of each offence does not correspond individually in advance. To that extent, the by-the-book formal statutory principle is rejected. 

On the other hand, unlike common law criminal offences under Anglo-American law, it is not permitted under communist law to create new criminal offences through judicial precedents without written laws. In order to ensure predictability, the prior determination of offences by written laws that will be subject to corrective treatment is a fundamental principle of communist offences law.

Note: Ultimately, the only legal crimes that remain - the last crimes, so to speak - are crimes against humanity, such as genocide. However, these types of crimes are dealt with internationally as crimes under international law (treaties) (see my article).

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.