3 ms·

It depends on where you are in the world, but in most places in the civilized world, criminal law does not work that way. If something is illegal, we cannot sig

It depends on where you are in the world, but in most places in the civilized world, criminal law does not work that way. If something is illegal, we cannot sign a contract that says it's ok between you and me, and magically make it legal. E.g. if I kill someone, the state will prosecute me for murder, regardless of whether or not that guy and I signed a contract that said it was fine. If impersonating someone is a criminal offense in a particular jurisdiction, then -- assuming that jurisdiction has a sane criminal code -- there is no way to make it legal through a contract. Edit: there are good reasons why this is in place, the most relevant of which is that it provides protection against abuses. Otherwise, we'd have things like employers that would still be at liberty to use lashing and beating as disciplinary action against employees who don't really have a choice about signing a contract or not.

vidarh 11y ago
The point is that the specific criteria defining what is criminal can include whether or not there is consent. A contract can establish consent. E.g. if I go into your house without permission and take stuff, then it is theft. If I have a contract saying that I have permission to go into your house and take stuff, then it is not. I have not contracted my away from something illegal. The contract has established consent, which meant the criteria that otherwise would have made my actions criminal are not fulfilled. > If impersonating someone is a criminal offense in a particular jurisdiction, then -- assuming that jurisdiction has a sane criminal code -- there is no way to make it legal through a contract. That depends whether or not the criteria that needs to be met for it to be a crime requires lack of consent. If it requires lack of consent, then a contract can document that the consent has been given. All jurisdictions I'm aware of (not a lawyer) have the concept of agents that may act on your behalf with consent. To what extent such agents can act using your name (with consent) vs. using their own name but on your behalf, varies greatly. E.g. some places your agents (say a PA) will sign letters "[agents name] for and on behalf of [your name]" or similar, while other places they will use a signature stamp with your signature, or do "p.p. [their signature] [your printed name]" (the p.p. stands for "per procurationem"). Many other variations are in use, and how obvious signs there are that a document was not personally signed by the person the letter is from varies greatly.
- notalaser 11y ago
  Yes, but consent is not something that can be universally declared in a credible manner. There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to them. For instance, having sex with someone below the age of consent is illegal even if they have consented to it (the idea being, of course, that they may be coerced into expressing that consent). > All jurisdictions I'm aware of (not a lawyer) have the concept of agents that may act on your behalf with consent. To what extent such agents can act using your name (with consent) vs. using their own name but on your behalf, varies greatly. They do, but things are not as simple as "can act on your behalf with consent". Around here, for instance (but I'm in Europe), they can only act on your behalf if: a) You have explicitly given them consent to act on your behalf in that specific situation (i.e. you told them "you can go to the bank on this date and cash in this much in my name"), or if you have explicitly given them consent to act on your behalf with that particular party and for a specified period of time (i.e. you can go to this bank and do anything in my name for this period of time), and b) The contract that states this has been validated by a notary and recorded by authorities, and c) The party that they are acting on your behalf with knows about this, has been explicitly informed that they are acting on your behalf, and agrees to work with them under these conditions. If they fail to do any of these, it's flat-out illegal. I think this is covered under civil law here, though, so it can be voided by a contract -- but the idea is that consent is not as trivial as signing a sheet of paper that says yeah, do whatever you want. It's bound by specific terms, too, the breach of which makes the whole thing illegal, even if on the whole the operation was consensual (i.e. if an agent, with my consent, goes to the bank to cash in a deposit, but does not explicitly inform the cashier that they are acting on my behalf so that they record the transaction accordingly (i.e. done by X on behalf of NotALaser), he's breaking the law). (Edit: or, to make it clearer: he can represent me, but he cannot claim he's me. He has to explicitly inform the other party that he's acting on my behalf, declare his identity and present the proper authorization etc.)
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to them. Yes, I pointed that out. > They do, but things are not as simple as "can act on your behalf with consent" I believe that was exactly the point I was making. > Around here, for instance (but I'm in Europe), they can only act on your behalf if: While I'm sure you're right for your location, "Europe" encompasses not only ~50 distinct legal systems, but also half a dozen or so distinct legal traditions (with e.g. Common law, Germanic law, Napoleonic law and Roman law as the biggest traditions), which is one of the reasons I specifically pointed out that it varies greatly how clear one has to be about whether or not something is signed by an agent. Worldwide it gets even more complicated. To be very clear: I agree that some places the agent will need to specifically sign and state their own name and specify they are acting as an agent. Exactly in line with the examples I gave, a couple of which are from Europe. In others they can stamp or use a machine to "fake" the name of the person they are acting on behalf of -- as long as they have that persons consent to do so. In the US we have perhaps one of the most famous examples of the latter: The office of the US President frequently uses an Autopen [1] to sign documents on behalf of the president, such as autographs or letters to constituents. The purpose of it is to duplicate the signature precisely, making actual pen strokes in order to make the signature seem more authentic than e.g. the use of a stamp or seal. But US presidents have used it for much more important things than letters and autographs, including several times that Obama has had staffers use an Autopen to sign laws on his behalf. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen
_asummers 11y ago
If Alice and Bob enter into a contract that says Alice will kill Carol for $1m, can Bob sue her for breach of contract if she does not? Or does the legality of the contract supercede the body of the contract such that the contract is void?
- Zak 11y ago
  The court will not enforce the contract against Bob because it is illegal to do the act specified by the contract. Furthermore, Alice and Bob could both be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder.
SilasX 11y ago
The parent's point was that obviously some rights (even on criminal matters) are obviously waivable in this manner. Normally, I can't take your stuff or enter your property, but if you make a contract granting me the right to take (specific things among) your stuff or enter your property in specific cases, that's enforceable. Can you similarly sign away your right not to be murdered similarly? To be impersonated? Maybe not, but it depends on the circumstances, and isn't simply a matter of "that's illegal so you can't sign it away".
jwiechers 11y ago
> It depends on where you are in the world, but in most places in the civilized world, criminal law does not work that way. I'm sorry, but: no. "In most places in the civilised world" there are these guys called hairdressers and they could routinely - technically - be charged with committing assault causing bodily harm. It's a pretty clear cut (sorry) case that gets trotted out in most any first year criminal law class. The reason they aren't charged is simple: you consent to that bodily harm being inflicted upon you. There are variously defined limits to your ability to consent, especially with regard to duress or excessive harm, but your reasoning is otherwise completely incorrect.

vidarh 11y ago

The point is that the specific criteria defining what is criminal can include whether or not there is consent. A contract can establish consent. E.g. if I go into your house without permission and take stuff, then it is theft. If I have a contract saying that I have permission to go into your house and take stuff, then it is not. I have not contracted my away from something illegal. The contract has established consent, which meant the criteria that otherwise would have made my actions criminal are not fulfilled. > If impersonating someone is a criminal offense in a particular jurisdiction, then -- assuming that jurisdiction has a sane criminal code -- there is no way to make it legal through a contract. That depends whether or not the criteria that needs to be met for it to be a crime requires lack of consent. If it requires lack of consent, then a contract can document that the consent has been given. All jurisdictions I'm aware of (not a lawyer) have the concept of agents that may act on your behalf with consent. To what extent such agents can act using your name (with consent) vs. using their own name but on your behalf, varies greatly. E.g. some places your agents (say a PA) will sign letters "[agents name] for and on behalf of [your name]" or similar, while other places they will use a signature stamp with your signature, or do "p.p. [their signature] [your printed name]" (the p.p. stands for "per procurationem"). Many other variations are in use, and how obvious signs there are that a document was not personally signed by the person the letter is from varies greatly.

notalaser 11y ago
Yes, but consent is not something that can be universally declared in a credible manner. There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to them. For instance, having sex with someone below the age of consent is illegal even if they have consented to it (the idea being, of course, that they may be coerced into expressing that consent). > All jurisdictions I'm aware of (not a lawyer) have the concept of agents that may act on your behalf with consent. To what extent such agents can act using your name (with consent) vs. using their own name but on your behalf, varies greatly. They do, but things are not as simple as "can act on your behalf with consent". Around here, for instance (but I'm in Europe), they can only act on your behalf if: a) You have explicitly given them consent to act on your behalf in that specific situation (i.e. you told them "you can go to the bank on this date and cash in this much in my name"), or if you have explicitly given them consent to act on your behalf with that particular party and for a specified period of time (i.e. you can go to this bank and do anything in my name for this period of time), and b) The contract that states this has been validated by a notary and recorded by authorities, and c) The party that they are acting on your behalf with knows about this, has been explicitly informed that they are acting on your behalf, and agrees to work with them under these conditions. If they fail to do any of these, it's flat-out illegal. I think this is covered under civil law here, though, so it can be voided by a contract -- but the idea is that consent is not as trivial as signing a sheet of paper that says yeah, do whatever you want. It's bound by specific terms, too, the breach of which makes the whole thing illegal, even if on the whole the operation was consensual (i.e. if an agent, with my consent, goes to the bank to cash in a deposit, but does not explicitly inform the cashier that they are acting on my behalf so that they record the transaction accordingly (i.e. done by X on behalf of NotALaser), he's breaking the law). (Edit: or, to make it clearer: he can represent me, but he cannot claim he's me. He has to explicitly inform the other party that he's acting on my behalf, declare his identity and present the proper authorization etc.)
- vidarh 11y ago
  > There are things that remain illegal even after you have consented to them. Yes, I pointed that out. > They do, but things are not as simple as "can act on your behalf with consent" I believe that was exactly the point I was making. > Around here, for instance (but I'm in Europe), they can only act on your behalf if: While I'm sure you're right for your location, "Europe" encompasses not only ~50 distinct legal systems, but also half a dozen or so distinct legal traditions (with e.g. Common law, Germanic law, Napoleonic law and Roman law as the biggest traditions), which is one of the reasons I specifically pointed out that it varies greatly how clear one has to be about whether or not something is signed by an agent. Worldwide it gets even more complicated. To be very clear: I agree that some places the agent will need to specifically sign and state their own name and specify they are acting as an agent. Exactly in line with the examples I gave, a couple of which are from Europe. In others they can stamp or use a machine to "fake" the name of the person they are acting on behalf of -- as long as they have that persons consent to do so. In the US we have perhaps one of the most famous examples of the latter: The office of the US President frequently uses an Autopen [1] to sign documents on behalf of the president, such as autographs or letters to constituents. The purpose of it is to duplicate the signature precisely, making actual pen strokes in order to make the signature seem more authentic than e.g. the use of a stamp or seal. But US presidents have used it for much more important things than letters and autographs, including several times that Obama has had staffers use an Autopen to sign laws on his behalf. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopen

_asummers 11y ago

If Alice and Bob enter into a contract that says Alice will kill Carol for $1m, can Bob sue her for breach of contract if she does not? Or does the legality of the contract supercede the body of the contract such that the contract is void?

Zak 11y ago
The court will not enforce the contract against Bob because it is illegal to do the act specified by the contract. Furthermore, Alice and Bob could both be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder.

SilasX 11y ago

The parent's point was that obviously some rights (even on criminal matters) are obviously waivable in this manner. Normally, I can't take your stuff or enter your property, but if you make a contract granting me the right to take (specific things among) your stuff or enter your property in specific cases, that's enforceable. Can you similarly sign away your right not to be murdered similarly? To be impersonated? Maybe not, but it depends on the circumstances, and isn't simply a matter of "that's illegal so you can't sign it away".

jwiechers 11y ago

> It depends on where you are in the world, but in most places in the civilized world, criminal law does not work that way. I'm sorry, but: no. "In most places in the civilised world" there are these guys called hairdressers and they could routinely - technically - be charged with committing assault causing bodily harm. It's a pretty clear cut (sorry) case that gets trotted out in most any first year criminal law class. The reason they aren't charged is simple: you consent to that bodily harm being inflicted upon you. There are variously defined limits to your ability to consent, especially with regard to duress or excessive harm, but your reasoning is otherwise completely incorrect.