# Aithos Criminal Procedure & Predictive Intervention Safeguards Act v0.1 - Code: `P0-04` - Wave: `1` - Slug: `criminal-procedure-predictive-intervention` ## Full Legal Text (AI Edition) This file shares the same public legal content as the English Human reader. Purpose Establish criminal due process, evidence burdens, judicial review, and strict safeguards for preventive / predictive interventions, including NCI and closed-loop neural regulation. PART I｜CORE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS 1. Presumption of innocence No person is treated as criminally guilty before lawful adjudication. 2. Burden on the state The state bears the burden to prove charged past conduct and the legal basis for coercive measures. A person does not bear the ordinary burden to prove that a future offence will not occur. 3. Right to notice and reasons Any coercive criminal or preventive order must disclose: - legal basis - factual basis - evidence class - model/tool use - duration - review date - appeal route 4. Counsel / representation Right to independent counsel and technical assistance where model, biometric, neurodata, simulation, or provenance evidence is material. 5. Adversarial hearing The affected person may challenge: - facts - model assumptions - calibration - data quality - scope - false positives - causal relevance - alternative measures PART II｜EVIDENCE & MODEL DISCLOSURE 6. Evidence hierarchy Separate: - direct observation - authenticated record - expert inference - model forecast - behavioral pattern - affect inference - group-statistical evidence 7. Predictive model is not proof of future act A forecast may support investigation or risk management only within statutory limits. It does not prove that a future offence will occur. 8. Objective/verifiable facts requirement Individual preventive measures require objective facts tied to the person’s actual conduct, capability, preparation, threat, access, or recent pattern. Personality profile, affect threshold, political belief, demographic class or group risk alone is insufficient. 9. Model auditability Where predictive tools materially affect liberty: - model/version identified - validation record available to court - known error rates disclosed - relevant feature classes disclosed - scope/domain limits disclosed - drift and calibration checked - protected secrets may use controlled expert review, not total opacity 10. Provenance All digital/neural/AI evidence requires source and chain-of-custody records proportionate to its role. PART III｜PREDICTIVE INTERVENTION SAFEGUARDS 11. No Future-Innocence Burden “No person shall be required, as an ordinary condition of preserving bodily or mental liberty, to prove that a future offence will not occur.” 12. Permissible low-intrusion actions Based on lawful individualized risk evidence, authorities may seek: - voluntary support - narrowly tailored monitoring - weapon/tool access limits - no-contact orders - time-limited location restrictions subject to due process and proportionality. 13. Compulsory neural intervention threshold Compulsory NCI / closed-loop neural intervention requires all: A. grave and specific risk of serious violent harm; B. individualized objective facts; C. strong causal relation between targeted capability and predicted harm; D. less-restrictive alternatives insufficient; E. intervention is technically reversible or narrowly bounded where possible; F. independent judicial authorization; G. fixed duration / review; H. medical/technical safety review; I. appeal; J. restoration pathway. 14. Sole-profile prohibition Compulsory neural intervention may not be ordered solely because of: - affect profile - personality traits - emotional intensity - refusal of voluntary treatment - political speech/belief - membership in a demographic/social group - general statistical similarity to prior offenders 15. Refusal is not guilt Refusal of voluntary neural modulation cannot itself establish dangerousness. Refusal may be relevant only where independently linked to a lawful obligation or specific conduct, with reasons stated. 16. No irreversible value rewrite Permanent political/value/identity rewrite is not an ordinary criminal sanction. Any exceptional research/medical intervention remains governed by constitutional and mental-sovereignty law. PART IV｜EMERGENCY ORDERS 17. Emergency temporary restraint Where immediate grave harm is imminent, a narrowly tailored temporary order may issue before full hearing. Requirements: - specific facts - shortest feasible duration - prompt judicial review - automatic expiry - no permanent neural modification before full adversarial process except immediate life-saving clinical necessity unrelated to punishment. 18. Emergency evidence preservation Systems may preserve relevant logs/data under legal hold, but private memory access remains separately limited. PART V｜REVIEW & RESTORATION 19. Periodic review Any preventive restriction requires scheduled reassessment using current evidence, not indefinite reliance on the original risk score. 20. Risk decline Demonstrated new autonomous history, removal of harmful tools, compliance with lawful boundaries, stable support, or changed circumstances may justify reducing restrictions. 21. Counterfactual uncertainty Authorities may not claim “the intervention proved the prediction correct” merely because no offence occurred after intervention. Official evaluation must distinguish: - observed outcome - intervention effect estimate - unobservable counterfactual 22. Record correction False or superseded risk labels must be corrected and propagated through downstream systems. PART VI｜SPECIAL RULES FOR AFFECT / NEURODATA 23. Affect evidence Affect data may support context but cannot be treated as direct proof of intent without corroboration. 24. Neurodata minimization Only data necessary for the proceeding may be accessed/retained. 25. Mental privacy No generalized mind dump for criminal discovery. 26. Therapeutic privilege boundary Voluntary therapy / counseling records receive heightened protection; disclosure requires strong legal basis and narrow scope. PART VII｜FORK / MERGE / SUCCESSOR PROCEDURE 27. Fork Orders attach according to current branch capability, control, inherited tools, assets and individualized risk—not mere shared origin. 28. Merge Existing orders require review after Merge; do not automatically aggregate or disappear. 29. Successor Institutional successor is not presumed personally guilty of predecessor crime. PART VIII｜THE TWENTY-YEAR INNOCENCE CASE Case doctrine: A court may not present only two options: (1) compulsory neural regulation, or (2) prove no murder will occur for twenty years. Such structure unlawfully shifts uncertainty onto the individual. Lawful alternative: The state must prove the statutory conditions for any coercive measure and must choose the least restrictive lawful response.