NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, fellow UN member-nations:

A resolution will soon come up for a vote. It reads as follows.

"END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Checkoslovakia

Description: It has come to the attention of many nations that there is no torture in the UN. My proposal is a simple one: To outlaw and prevent torturing of witnesses to receive information.

Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.)

Any information proved to be found by methods of torture will not be heard in a court of law and the nations will be punished with a substantial fine.

I hope that everyone realizes how barbaric torture and cruel and unusual punishment really is and will support the views of the many concerned nations."

On a superficial reading, this resolution may seem sound, indeed laudatory. But, read carefully, effectively our police forces could barely touch a suspect during interrogations, for fear of having evidence thrown out.

Consider - one of the elements of "cruel and unusual" treatment is bruising. You are a detective, trying to get information from a suspect. The suspect, being familiar with this august resolution before us, refuses to sit down. The suspect is not beligerant - he simply refuses to follow orders. The detective makes him sit down by pushing his hands down against the suspect's shoulders. The suspect has some bruises. Any information revealed from that point forward is inadmissable and the nation fined. Under the letter of the law, the detective has "tortured" the suspect.

While Checkoslovakia's intentions are good, this resolution is so broad and under-defined that nearly ANY physical contact between an officer of the law and a suspect during an interrogation could be considered "torture." As it stands, this resolution is unworkable. We request that, when it comes to a vote, the UN reject it, and Checkoslovakia provide a more straightforward and concrete resolution on torture. Thank you.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

I am sorry, but as soon as I read the title of this I immediately thought - "Hey, lets play witnesses-detectives, I'll be the witness, while you touch me up!"

Sorry, :D

A Slightly Silly Rep of Komokom.

I agree. I believe it should go on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you, representative of Alibakkar - hopefully other nations (and delegates) will see the difficulty in this resolution.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

As far as i'm concerned, they can hit them.

Ummm... since when does pushing somebody (assuming they don't fall and hit themselves on something) cause overt pain or even create a bruise? and why exactly does the suspect need to be sitting down for an interrogation? let him stand! and if you're worried that allowing him to disobey orders will destroy the interrogator's authority, then just don't tell him to sit down!

I completely agree with this proposal. Not one hand should be laid on a witness. Interrogation is perfectly fine, but physical abuse is not.

Greetings:

This is where the difficulty lies. If the resolution was more specific on what types of force are acceptable and which are not, the RCo may fully support the measure. As it stands now, however, it potentially prevents law enforcement from bringing an environment of basic order to the interrogation.

An orderly interrogation requires the suspect/witness to follow certain basic rules (i.e. staying in one place, following basic directions, etc.). It is not an unknown phenomenon for suspects/witnesses to not do this. It is rather hard, for instance, for a detective to conduct an interrogation when the suspect/witness is walking about, disobeying orders, and the like. Any move by the detective that involves physical force could result in the expulsion of all testimony from that point (and a fine on the nation), because keeping order is "torture."

If the resolution were more specific, the RCO could support it. As it stands, it would allow for anarchy in interrogation, and needlessly interfere with law enforcement activities.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Also, there are alot of issues presented to nations that have to deal with punishment, and/or torture. If the bill is passed, will it make sure that no "cruel and unusual" options in our countries issues are available?

Also, there are alot of issues presented to nations that have to deal with punishment, and/or torture. If the bill is passed, will it make sure that no "cruel and unusual" options in our countries issues are available?

An excellent question. Moreover, considering the lack of specific or clear guidelines within the resolution, would a nation even know which options are "cruel and unusual" by this measure's definition (or lack thereof)?

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Could make for lots of loopholes, though. You could say that slavery for convicted felons is really "manual labor for correction purposes". Just do something like that, and you should be fine. As for the physical abuse? Pah! I'd like to see a nation try and arrest MY police officer for wrestling a punk to the ground after chasing him for drug-dealing. We'll still use the drugs as evidence of a crime, whatever the wording says. so * :P *.