NationStates Jolt Archive

We have coming before the United Nations a proposal to an international standard for the definition of a "fair trial". The kingdom of Monkeypotamia, a champion of civil rights, agrees that this is an important issue. However the suggestion that all trials be open to the public and the media alarms us as a nation. Requiring all trials to be open to the public and media would provide no protection for victims, such as in rape trials, or for minors and family court issues. Publicizing such cases, while seen as great TV ratings by some of the world's crasser populations could severely hamper the state's ability to prosecute such horrible violent crimes as rape, with victims unwilling to step forward into such public scrutiny.

The Kingdom of Monkeypotamia beseeches the global community to consider the implications of this proposal. Vote against the Fair Trial proposal, and let it come back in a stronger, more sensible version, with provisions made to protect victims.

We have considered the implications and have no issue with the proposal. It is almost completely in place in our nation already. We don't see this as an unjust protection of the rights of citizens. It is also applicable in international policy as it protects all human rights within member nations in a fashion we deem appropriate. Member nations must simply upgrade their internal security to a level where ther is no adverse affect for publicity of trails.

We've never really had a problem with the public knowing what happens in our courts. We find that it gives them confidence to watch local court proceedings on the local court channel.

A lot of countries in the real world have trials open to the public and media. There are public galleries in most courts, and the media such as newspaper jornalists are allowed in to watch the trial and write about the happenings.
We feel that this proposal is actually suprisingly* well written, and have no objection to it's passing.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

* I say "suprisingly" after seeing the recent UN Proposals

We have coming before the United Nations a proposal to an international standard for the definition of a "fair trial". The kingdom of Monkeypotamia, a champion of civil rights, agrees that this is an important issue. However the suggestion that all trials be open to the public and the media alarms us as a nation. Requiring all trials to be open to the public and media would provide no protection for victims, such as in rape trials, or for minors and family court issues. Publicizing such cases, while seen as great TV ratings by some of the world's crasser populations could severely hamper the state's ability to prosecute such horrible violent crimes as rape, with victims unwilling to step forward into such public scrutiny.

The Kingdom of Monkeypotamia beseeches the global community to consider the implications of this proposal. Vote against the Fair Trial proposal, and let it come back in a stronger, more sensible version, with provisions made to protect victims.

Everybody has the right to a public trial. If a trial is not a matter of public record, there is no way to ensure that substantive due process has occured. A person also has the right to confront his accuser, otherwise far more innocent people would be convicted on hearsay evidence.

We already have a Fair Trial law, but it is not clear as to what a fair trial is. All this proposal does is define fair trial in relation to the already existing law.

---------
Mediator Phineous Oakhurst, New Eriu's Delegate to the United Nations.

(OOC: This is actually a game mechanics proposal and should have been deleted by a moderator since amending laws is specifically not allowed. oh well.)

Don't Worry. It can still be deleted. Notify the Mods, before it is too late.

(OOC: This is actually a game mechanics proposal and should have been deleted by a moderator since amending laws is specifically not allowed. oh well.) This isn't "amending" so much as "clarifying." Anywho, it's a good proposal. Don't discourage the author of this proposal by having it deleted.

(OOC: This is actually a game mechanics proposal and should have been deleted by a moderator since amending laws is specifically not allowed. oh well.)
Sorry, New Eriu, but we have to disagree.

The fairly recent Increased Access to Medicine Act could be seen as an amendment to the Required Basic Healthcare Act, and its amended version, 'RBH' Replacement. This is not so much an amendment as it is enhancement. As such, it is Frisbeeteria's opinion that this is a perfectly legal resolution.

We were also idling in the law library last night, unable to sleep and wandering the stacks. We saw a shadowy figure that looked a lot like Enodia, standing beside the proposals rack with a portable shredder. Indeed, many wayward proposals have gone missing this morning. We submit that it's already been reviewed and found acceptable.

What's more, Frisbeeteria Approved this bill, and will lobby for its passage. It has a couple of flaws, granted, but the flaws do not seriously damage its ability to work as promised. Given the foul nature of some of the other recent resolution, this one is at least a solid base hit.

The proposal calls itself an amendment. Therefore it is one.

The proposal calls itself an amendment. Therefore it is one.
I call myself a genius. Therefore I am one.


You sure you want to stick with this line of argument, G&F?

In the case of the proposal, the author's opinion is the one that is informative, because he or she created it. This author considers his or her proposal an amendment, therefore he or she submitted as one. It does not matter whether it actually is an amendment. The point is that the author did not want to increase the futherment of democracy, but he or she just wanted to clarify a previous proposal, an impossibility.

Okeyfine. We'll grant that.


Still, if this makes it onto the table, I think that means that the mods have given it a de facto blessing as being within the rules, and we should drop any de jure arugments about it, since it's going to pass anyway. It's a better proposition than Euthanasia, passports, or prostitution in any case, and I'll still support it as worthy of passage.

Okeyfine. We'll grant that.


Still, if this makes it onto the table, I think that means that the mods have given it a de facto blessing as being within the rules, and we should drop any de jure arugments about it, since it's going to pass anyway. It's a better proposition than Euthanasia, passports, or prostitution in any case, and I'll still support it as worthy of passage.
Granted If the mods approve of it, it is within the rules, and it's a better proposition than many others, so we'll approve of it.

Aside from the questions regarding the legitimacy of the resolution, we believe it to be one of the finest resolutions we have seen in a while. We will strongly support it when it reaches the floor.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

Reminds me of my Due Process resolution in the archives :).

Publicizing such cases, while seen as great TV ratings by some of the world's crasser populations could severely hamper the state's ability to prosecute such horrible violent crimes as rape, with victims unwilling to step forward into such public scrutiny.

The Kingdom of Monkeypotamia beseeches the global community to consider the implications of this proposal. Vote against the Fair Trial proposal, and let it come back in a stronger, more sensible version, with provisions made to protect victims.

Everybody has the right to a public trial. If a trial is not a matter of public record, there is no way to ensure that substantive due process has occured. A person also has the right to confront his accuser, otherwise far more innocent people would be convicted on hearsay evidence.

But the delegate from Monkeypotamia sounds not as if he / she is opposed to a public record, but rather in finding a delicate balance between the public good and the rights of the individual. I personally find the idea of allowing a television recording a bit concerning.

Though I must admit my government is still debating how we will vote (and campaign) after a closer reading of the proposal.

Note that Article 1, Section 10 ("Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.") allows the defendant in a trial to waive any of the listed rights without reason -- if the media interferes with a fair trial, I'd say that the defendant could, under this resolution, petition to have them removed from the court.

Note that Article 1, Section 10 ("Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.") allows the defendant in a trial to waive any of the listed rights without reason -- if the media interferes with a fair trial, I'd say that the defendant could, under this resolution, petition to have them removed from the court.

Thank you. That helps to a degree, but I still have concerns not about the media interfering with the trial itself, but the public image of anybody involved in the trial. I hope this makes some sense, but if not, I'd be happy to provide a few example cases / scenarios.

I think you mean cases where the media has held a de facto trial before court hearings begin? Say, Scott Peterson, where the defendant was widely believed to be guilty before a jury was even selected? I agree that that sort of thing is a definite concern, but I don't have a magic solution. Yet. :wink:

Change of venue is about the best I've ever heard of, but that's still not a complete solution -- especially not when some cases get the attention of the national media.

I think you mean cases where the media has held a de facto trial before court hearings begin? Say, Scott Peterson, where the defendant was widely believed to be guilty before a jury was even selected? I agree that that sort of thing is a definite concern, but I don't have a magic solution. Yet. :wink:

Change of venue is about the best I've ever heard of, but that's still not a complete solution -- especially not when some cases get the attention of the national media.

Well, as leaders or representatives of the leadership of our respective communities, it is our job to work out these magic solutions.

I was thinking more along this scenario:

A woman is beaten within an inch of her life, she testifies against her husband, whom years ago she beat. The media catches this fact during the trial and begins to make *both* parties out to be monsters. She then has to go to work knowing that her "secret" was exposed when she testified against her (hopefully former) husband.

My concern (and I have reason to believe my government will side with me) is that the media often does *not* respect individuals. It goes to this age old question: "You are the editor of a newspaper. A person whom was robbed asked to have his / her name witheld from an article, but you are convinced your paper will sell more copies if you reveal his / her name. Do you include the name because the public has a right to know?" [1]

In a strange way, it seems a case of Civil Rights -vs- Control of the Media. I'm sure we could work out a better case study.

[OOC: I'll add that this isn't just a hypothetical issue here. As a child my home was robbed and my mother flagged down a security guard in the middle of the street who managed to subdue the buglar with a toy gun. The man was given an award by the city of Houston and his name was listed in the paper. My family however did not want our names in the paper. It may not have made much a difference in the paper, but my parents "rights" were honored by the paper.]

-10kmichael

Monkeypotamia is very much in favor of a fair trial system. And we believe in the importance and sanctity of a public record. The only part of the resolution before this body that is of concern to us is that all trials be open to the media with no provisions to protect the rights of victims. Take rape trials for an example. The stigma of being a rape victim coupled with media invasion and public scrutiny could easily add to the trauma suffered by the victim. Many courts currently exercise discretion in protecting these victims from the public eye. Without this protection, victims become less willing to come forward, and the crime becomes that much harder to prosecute.

We believe this proposal to be a good one. And if it be the will of this body to pass this proposal, we ask only for aid and input in creating an amendment to the Fair Trial Proposal in consideration of victim's rights.

The leader of Rethelanium supports one's right to a fair trial, but unconditionally opening trials to media actually counteracts the principle of a balanced trial ((I won't get too much into detail unless someone asks, but again, consider the Scott Peterson case as an example)). However, these rights mainly apply to legal residents of a nation, not foreign terrorist organizations ((sorry, using the United States as a model here)).

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint deeply resents and rejects the idea that we need to be told what constitutes a 'fair' trial within our nation. Mandating that all trials be open to the public and/or news media goes against the idea that the judge has complete say over how his court is run and infringes on his rights as a member of the judiciary.

We will vote no on this issue and urge all other sane U.N. members to do the same.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

This is how we do it (currently) in the UK:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/Home/LegalGuidance/13/camera.htm

It's pretty substantially reasonable. If the proposal can accommodate that kind of exceptional reasoning, there shouldn't be much difficulty with it.