NationStates Jolt Archive

I have read the proposition for this, and agree with most of the points. However, item 5) is held in the venue from which the crime was committed, seems unclear. Does this mean that if a crime is planned in your neighbour's basement, you must be prepared for an influx of media as well as the judge, jury and police? If a crime is planned in one place, and carried out in another, does this mean that the trial must take place where the crime was planned ("in the venue from which the crime was committed")? Honourable member Ninjadom also makes no provision for the possibility of appeal. Would this be allowed, or, as a "fair trial" had taken place, would this be out of the question? I would also like to consider the possibilities, as we are all merely human, of there being a corrupt jury and or judge. What steps could be taken against them to protect the defendant/accuser?
Thank you.

I'm uncomfortable with the United Nations getting so specific as to dictate changes to the judicial system, even for freedom-loving, left-wing countries such as mine. I agree with the principle, but there are too many specific details that dictate how fair trials will be done.

Carey
Janitor of Careybia

The DSH remain undecided on this issue at this time...However, We share the concerns expressed by the Delegate for Kationiat for point 5 - it appears unweildy in our opinion.

Regarding the right to appeal....we also find no mention of this under this discussed proposal up for vote, or in the previous resolution - which disturbs us greatly.

Regarding corruption of officals....we would assume that each nation has it's own measures in place to limit this problem?
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

While this gathering believes that individuals should be accorded judicial procedures which are fair and just, the latest resolution which attempting to pin-down the definition of such a procedure, is unneccessarily rigid in some accounts, and remaining extremely vague in others.

What does it mean that a trial is speedy and efficient? How does one measure whether a trial is speedy or efficient? This gathering believes that a trial should be given the time which it requires, in order to acquire the relevant evidences and deliver a well-justified verdict. While the idea of a speedy and efficient trial is not unsound in principle, it is impractical in practice, and if legislated, it will only lead to a hastening of cases and not improving the quality of the judgement. If justice is to be served to every individual, then surely the quality of the judgement is top-priority, and nothing must prevent this judgement from being reached.

Why does the trial have to be conducted in the venue where the crime was conducted? What purpose does it serve? While it is common for crimes to be trial in the country where the crime is committed due to varying legislatures, the inclusion of this line, prevents the trial of criminal who cannot be prosecuted in their own country due to obtacles in the local judicial system. This point is not aiding towards a fair trial, and will only serve to support and propagate further injustice.

If a jury consist primarily of peers of the defendant, does it not contradict the basic element of fairness and justice? Should the jury not consist of member who are unrelated or total strangers to the defendant. If possible, the jury should consist of as wide range of people as possible.

This gathering find the last line, where the defendant can choose to wave any elements of the resolution worrying, and would have preferred this line to be excluded from the resolution.

As such, while the aim of this resolution to ensure fair trials to individuals is noble, this resolution is highly restrictive, and serves more to undermine the delivery of justice than to ensure that justice is served.

The Honourable
Knights of the Elm Table

There are so many deficiencies in this proposal. Broadly, the central flaw is that it seeks to take a general statement of laudable intent and saddle it with poorly articulated, woefully unspecific, slightly less general statements of laudable intent.

Well intentioned, yes. Applicable to any actual legal system no. Leave at a requirement to institute fair trial and send in the boys in blue hats to sort out the despots.

Number 10 also confused me - the defendant is entitled to wave any of the above points without reason. The defendant is entitled to demand to be judged by a biased judge (opposite of impartial, obviously)?

Like the Representitive of Careybia, I have my own concerns with the UN passing a specific resolution that could impose their ideals of fairness on it's member nations. I fear that the UN is being to specific in it's dictates, and could potentially become a governing force which over rules the sovrenty of individual nations. It is not the UN's place to pass specific resolutions that could potentially change the entire system of law of a particular nation.

:!: Can someone please tell me if the idiot nation that proposed this motion has any actual intelligent sentience?.
I can say with a clear heart this bill is flawed in the extreme and allows the defendant every right while taking away the powers of the home state concerned to protect its citizens from lawbreakers.
This is not a sanction that in all honesty can be ratified by the U.N because it inflicts direct control over the judical system of every country and allows the defendant to stack the cards in thier own favour thus making it virtually impossible for the law makers to prosecute law breakers and protect its innocent poplulation from thier depridations.
There are too many holes in this legislation for it to be considered i propose this piece of amateur meddling be sent back and left unvoted upon until these glaring holes are properly sorted.
We as a Nation will not stand by and allow a murduring scum stack the judge and jury in his/her favour inflicting the crime scene on those involved allowing them to pick and choose the cards dealt and strangling the nations justice system with this unworkable proposal


:evil: Long Live Dark Teutonia :evil:

Apart from the concerns raised by our esteemed colleagues above, the Royal Appointees of Rhominic find the requirement of a jury undesirable. In our nation's legal system, all trials are presided over by three impartial judges, who must reach unanimous decision for a defendant to be convicted. trial-by-jury leaves a trial open to amateurs, and may lead to decisions based on which lawyer held the most eloquent speech or on gut feelings, rather than on an educated interpretation of the law. Therefore, our nation's UN representative will vote against this invasive proposal.

the Rhominic Council of Royal Appointees

This resolution is against our legal system. We do not use a jury, all our people are judged by a qualified judge, not by some unqualified group of randomly picked people.

I call all countries that have the right to vote on this resolution to vote against!
My country does love a free trial, but this is not OUR definition of a free trial.

We, members of the community of Feliz can't support such proposal.

We have our proper justice system, independant from politics, higly democratic. But we havn't got any judge (point 7). Guilty peoples are their only judge. We trust honesty. They are confronted with the victim and members of the community highly reconised for their conscience.
The trials are not open to media to protect private life.
Verdicts are not proportional to the infraction but also keeps in mind the guilty people's situation. The penalty is determined by the wole assembly.

That's why we ask not to vote this proposal. UN is messing up with internal affairs!

The UN has every right to ensure its member states give their citizens a reasonable expectation of a fair trial. Shouldn't the legal structure and individual provisions of such a law be determined by the leaders of those member states?

The People's Republic of Fries Fryslan will resign from the United Nations if this resolution passes, the resolution is not possible in The People's Republic of Fries Fryslan.

A definition of a free trial should be made, but the way a free trial should be done should be decided by the people of the country.

My first question is, who determines whether a verdict is proportional to the crime? In Olwe, murderers are executed in the exact same manner in which they killed their victims, theft is punishable by the victim being allowed to raid the perpetrator's home, etc. because these punishments are truly proportionate. My worry is that the UN will take a somewhat more criminal-friendly view of what is "proportionate" and make things less fair, not more.

Federation of Tonal-Ixtlan regards this resolution as an unacceptable intrusion not only in national jurisdition, but in national culture besides.

"Fair" is a meaningless word if you don't specify fair to whom!

And, as Representative of Olwe said before, who determines whether a verdict is proportional to the crime?
In Tonal-Ixtlan death penalty has been abolished, so it will never be considered proportional, but We are sure that it is in many countries.

For these principal reasons, but not only these, Our declaration of vote is: NO

While the Republic of Murphdawggia often disagrees with the spirit of resolutions brought before the United Nations, the leaders of my nation agree that the fair trial proposal is a just and well thought out piece of legislation. Wouldn't justice be better served if everyone living in a UN member nation had the rights spelled out in the proposal? I think so. That is why the Armed Republic of Murphdawggia, in the interest of international justice, will lend its support to the legislation. Long live Murphdawggia and Overlord Murphy.

While on the surface this proposal seems like a good idea, I cannot agree with it. Many of the points are not viable for some trials. An example of this is the inclusion taht trials must be held in teh location of the crime. Another is that ALL trials must be open to the public. This is intrinsically WRONG, as we all know that not all judicial proceedings can be tried under public scrutiny. Trials involving confidential information, or trials where the release of information would colour the outcome of it, must be protected from the public for their own good. This is why many trials are closed to the media until the conclusion. Society cannot always be relied upon to act fairly in open trials.

This proposal is occidental oriented! It's not universal!
it reject all justice traditions. It's our roots we are killing!

and something is missing in this : that the law should treat everyone in the same way!

I believe that the trial should be conducted in a normal fashion, and then the appeal court determines whether the trial was fair or not, if it is deemed unfair another trial should be established (I dont believe in allowing murderers to walk just because the trial was 'unfair')

Then, if the trial is deemed fair but the defendant continues to argue otherwise or there is some doubt as to the proceedings then the court case should be reviewed by independant assesors, possible from a foreign country with few diplomatic ties so as to avoid bias in any way.

Another alternative would be to toss a coin?

For the most part this resolution is simply repeating the fifth, sixth and seventh amendment rights listed in the US Constitution. The persecuted Redeemed do not find this proposal at all vauge. To the contrary we find this proposal extremly well thought out and researched. To address some of the concerms brought up in this thread.

Point 10 stating that the defendant has the right to waive* any right is the only statement that is partially vauge in this proposal. The purpose behind it is to allow those who know that they are truly guilty (Who those are I do not know) to keep from causing grief to the families of the victims. For example, you murder someone and you do not wish to stir up the memories and relive the events for your sake and the sake of the family you wronged. So you ask that you not confront the wittnesses against you so that you do not grive them more than they ahve been.

I do admit that this last could be misconstrued to give the defendant extreme rights and freedoms and as such should be amended. But until that point is reached and this proposal passes the Persecuted Redeemed see no reason to keep equality from the justice system.

The Republic of Santutxu will vote against this proposal. Firstly we think that Law & Order is a purely internal affair. Second. This proposal is vague and undefined, It's as if someone proposes "giving food to everyone" in order to mend the hunger situation in the 3rd world.

Fries wrote: "A definition of a free trial should be made, but the way a free trial should be done should be decided by the people of the country."

And suppose the people of that country decide that a free and fair trial consists of nothing more than summary executions? National sovereignty is good for some things, but there are certain basic human rights for individuals that should always trump national sovereignty.

The resolution is not perfect, but it is certainly more well thought out and a lot less vague than most other resolutions I've read by the U.N. (yes, I've read the archives). So far, the arguments against it are not very persuasive.

I have read the proposal, and I register a vote of NO for various reasons.

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
What does "functional" mean? Merely that a defense should be mounted? The government of Buffalovia believes that the defendant deserves more than just "functional."

5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
In some cases, an unbiased verdict is impossible in the area where the crime was committed due to media bias.

9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
We recall the trial of OJ Simpson that took place in the United States while registering our distaste for this major point. While the government of Buffalovia does not wish to censor information by any means, an undue amount of media attention may bias the results.

Gentlemen. IS there really a need for trials? Why should you not have the authority as leaders to have constant vigilance over your peoples? Trials are an unnecesary part of society if you would....say, barcode the people to track their movements. There would be no doubt who was at fault in a crime should you have goverment armored security cameras watching every room in the country. Extra security simply makes formalities such as trials an unethical waste of time. I hope i have left you to ponder the inefficencies of your own nations, so you may make them better

I will be voting in favor of this proposal, but I ask that we either now or later remove #9...I do not believe there is any reason the public or the media should be allowed in our courts.
Though my country holds many things to be immoral and illegal that would be normal everyday behavior in today's society, I do wish for those being punished to have a fair and reasonable punishment, otherwise we're just beheading everyone that steals a cookie or rapes a baby.

I will be voting in favor of this proposal, but I ask that we either now or later remove #9...
One it hits the floor, that's it. All chances to modify or remove it are gone, unless Mods kill the entire resolution.

Dem's da rulz. Sorry.

I do not wish to seem pedantic, but , as a lawyer, I cannot support any law where there are obvious spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

I do not wish to seem pedantic, but , as a lawyer, I cannot support any law where there are obvious spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

You know, I was just going make the same comment apologetically, but now:

Come on, people! If this is supposed to represent binding law, it would be good to avoid such grievous grammatical and spelling errors as to render it impossible to apply. To "wave" a right? Obviously, we know what was intended there, but the rule of law is not intention, it is most definitely by letter. Can't someone edit these things before they go up for vote before 20,000 people?

Fair, who is to say what is fair. What one's opinion may be can vary greatly from anothers. That is all this bill is, a list of one's opinion on what a "fair" trial should be. How can it even be considered passing an international law on one's opinion. Besides the many loop holes that have been left open. The laws are meant to protect the innocent, not help free the guilty. Each nation has there own ruler(s) and set of laws, let that nation decide in it's own lands what is fair and what is not. Will this bill not reduce entire nations certain freedoms. I vote against passing this law.

I don't know if anyone else has picked up on this, but this resolution is EXAXTLY what we (those who debate things on the forum) have been asking for. Someone took the time to find a passed proposal that was too broad or undefined and put together a proposal that was designed to fix the supposed flaws. Perhaps it was not the best written proposal but you must give credit to the nation that proposed it. He or She has taken the time to do what was asked and for their effort they are being insulted and belittled. If the proposal has so many problems then work with your delegate to write one that you like, but don't just complain and vote with out taking the effort to write a proposal.

Oh, and this is still just a GAME!

Fefopla
spouting off against the contrary nature of the forums

I don't know if anyone else has picked up on this, but this resolution is EXAXTLY what we (those who debate things on the forum) have been asking for. Someone took the time to find a passed proposal that was too broad or undefined and put together a proposal that was designed to fix the supposed flaws. Perhaps it was not the best written proposal but you must give credit to the nation that proposed it. He or She has taken the time to do what was asked and for their effort they are being insulted and belittled. If the proposal has so many problems then work with your delegate to write one that you like, but don't just complain and vote with out taking the effort to write a proposal.

Oh, and this is still just a GAME!

Fefopla
spouting off against the contrary nature of the forums

Guaifenasin finds this proposal contrary to our court system.

In our nation, we do not practice the privatisation of legal counsel, and all attorneys are government employees.

We also are against media coverage of trials as we feel this is an exploitative tool and encourages the glamourification of crime.

Additionally, we take issue with the right to face witnesses against you. We have a witness protection program that changes identity only as a last resort, and we endeavor first to keep witness anonymity.

=we also realize this is just a game, but *part* of the game is to debate the isses.=

I do not wish to seem pedantic, but , as a lawyer, I cannot support any law where there are obvious spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

i also will follow this route.

We believe that something like this should be in place for international crime. We feel this is why the UN was created, to create suitable resolutions to international disputes. Spelling out rights to international criminals makes perfect sense, however this proposal mandates that every nation operate their system of justice the sameway, thus removing part of our very sovereignty!

The Quendi have no intentions of turning over our legal system to UN inspectors - our crimes, our laws, our defendants, our business.

This does leave something unfinished however. One thing this proposal does make clear is that the original proposal should never have been passed as it is poorly worded - so what do we do about that earlier decision? Repeal it, or try and amend it?

We applaud the effort to fix this problem, but we simply cannot support this offered solution as it is written.

good morning to all.
i would normally agree with such a proposition, even if it does have such spelling errors. why i dont is that to many of the proposed rules end up creating an unfair. several of them are way in favor of the defendent, while others barely level the field. #3, says the defendent can "confront the witnesses." and do what? bully them into backing down?? that doesnt exactly make for a fair trial. #10 just plain puts the court in the defendents hands. he could simply waive either #6 or #7, what then? does that mean he/she gets to choose what judge resides and what jury? and what if he/she waives #8 along with #7, so the verdict is not inproportion with the crime? that would create a disaster.
Anyway, it also does not take in the individual nations laws. are we supposed to scrap them and implement the new laws? the ones in place now are ones we believe to work in our nation.
So, i "propose" this (im saying it in quotes becasue i prob. wont get around to fixing it and proposing it myself to the UN.) The current resolution be discarded and a new resolution be made. this new resolution be along the same guidelines, but a bit less specific so as to be better fitting to a wider range of nations in the UN.
Either that, or simply "fix" the current resolution. such as discarding #10, or go into specifics with it, such that if the defendent chooses to waive any one, a new rule is instated. Also, change #3 from "confront the witnesses" to "know what witnesses shall be present". Change #5 to be more specific instead of just venue, such as: held..."in the city/nation"...committed. Also, be a tad more specific on #8, define "proportional".

Thank you, and as soon as i can, i myself shall make those changes and present it to the UN. if you find the need to "fix" my proposition please send me a message. i shall do my best. please excuse any spelling/grammer errors.
Repressed peasants.

I'm uncomfortable with the United Nations getting so specific as to dictate changes to the judicial system, even for freedom-loving, left-wing countries such as mine. I agree with the principle, but there are too many specific details that dictate how fair trials will be done.

Carey
Janitor of Careybia

The Confederacy of Mikitivity has already voted no, and largely for this reason.

This resolution assumes that nations have a "Small Claims Court", it assumed that private defence attornerys are better equipped to represent a defendant than a public defender, and it provides no protections for witnesses.

Overall, this resolution may be wonderful for a nation that is mostly set up with the justice system that the author(s) had in mind, but for 99.9% of the rest of us, it really is a resolution about FORCING us to adapt our governments to another government (or individuals) world view.

Always bad.

Naturally should the resolution pass, somebody will be kind enough to post how to work around the loopholes, but I do hope that the UN Delegates with numerous votes will vote NO on this resolution.

The UN is great for making recommendations and dealing with trans-boundary issues. Internal justice systems rarely are trans-boundary and there aren't recommendations here, just mandates.

In regards to the current UN proposal regarding fair trials, The proposal is unnecessary and posses a threat to the rights of the individual states. The proposal could be used to establish an international court with the power to arbitrarily oversee and overrule all criminal hearings. The proposal also fails to mention any exclusion of military courts which cannot be held to the same standards and general practices as a civilian court. I will personally be voting against this bill, and will be lobbying for other nations to vote against it also.

Will you please support the rights of the individual nations to judge its own peoples accordingly and vote against Definition of 'Fair Trial'.

The Commonwealth of Matvia will vote No on this new resolution.

"6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers."

We strongly disagree. A jury made out of ordinairy citizens should never decide whether someone is guilty or not. Media and PR-trained lawyers can easily influence their opinion.

In Matvia, the legal system allows more judges in severe cases, always an odd number; 3, 5, up to 7 judges. They're the specialists, they should decided if someone is guilty and what kind of punishment is required. Not some Jenny from the block...

The Federation of Nicholandia are voting against this proposal. It is up to my country to determine the workings of our own judiciary system, and my government and people are not happy with another system being imposed upon us. I urge all lovers of justice and liberty to stand up and vote against this proposal.

i hereby speak in name of my nation, and several other nations (including the regional's delegate one) of Lusa.

this proposal is an outrage! the UN must not, they CAN NOT tell countries what their judicional system must be. one thing is to assure every human rights are granted, but this is not it. although we agree in some of these points, we see here no more than an "americanization" of the law system. and we will not allow it.

points 1, 3, 6 and 9 are ridiculous and cannot be standardized. every single country has it's own judicional system, and the UN cannot impose on how it works.

therefor, is this resolution passes, i, as UN members in my region, will have no other option than to abandon the UN. today we are being imposed to make the law system as others want it. and tomorrow? democracy will be mandatory?

therefor, is this resolution passes, i, as UN members in my region, will have no other option than to abandon the UN. today we are being imposed to make the law system as others want it. and tomorrow? democracy will be mandatory?
Thoughts from the aptly named "A Crazy Man" have been duly noted.


By the way, Mr. Crazy Man - you signed up with this democratic institution of your own free will. The fact that you have the opportunity to leave anytime you want, with neither hindrance nor penalty, points to the values inherent in the democratic approach. It also makes your strident performance rather unnecessary, eh?

The proposer meant well, and I applaud the effort. However, for the UN to seek to impose practice and procedure of a trial within a member nation is neither practical or desirable. The Alliance of which my Region and Nation is a member spent untold hours and days before coming up with a plan that just covers the very basics of a judicial system, and that plan is many pages long. Implimentation of this resolution would be a nightmare! Leave the court system of a Nation to the Nation(s) involved.

Sugar Bear
Founder: Shadowland
Director of the Judicial Branch
of the Alliance Defense Network

As a lawyer, I can not support any resolution which contains spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

Aside from the vaugeness of most of the proposal, we are confused by the following:

"7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read."

As the law is read by whom? By other judges? By lawyers? By law professors? By corporate CEOs? By average people at the local cafe? There are many readings of various laws and we always need people to interpret the laws. That's what judges do.

But this article is cut short. Perhaps it should say "... as it is read by a significant group of the judge's peers." That is still vauge, but this whole resolution can only be so precise. We have to leave some room for local interpretation of course to protect national sovereignty, but as the resolution stands, we find it inappropriately vauge.

- Harbin Groucho-Ulloa, Etanistan State Magistrate for UN Affairs

The Allied States of Ixtli will also be voting against this proposal because we do feel that many specifics of the proposal would infringe upon the national sovereignty of member nations. However, I laud the efforts of Ninjadom their attempt to offer the UN a clear proposal on the nature of fair trials. If I recall correctly, Ninjadom posted the content of this proposal on the forum so that suggestions, complaints, and corrections could be considered before submitting the proposal. I thought this an excellent way to try and work out the bugs of a proposal before its submission, and hope to see more of it in the future.

Another blatant attempt by the Capitalist UN to infringe on its communist members' rights, eh? You forget that, on occasion, nations may not WANT to have the inequality that is fostered by a high-and-might judge. The People's Republic of James Beardsley has a group of 30 jury members that decide court cases and we see no reason to support as idiotic a bill as this. Please try to remember that not every nation has the same ideals as yours when drawing up proposals.

-Eli Beardsley
Head of the Bureau of Law and Order
The People's Republic of James Beardsley

a FAIR judicial proceedure is one that arrives at an accurate and appropriate conclusion with a minimum of pain and inconvenience to those who do not deserve it.

while we aggreee whole heartedly that that deffinician is neccessary, the one we have stated above is far more honest and appropreate then the points detailing the mundane world american approach, not all of which contribute to this desireable end, many of which have the opposite effect.

a compitition of skill between lawers often leaves reality to take the hindmost, nor is the judgement of any committee of one's so called peers an infallable means of judgement.

emotional attatchment to arbitrary assumptions simply because they happen to be familiar guarantees no one justice.

no individual perception of events can guarantee fairness. detatchment is of course an essential ingreedient as is a reaonable degree of compassion.

this proposal places too much focus on the format of the judicial organism and too little on the accuracy and appropriatness of its product.

even circumstantial evidence can be misleading, but far less so then the perceptions of sentient witnessess.

in short fairness is certainly or needs to be, the primary and ultimate concern. the presumtion that any mechanism, even the one detailed, has been found or exists, of insuring it, is in error.

=^^=
.../\...

this proposal places too much focus on the format of the judicial organism and too little on the accuracy and appropriatness of its product.



It is interesting to see that this proposal is WINNING, and yet I've heard few arguements in favour of it!

My government completely agrees with your analysis, but also is of the opinion that this proposal is no better than mandating that all nations use sporks to eat their pudding. It is clear that this proposal was tailored with a very specific judicial system in mind and doesn't really acknowledge that the mechanisms to achieve justice vary even more so than our respective national animals!

therefor, is this resolution passes, i, as UN members in my region, will have no other option than to abandon the UN. today we are being imposed to make the law system as others want it. and tomorrow? democracy will be mandatory?
Thoughts from the aptly named "A Crazy Man" have been duly noted.


By the way, Mr. Crazy Man - you signed up with this democratic institution of your own free will. The fact that you have the opportunity to leave anytime you want, with neither hindrance nor penalty, points to the values inherent in the democratic approach. It also makes your strident performance rather unnecessary, eh?

so let me see if i got this:
every members of the UN are demanded to have the political, social and economic system that the UN states? hmm... and i thought the UN just made legislations regarding to universal rights...
demanding that every men has a fair trial is correct. but imposing how it is going to work is not. it is exclusively up to each country to build their own judicial system.
according to you, each member of the UN has no independence to rule it's country the way it considers best, i suppose...

all i see in UN is a bunch of people who don't even read the proposals, or don't even think a bit about it... everybody votes FOR, whatever the proposal is... that's why every proposal passes...no matter what it is about.

We agree with Mikitivity. It saddens us to be negative about a well-intentioned proposal but we find too many flaws (most detailed previously by other nations) to allow us to support it.

Human rights are very precious to us. We believe the UN requires a stronger fair trade resolution than is currently on the statute; however, this is not it.

It will pass but will not be an improvement and will leave many people still at the mercy of opportunist governments with oppressive agenda.

As an aside, we believe an International Criminal Court with carefully established powers and jurisdiction (and no effect on game mechanics) would be a valuable tool for our world.

Art Randolph
Speaker on Legal Affairs

first, i dont think the UN should be the ones telling people how to run their judicial systems.

second, not all of the proposal is fair

third-- we need to not pass this...seriously.

The Shirresh fully oppose the issue of the Fair trial resolution. We do not believe that a trial by jury is the best system and that bench trials before a high criteria judge being much more ideal though Jury tirals in some instances are acceptable.

In addition we do not believe in requiring the Venue of the crime being the same as that where the crime was committee since the requirement for a fair judge (and jury where applicable) might require a change of Venue.

Thirdly, we do not believe in allowing press into the courtrooms necessarily, especially cameras and other invasive and disruptive acts.

Finally, The Shirresh and those of our region believe in a strong concept of national Sovereignty and dictation by the UN of the limits and nature of our internal trials and punishment code is unacceptable. While the Geneva convention for standards of treating prisoners in general are followed, we wish that to be our choice, not dictated.

This issue requires delicate and detailed thinking. the judical system is a very risky thing to throw about. but in my opinion this should be agreed upon. i beileve that without tweaking the system once or twice it would fall into disaray and would not be able to stop any criminals finding backdoors to there cases and walk of freely.

Ok, well my first post, didn't read the other posts but HEY whatchya gonna do?! In relation to the new resolution, I would strongly urge ALL of you to vote against it.MY reasons? Simple, certain points do not make sense? For example, point 1, states, (in my words) all trials should be carried out quickly and efficiently. That my friends cannot always be the case, for example in a murder case when forensic evidence must be collected. It just simply isn't done that way.. Sorry.

Ok, well, my first post, feedback please, oh and if you guys want anymore swaying, jus tell me, i got more where that came from.. :lol:

Ok, well my first post, didn't read the other posts but HEY whatchya gonna do?! In relation to the new resolution, I would strongly urge ALL of you to vote against it.MY reasons? Simple, certain points do not make sense? For example, point 1, states, (in my words) all trials should be carried out quickly and efficiently. That my friends cannot always be the case, for example in a murder case when forensic evidence must be collected. It just simply isn't done that way.. Sorry.

Ok, well, my first post, feedback please, oh and if you guys want anymore swaying, jus tell me, i got more where that came from.. :lol:

It is not enough to oppose this resolution here, we must each go back to our respective regions and ge them to vote against it as well. Too many nations just vote to approve anything that comes before the UN and too few listen to the reasoned debate in this forum.

We wholeheartedly agree. This is another violation of the sovereignty of nationstates. In particular we were incensed to read the article giving the defendant the right to challenge witnesses in the case. Are we now to allow rapists to interrogate their victims in a public court like some sick sideshow? This resolution is flawed, misguided and fundamentally dangerous to any sensible system of law, we emplore all nations to reject it.

All these complaints about things not defined in the resolution, my goodness!

It isn't clear on how precisely the same the "venue" must be.
It doesn't specify what "proportionate" is or "efficient."
It doesn't describe a system of appeals.
It doesn't define the jury selection process.
...And so on.

So what does this lack of super-specificity imply for us all? Injustice? Doom?
No.
It implies that these matters, like any such matters not outlined specifically in a resolution, would be left up to each individual nation to clarify.
So if you don't want "venue" to mean precisely at the crime scene, make the venue a 100-mile radius.
If you want to give the death penalty for jaywalking, rule that to be "proportionate."
If you think 10 years is a fair time for a trial to last, define "speedy" as 10 years.

Get it?

Should this Fair trial amemdment be approved, I suggest that an immediate proposal to amend it be created to limit its applications to trials dealing with crimes of International law.

why?

I shall vote no. My state believes strongly in equality and fairness, and the suggestion that parties can hire private councel means that the wealthy can get the better lawers. In general I believe we should move away from the flawed adversarial system and aim for trials to be independent investigations into the truth, with teams of lawers and judges working together,

Without a right of Jury Nullfication this bill is meaningless. Jury Nullification was long considered as part of English Common Law, and has since been done away with, much to the loss of the nation.

-The People of Morgain