NationStates Jolt Archive

As a 'real' criminal lawyer, I have to raise some doubts about the current UN resolution. Of course I agree with the idea of a rapid and proportionate trial in criminal cases. However I have concerns with defendants being able to cross-examine all defence witnesses - what if that witness is totally afraid? And why should a defendant be able to waive his rights to a fair trial without giving a reasonable explanation?

I'm not sure how to vote on this issue - can anyone assist?

I agree. I could see many situations in which a defendant "voluntarily" waives his or her rights with no reasonable explanation. Seems to me that the author was pandering to the despots and tyrants among us... I choose to vote against, and would urge all others to do the same.

~double post~

Until this proposal addresses witch trials and spiritual possession hearings, we will not be able to take it seriously......

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:

... Makes the trial open to the public and media.

The nation of Arynth simply does not have the capacity nor the desire to make every trial so public. Arynthians are only allowed a few hours of government selected television programs a day, news articles are only prinited with the prior approvement of government, and radio stations are only alloweod to play continuous Rush and Def Leppard songs. We have no wish to upset our order.

Edit: Sorry for evil double post. Tried to delete it in time but I guess I just missed it.

Point 5 on the amendment of this bill suggests that the trial should be held where the crime was committed. how will this affect the victim(s)? Surely we can't expect this to be an empathetic trial? :cry:

Point 5 on the amendment of this bill suggests that the trial should be held where the crime was committed. how will this affect the victim(s)? Surely we can't expect this to be an empathetic trial? :cry:

The current proposal for "Fair Trial" is probably too specific and the current legislation is perhaps too broad (of course, in a super-national entity it is probably best to be too broad).

I don't like many of the current proposal's guarantees. Speak more of defendant rights and less of specific legal proceedings and I think this is a good proposal.

I agree with all points, except for one. A trial in the venue in which the crime was commited DOES NOT guaranty a fair trial; on the contrary, it can often guaranty and UNFAIR trial. I plan to vote "NO" untill this becomes a bill of fairness.

I was reading this issue and I truly have to say that only part I dont agree with is the issues on the civil area mainly because I believe a fair trial should include an impartial jury.