NationStates Jolt Archive

The mighty people of Zulu land oppose this bill as an outdated tool of the capitalist-bourgeousie lagal system. We think that legal institutions, like all institutions must develop in accordance with the specific conditions of each individual region. In Zulu land for example, the system of dragging people out of their beds in the middle of the night and shooting them has taken countless generations to develop. Moreover this system is perfectly in line with our political structure. So I urge every UN member nation to vote against this bill and not try and impose your Western bourgeousie values on the proud slaves of Zulu land.

What is a "fair" trial?

In Zulu land for example, the system of dragging people out of their beds in the middle of the night and shooting them has taken countless generations to develop. Moreover this system is perfectly in line with our political structure. So I urge every UN member nation to vote against this bill and not try and impose your Western bourgeousie values on the proud slaves of Zulu land.

The point in this proposal is to answer that very question, and standardise the defenition of a "fair trial" on an international level.
Your system may have taken generations to develop, but it isnt considered "fair" under the terms of this proposal.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

The Glorious and even handed Dominion of Bahgum is in agreement with the most fair Zulu peoples. We too have a highly advanced method of trial, developed over generations and will not be changing to suit lesser new ideas. Public flogging and stocks are, of course, the norm for most minor transgressions. However, for serious crime, such as accusations of being a Southern Wimpy Puff, only removal from society by transportation is appropriate. Such unfortunates are booted over the Pennines to Yorkshire, or more seriously, sent to a little colonial island called America.
We hope to see the inclusion of properly set out guidelines for witch trials in further submissions of this proposal, to include a chart of 'evil marks', ducking stool specifications, stake design and advice on how to make a proper random accusation.

Hmmm...apparently America isn't a small colonial island anymore, this leaves us with a transportation problem....never mind, we've been dumping our human rejects in Washington DC for quite a while now and no-one seems to have noticed.....

I don't like the terms

Speedy and efficient- this may try to be enforced in such a way that a trial is rushed

right to a private defence counsel- sounds great in theory but we finally have a chance in this ficitonal UN to get rid of this part as it has ensured for a very long time that the richer party is the one who will ultimately be successful in court

Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant - in some rare situations this is not a good idea, like in cases of rape or various other crimes where the witnesses have been so traumatized that to see the defendant again may be too much for them to bear psychologically in these cases I believe the way the system works in the real world now is best whereby testimony is recorded or referred and therefore the witness does not actually have to confront the defendant head on

Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed - now that one is just weird I mean where did he come up with that idea i think a large amount the problems here are self explanatory

otherwise i have no objections but it is looking as though the problems i have with the resolution are skewing me towards a no vote

I implore people to block this resolution, for the protection of your national sovereignty.

In principle the Government of Arizenia agree to the resolution of giving a “fair trial” to all defendants in our courts. However, we do find some of the points in the proposed resolution to be highly dubious in nature.

1. Is speedy and efficient.

- We regard this clause with caution as it hints towards cases being rushed through the courts. We feel this may jeopardise the very “fairness” that this resolution seeks to impose.

5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.

- The Government of Arizenia considers this to be highly impractical, and asks the UN to consider the implications of holding Court in situ.

8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.

- The wording of this clause is flawed in that, a Verdict could only be that of guilty, or not-guilty – there are no degrees of guilt. I suggest the UN look to formalising the regulations on Sentencing.

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

- We feel that opening trials the Media can, in high-profile cases, lead to the defendant being tried by the tabloids, rather than by the jury.


Therefore the Government of Arizenia urge all UN members to dismiss this resolution as flawed, imprecise and dangerous to our National Freedom.

What I think is meant by holding the trial at the venue which the crime was commited is holding the trial in the town or city in which the crime was commited, or nearest thereof. I for one will be voting against this issue and I suggest my fellow nations do so. Here are my views on some of the points:

3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
- What if the defendant is a psychopath. Being allowed to confront the witnesses he/she may intimidate them into giving false testimony. Therefore this would not be a fair trial.

9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
- Making the trial open to the media will only cause hype and a biased view. Like everybody knows, the media is the most influential part of our lives, especially in decadent nations other than my own. Therefore this would not be a fair trial.

2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.
4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.
- What do these mean?

In conclusion there are a lot of opportunities in this system for corruption and will not make the trials fair at all. So who's with me?

In Zulu land for example, the system of dragging people out of their beds in the middle of the night and shooting them has taken countless generations to develop. .

Then Zulu land is ALREADY in violation of UN legislature. The Fair Trial law was enacted in 2003, this is merely clarification of what constitutes 'fair'.

After examinig Arizenia's objections, and conferring with the Druidic Councel, New Eriu has opted to change our vote to 'Against', despite knowing full well that everything passes in this UN.

Cor...all got a bit serious in this thread. Still as long as no-one notices those small population additions to Washington DC......

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?

I concur. If this resolution is passed I may have to leave the UN. A lot of you will probably be thinking that im only leaving because my views werent the most popular. This isnt the case, it seems like everything gets passed in this flaming UN. If that is so then my nation will be better off without it. I urge other nations to do the same.