NationStates Jolt Archive

in regard to the new issue before the UN:
I have left the UN and will not return if this passes. I disagree with some of the points it makes.
I dont think that every UN member nation should be forced to have a jury of their peers. i think common citizens can be stupid and persuaded because of a lawyer's demeanor or flashy show, while ignoring the facts. Juries are not always fair and impartial. We've seen that here in america when juries ignore the facts and convict based on skin color or personal veiws. Although a jury system has lots of good qualities, i dont think it is fair to FORCE united nations' members to have them. a tribunal of judges who know the law and see cases everyday can be infinitely better. leave that choice up to the individual nations though, not the UN.
making the trial open to the public and media is a terrible thing to mandate. if I'm the prosecution OR the defense in a case, i dont want people filming the whole thing. A witness's answer WILL change if he is on national TV! and i wouldnt want anyone--let alone a news crew--being able to waltz in and watch me testify about being raped or having a family member killed. this clause is insane, and cannot be allowed to pass!
Finally, the defendant cannot be allowed to waive all those clauses. why can the defendant allow the trial to be long and unefficient? the prosecution doesnt want to spend years trying someone for shoplifting anymore than the defendant does. giving the defendant the power to waive those clauses is terrible and stupid.
This resolution cannot pass! just because it came from the United States' laws doesnt make it right, dont vote yes because it sounds familiar. this resolution has to be shut down for the above reasons. it's filed under the catagory "the furtherment of democracy." this wouldnt further democracy, just force faulty mandates on other nations. vote no, and further freedom!

You make some good points about this resolution.
Here are some other things to consider:
Who decides whether the counsel for the defense has been "functional"?
Is that interpretation left to the defendant? If so, anyone who is convicted will appeal based on the dysfunctionality of his/her defense counsel. The term is subjective.
Another term that is subjective is "proportional", as in the requirement that the sentence be "proportional" to the crime. Who decides the proportionality of the sentence. If the crime is, for example, the rape of a child, would a proportional sentence be three years, 20 years, life, or death by torture? Who gets to decide?
I'm going to vote against this resolution in hope that something better and more definitive can be proposed.

My Fellow Delegates,

The Confederacy of Mud Springs is wholeheartedly opposed to the "Fair Trial" definition ammendment. Plain & simple... the United Nations does not have, now should it EVER have the authority to impose a definition of "fair trial" upon its member states. The passing of this ammendment is a complete violation of sovereignty.
The United Nations was established to settled disputes between nation states, and to maintain peace & stability where hostility crosses the soveriegn borders of nation states.
The United Nations was not established to impose policies upon member states that violate the fundemental priciples of the soverieng government of a member states.
The Confederacy of Mud Springs has voted no on this resolution, and urges you to do the same. It is in the best interest of your citizens to protect their soveriegnty, their form of government, and their justice system.

I am the law in my country. What I saw, goes. Any "crime" will be view as directed toward people of my nation and punishable by death. Any criminal waives all rights in the commission of the crime. All "punishments" will be conducted within two seconds for speed and efficiency.

In accordance with "5, Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed," all "trials" will be held as soon as possible in the exact location of the crime if necessary. Guilt or innocent will be decided on a basis of whether "I like you" or "I don't like you."

All defendants are innocent until judged. All defendants can confront the witnesses, however, such "witnesses" (9. public and media) will be charged admission.

As a real-life law student, allow me to analyze the points of law. A public trial is for the benefit of the defendant, so that he or she has the right to make a plea to the public. The right to a speedy trial can be waived for several strategic reasons, primarily in the essence of allowing both sides time to prepare their cases and gather witnesses. Proportionality is a world-wide clause of law. There is no set standard, but when this world began, there was no human standard for anything. It has to start somewhere, and such an interpretation is left to society's reactions.
...And there you have it.

you said that holding off trials can be a good thing for both sides in some cases for gathering evidence and witnesses, but why is it then that the defendant can wait but the prosecution cant? i know that it is important for a defendant to have time to gather their defense, but why cant the prosecution? i wouldnt want a guilty man to get off the hook because the prosecution didnt have enough time to gather evidence. you only gave the defendant the right to wave the clauses, while the prosecution is forced to obey them. not really fair or impartial...

Absolutely. The prosecution has the burden of proof in any trial; their job is supposed to be more difficult. This is based around the concept that it is better to have 1,000 guilty people go free than to condemn one innocent person.

the 1000guilty vs. 1innocent theory is something that reigns in the USA, but not everywhere. personally, i dont think that 1000 murderers running around killing thousands of people is better than one innocent man spending time in prison. although many people may disagree with me, that's their right, as it is my right to hold my opinion. Thus, the UN should not force what i see as WRONG veiws upon my nation.

Falala Jong-Il, spokesman of Teetoopi Security Services Inc., would like to point out, "The United Nations has no right to decide how our nation shall carry out our laws within our own sovereign borders. Most all of these propositions border on the ridiculous and totally idiotic."

> 1. Is speedy and efficient.
"If too much haste is given to a trial, not all evidence may have a chance to be considered."

> 2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
"And who will pay for these lawyers? Surely not the taxpayer! Citizens must be held responsible for their own affairs. Our corporation offers several affordable lawyer insurance packages."

> 3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
"Why? So they can threaten them?"

> 4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Obviously, if they are a defendant, they must already be guilty to some degree. Considering a defendant guilty will discourage the legal tactic of attempting a mistrial."

> 5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
"We have found that by centralizing our judicial services branch, we have been able to save billions of bling blings and process cases in a more efficient manner."

> 6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
"What? We should have juries consisting of thieves and murderers? Experience has demonstrated that a panel of professional judges are much more efficient than a panel of citizens."

> 7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
"This claim is ridiculous. A governing body cannot be expected to pass a law for every possible situations. Judges should be authorized to enforce a general spirit of the law."

> 8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
"All forms of crime are unacceptable in our society and will be punished to the highest, most cost-efficient extreme."

> 9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
"From monitoring other nations that follow this practise and from historical documents dealing with celebrity defendants, we have found that the only entities that benifit from such a policy are tabloid newspapers. Many issues brought to light by a criminal trial are personal in nature and shall remain as such."

> 10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.
"Why would a defendant wave any rights at all if they are of sound mind? Insane people should be locked up and kept from roaming the streets."

>
> It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:
> 1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.
"How else are our judges expected to earn a comfortable living? Surely, one cannot expect the taxpayer to pay for the lavish mansions and fancy sports cars demanded by most judges."

> 2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.
(See argument for above proposed resolution.)

> 3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.
"As this is not a criminal proceeding, lawyers should not be required. We have found that a panel of judges are quite competent at dealing justice based on evidence presented by both parties."

> 4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.
"How can one place a value on a priceless item? How much is injury worth? In order to avoid frivolous "Jackpot" lawsuits, our restitution limits have been capped."

The Holy Republic of Seidonia is totally opposed to this 'Fair Trial' nonsense. There will be and never will be a 'Fair Trial' for someone who commeted something Immorally wrong in accordance to our Religion in Seidonia. We do not follow the 'Gay Rights' Act and will not follow the 'Fair Trial' act to the proposed regulations. Allowing this vote to take place makes the UN Hypocritical in the sense of Democracy, the citizens are allowed certain 'Freedoms' then the Nations should be allowed thier Freedoms as well! If Seidonia's citizens don't like the laws then they can get the hell out!

Ninjadom i suggest you go back to school and relearn the purpose of trials and why those who commit a crime are punished.
Protect the innocent?? how? by letting the guilty go free and commit more crime against these *innocents*??
Your propsal has more holes in it than our local cheese but as previous votes have shown the lemmings will vote for it without thinking because they think its fair even though they do not understands it.
I agree with what you are trying to do but you have put forward a ill thought, unworkable piece of trash.
Please revise it into a more workable form to benefit everyone not just the guilty...


:twisted: Long Live Dark Teutonia :twisted:

The leader of Rethelanium recognizes a defendant's innocence until proven guilty, but ((mentioned earlier)) the rushing of a trial prevents both sides, especially the prosecution from gathering enough evidence to convict the defendant. Not only does this undermine the function of a court system, it also harms the countries with the double jeopardy law imposed. Since the defendant must be proven guilty, the prosecution must have substantial evidence ready to try the defendant effectively the first time around; severely handicapping the prosecution practically guarantees the defendant's immunity to justice, because if a jury proves him innocent once he cannot be tried for that crime again, regardless of evidence found later on that incriminates him beyond any reasonable doubt.

Who says I need a legal system in my country?

It's not that I disagree with the resolution, it's that I feel some of the language to be vague and open to interpretation. Thus, the purpose of the resolution could be somewhat undermined by the wording when it's applied in court.

There is nothing in the resolution against the concept of double jeopardy and Shirresh shall define the venue of any crime to be our entire nation so that any courtroom can try the case. Juries will be defined as approved jurist with proper certification and we canl distort the rest of this legislation in every way possible that does not conflict with our normal standard of Justice.

The resolution has one major flaw, there is no enforcement or teeth to the legislation and Shirresh shall just ignore it should it be passed though we are doing all that we can to prevent passage of such a horrible document

It confuses me. I've seen forum after forum of people tearing this proposal appart and complaining bitterly about it. And yet it's going to pass with a HUGE majority. SIGH, the voting sheep win again...

I will not allow the bountiful land of Dark Teutonia be dragged dwon to the depths of stupidity that this bill would bring.
Criminals would have free will to do as they please because they could harass and mentally mess up the prosecutions witness's at any trial brought against them.
Until tHe Sheep/Lemmings start to realsie what it is they are voting for Dark Teutonia is hereby tearing up its UN charter until such a time it realsies such ill thought pathetic bills should not be allowed to see the light of day until correctly thought out.
The UN has no authority over a nations internal politics and law and is breaking international law if it attempts to enforce such rules.

Long Live Dark Teutonia

It confuses me. I've seen forum after forum of people tearing this proposal appart and complaining bitterly about it. And yet it's going to pass with a HUGE majority. SIGH, the voting sheep win again...

Yes, it is a shame that the majority of the "nation-state" leaders on this site hold typically American sentiments, instead of getting into the nature of role-playing the kind of leader that would actually represent the nations these people have created.
Sure, a "fair trial" is theoretically a good thing, but in the nation that I created, and are representing, it doesn't change the fact that the United Nations DOES NOT have the authority to impose such a policy on its member states.

And to Ninjadom... while you may in real life be an American Law Student, you may want to consider a class in international relations, and some study of the charter of the United Nations. Your ammendment would never have made it to the floor of the General Assembly, because passing it would violate the soveriegnty of every member state.

the United Nations DOES NOT have the authority to impose such a policy on its member states.
It does here, Mud Springs. Go back and read the fine print from when you signed up for the UN.
Your ammendment would never have made it to the floor of the General Assembly, because passing it would violate the soveriegnty of every member state.
But it did here, because 149 Regional Delegates approved it to come to the floor. You want to fight the system? Fight it from inside. Watch that proposal list, see who's voting for what, and get those diplomatic telegrams flying. Don't wait until it comes to a floor vote to express your disapproval.

Everyone here that's posting negative comments had the same 4 days of proposal time to campaign against it. Ninjadom had a topic posted that had NINE responses (one of which was a triple post). Anyone who cared to look could see it coming. I know I did, but I thought (and still think) that it's fine. Hell, Ninjadom probably would have joined the campaign against his own proposal if folks had taken the time to help him improve it. Did anyone bother?

If you don't participate in the process, you're one of the sheep yourself. If you waited until it got to the floor to bitch about it, you're the one at fault. Head over to the proposals list, and DO something about it. I'm tired of hearing you whine.

Frisbeeteria frothed
If you don't participate in the process, you're one of the sheep yourself. If you waited until it got to the floor to bitch about it, you're the one at fault. Head over to the proposals list, and DO something about it. I'm tired of hearing you whine.(try roleplaying it buddy all my posts come from my government not from me as an idividual)


Unfortunately Dark Teutonia only joined The joke that is the UN a short while ago and could not stop his proposal.
Next Time i use nukes ........ :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Long Live Dark Teutonia

ps Ninjadom we are starting a new tv Show here in Teutonia why dont you volunteer you and your people to guest on it.......

Dark Teutonia is crazy. Unless you are a delegate, you have little power until it gets to the floor. Even if you are a delegate, it takes a whole 6% of the delegates to vote in favor of something.

The majority of voters here don't even bother with the forum.

Shirresh has just taken to creative interpretation of the fair trial laws. We have renamed our judicial branch as "The Nobility" and all judges are "Peers". As all trials are to be before a jury of peers, our current judicial panels are now in compliance.

We have taken similiar actions with all the other provisions to insure the sanctity of our government institutions including sequestering media representatives for duration of trial to allow report only after trials are complete.

Unless you are a delegate, you have little power until it gets to the floor.
I disagree. All it take is a well-phrased telegram and/or forums posts. As a delegate, you control at most one vote. As a campaigner, you have the potential to reach many more delegates. Since the ones who approve the proposals are taking an active view towards the concept of proposals, they shouldn't mind a few telegrams holding them accountable for their votes.

Sure, there are a bunch of folks who just race through the lists approving every proposal, but they're in the minority. Most nations take a moment to consciously consider where their votes are going. I doubt most of them read every word of the proposals, but that's why you need to campaign.[code:1:166a931c34]Dear Delegate,
I'd like you to reconsider your vote on [proposal]. In short, we think it's going to cause problems because of [reason]. There is a great discussion on the forums at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123456 if you'd like the full story.
Your humble servant
Nationname, concerned UN member.[/code:1:166a931c34]
There. Was that so hard?

Sure, there are a bunch of folks who just race through the lists approving every proposal, but they're in the minority.

I remember the old days when the great Westrogoticae would approve every proposal because they were almost all horrible and he/she wanted to make all of the UN Members to have to undergo what Delegates had to undergo in the proposal list.

Admittedly if this law goes through, it will mean some administrative hassles for our new country, but we are commited to the UN. We will reject this proposal on the basis that some of the points are inaccurate enough, and other of the points do not make the best sense. We in Dantooinee agree with fair trials in principal.

:?:
Presumably the UN will be able to modify or repeal this law at a later date?
:?:

Sure, there are a bunch of folks who just race through the lists approving every proposal, but they're in the minority. Most nations take a moment to consciously consider where their votes are going. I doubt most of them read every word of the proposals, but that's why you need to campaign.[code:1:4813ae3dc6]Dear Delegate,
I'd like you to reconsider your vote on [proposal]. In short, we think it's going to cause problems because of [reason]. There is a great discussion on the forums at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123456 if you'd like the full story.
Your humble servant
Nationname, concerned UN member.[/code:1:4813ae3dc6]
There. Was that so hard?

Yes that is hard. "Please leave me alone," "Why should I care what you say?," "What crack are you smoking?," "Don't you have better things to do with your time?," "That's why I'm a delegate and you're not" are all things I've received. Not only that, the telegrams are limited to a total of 10 in your box. Some just refuse to empty it.

I try not to start any fires or get in meaningless debates, but I sure do love when someone starts off their post with:

Being a [blank], I can assure you that [blank]...

Usually it has something to do with being a lawyer, politico, masters of government, etc...

From now on I will begin every post with "Being a polecat and a topless one at that, I can assure you that...."

I figure that should make people understand that I am an authority on myriad subject matters.

Vote down this "Fair Trial" resolution. If you have trouble getting your Delegate to listen to you, move somewhere else where they might.

By the way, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is a standard of proof required by the American system of law. There are about five to ten other main standards of proof practiced throughout the world.

Also, "Fair Trial" is primarily aimed at providing defendant civil rights. How does regulating civil proceedings fit into the doctrine of "Fair Trial"? The civil proceeding section of this proposal is why I am so vehemently opposing it.

In repsonse to this bill Dark Teutonia has enacted new measures within its own infrastructure for law and order.

Dark Teutonia now allows all witnesses to have a police stunt double at all trials who can read evidence from the witness’s statement and for legal purposes is known as the Witness.

The head of police now decides reasonable doubt

All Courts have been rescinded and all such buildings are now called “Venue from which the Crime was committed”

All Juries are minimum 50% public law enforcers called “peers”

All Judges are now renamed “impartial Judges” who work not for the police or the defence but for Dark Teutonia Central Government.

All trials are now open to the public at the cost of 50,000 Gustavs per person to cover seating costs.

All Media Wishing to attend Trials must carry a Media Licence signed by the chief of police and registered at central government office the registration fee payable at 10% of media companies annual income or 1 million Gustavs which ever is the larger sum.

These changes come into immeadiate force until such a time this bill is recinded or its flaws are corrected.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Long Live Dark Teutonia :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Sure, there are a bunch of folks who just race through the lists approving every proposal, but they're in the minority. Most nations take a moment to consciously consider where their votes are going. I doubt most of them read every word of the proposals, but that's why you need to campaign.[code:1:7362e4d07c]Dear Delegate,
I'd like you to reconsider your vote on [proposal]. In short, we think it's going to cause problems because of [reason]. There is a great discussion on the forums at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123456 if you'd like the full story.
Your humble servant
Nationname, concerned UN member.[/code:1:7362e4d07c]
There. Was that so hard?

Yes that is hard. "Please leave me alone," "Why should I care what you say?," "What crack are you smoking?," "Don't you have better things to do with your time?," "That's why I'm a delegate and you're not" are all things I've received. Not only that, the telegrams are limited to a total of 10 in your box. Some just refuse to empty it.

15 - it was changed a few months ago.l

Admittedly if this law goes through, it will mean some administrative hassles for our new country, but we are commited to the UN. We will reject this proposal on the basis that some of the points are inaccurate enough, and other of the points do not make the best sense. We in Dantooinee agree with fair trials in principal.

:?:
Presumably the UN will be able to modify or repeal this law at a later date?
:?:

My nation also supports fair trials, however, in this particular case we voted against this resolution on the basis that not all of the specific points of the resolution would apply to all nations. In other words, we felt we could afford this time to wait for something better to come along.

As for your second question, I asked much the same thing earlier this week and was told that we can't repeal resolutions at this time or in the near future.

-10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederation of Mikitivity

In repsonse to this bill Dark Teutonia has enacted new measures within its own infrastructure for law and order.

Dark Teutonia now allows all witnesses to have a police stunt double at all trials who read evidence from the witness’s statement and for legal purposes is known as the Witness.

The head of police now decides reasonable doubt

All Courts have been rescinded and all such buildings are now called “Venue from which the Crime was committed”

All Juries are minimum 50% public law enforcers called “peers”

All Judges are now renamed “impartial Judges” who work not for the police or the defence but for Dark Teutonia Central Government.

All trials are now open to the public at the cost of 50,000 Gustavs to cover seating costs.

All Media Wishing to attend Trials must carry a Media Licence signed by the chief of police and registered at central government office the registration fee payable at 10% of media companies annual income or 1 million Gustavs which ever is the larger sum.

These changes come into immeadiate force until such a time this bill is recinded or its flaws are corrected.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Long Live Dark Teutonia :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I make the laws in Devilinvergo!!!! If this law passes, I will continue to do business as I have for years!!!! This law is going too far. You cannot dictate how a rule my nation!! Guilty until proven innocent I say. Trial by me!!! Not your peers!!

I must post my view even if it will not do much good. I can not accept this bill, the UN can not force their laws upon nations like this! I will never agree to this.

I disagree I think that the nations peers can make the right decision.