NationStates Jolt Archive

Duke Saul steps up to the podium...

There's a lot off obscure points here. The venue of the crime?!? On a national or regional level? Publicised trials? Do you mean in the courtroom or what? You've got to be very clear.

..and it doesn't cover witch trials, demonic possessions or how best to interview animal witnesses.....

The letter of the law as it is applied in various member states can be vastly different as can the attitudes of Law and Order Agencies in their approach to criminal investigations and processes. Does this proposal not also need to outline provisions for a universal approach to the entire criminal justice system to ensure proper monitoring of the judicial process across the UN and to protect the rights of defendants before they come to trial.

Would it not also be advisable to introduce guidelines to protect the identities of defendants during trial to prevent any possible miscarriage of justice or, in the event of Acquittal, to prevent the trial process having a detrimental effect on the lives and the families of the innocent.

By the way I'm not a lawyer I just got carried away.......

We already have a fair trial legislature which is even less clear than this one. This one simply clarifies that one more than it currently is and defines fair trail IN LIGHT of the current one.

You have to take them both together to understand the implications of this. And I do not see any problems with it.

Otherwise a very fine proposal this legislature act, but because of the lack of contrsicting the media I must vote against it. The publicity of the trials in major cases might endanger the jury, those testifying and the ones being prosecuted. Therefore I suggest that a notion be made to the proposal that seperates cases where organized crime is clearly involved and in general in any case where the personal well-being of any one participating in it might be in danger.

1) The media can send audio from the courtroom but no visual material is allowed.

2) The testimonies should not be recorded or transmitted directly, but a representative of the media could summarize them.

3) The names of those testifying should not be made public information

4) The names of those sitting in the jury should also remain out of public

5) The defendant should remain anonymous in cases of : child molesting (more proposals?)

6) Articles 1-4 apply to all of the cases that could endanger any of the cases participants, should their personal information become public. Whether they are in danger or not shall be determined by the judge overseeing the case.

Please comment on this.

Everyone seems to be confused about the issue of public trials. They are completely for the benefit of the defendant. A public trial allows the defendant to make his or her case to the community in the venire of potential jury members. Like in real life, the public trial may be transformed into a closed trial at the request of the defendant or the order of a judge. As for the jury, in severe cases, they can be sequestered.
To address other concerns, such as with Sauldovia, there is nothing obscure about it. Everything there is in legalese. Allow me to define two key terms:
Venue - the basic area (geographically and politically) in which the crime was committed.
National or regional - Federal and state (the judicial system's two parts).

By the way; I am a friend of Ninjadom.

My sentiments exactly, NewSword.

if your nation is run exactly like the united states, then this:

National or regional - Federal and state (the judicial system's two parts).

is true. if it's not, then it's not true. my nation does not understand federal and state judicial systems. it does not understand judicial systems with 'parts.'

I think what we are missing here is the clarification of whether this means it applies in international affairs, or if all member nations are required to operate their legal systems in this way.

Contrary to statements I've seen posted about this, it is *NOT* implicit or explicit that this is only in the matter of international affairs.

Just like the prostitution proposal was about an affair *inside* our member nations, I find no reason to presume here that this proposal is only concerned with international affairs.

I agree that democracy and other American culture are being imposed upon the members of the UN.

That was my first post! Thanks for your replies! And LOTS of thanks to newsword, who give me a nice clear definition. I also agree with restricting the media in trial. Lots of replies... It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside... BTW, Guafenasin (sorry if I spelt it wrong, it's too early...) has a point: many states don't have American style judicial systems, so I'm voting against on those two grounds. (media control/american style courts)

We already have a fair trial legislature which is even less clear than this one. This one simply clarifies that one more than it currently is and defines fair trail IN LIGHT of the current one.

You have to take them both together to understand the implications of this. And I do not see any problems with it.

Here, Here. Sure this proposal could be better worded but it is truly better then the current guidlines set by the UN. If you wnat to improve on this one do it but at least fix some problems with the current legislation in place.

You owe it to your nations to have fair trials.

the major problem i have with this legislation is this

3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.

I think there needs to be exceptions to this rule. In the case of sexual assault or child witnesses, the stress placed on the witness by having to confront the alleged perpetrator can be so strong as to stop the witness or victim coming forward. I believe there should be provision for video conferencing for such witnesses, at the discretion of the judge, and that cross examination should only be possible by the respective lawyers, not the defendant in these cases.

We believe that trials are not an international problem and therefore should not be legislated by the United Nations.

Therefore We have voted against this proposal.

Indigo
Master of the Indigo Islands

Hey now, are we going to attempt to legislate into effect politics that are the purview of each sovereign nation? Sure, Resoria abides by rules very similar (apart from the press having access), but what of certain other states which utilize Napoleonic or Islamic systems of justice?

Resoria votes no, and urges others to do the same to protect your nation's sovereignty and prevent this Western imperialist proposal from squishing you like a little tiny bug...i squish you...squish.

This proposal is a blatant usurption of the Sovereign rights of each nation. Every nation has, or should have, the right to choose what their criminal justice system is like, and how it is administered.

I would urge everybody vote no on this.

1. Speedy and efficient. What exactly does this mean? How speedy? How efficient? Who decides this? Proceedings must not subject to arbitary time constraints or vital evidence may be missed. This is just as much for the defendant's benefit as the prosecutor.

2. The right of defendants to confront witnesses. Does this mean cross-examination? Surely this is done by the lawyer? Imagine this being put into practice in a rape trial for example.

3. The trial taking place at the venue of the crime. How appalling for the victim to not only have to relive the crime in their account and cross-examination but also to have to return to the scene.

4. Verdict to be proportional to the crime. The verdict is either guilty or not guilty. This proposal has no meaning. If it means that the sentence should be proportional to the crime then it is not only badly worded but is vague and insubstantial. Who decides what is or isn't proportional? This could well be misinterpreted as an argument for capital or corporal punishment.

Overall, the resolution is badly phrased and seriously infringes on the rights of victims.

Here's my trepidations concerning this proposal:

1) First, what is meant by a "functional defense"?

2) Insofar as the way this game is played, it is better to presume guilt first and then place the burden on the presumed guilty to prove otherwise. After all, in the war on terror in the United States, that is exactly what is going on with the Patriot Act in many cases, and I view potential subverters as terrorists.

3) A fair trial is not always good to be held in the same venue in which the crime is committed. In fact, a change of venue is usually among the first requests that an accused will make, especially if the crime has created a volatile environment in the community (example: the Scott Peterson case or even O. J. Simpson)

4) Not all trials should be open to the media. Too many people put their spin on what is going on and that can create a hostile environment (example: Rodney King in Los Angeles)

5) "Speedy and efficient" are rather amorphous terms. I'd like them to be quantified in some meaningful way.

So, upon reflection, until these items are addressed, I have voted against this resolution.

Two more items for concern:

6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
So now every contested parking ticket issued may require a lengthy jury selection? Idiotic.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
Kalivorland's laws are to be applied as written, not as read. One wonders what impact an inadvertant stutter could have upon the duration of a prison sentence or size of a fine.

I also agree with most of the previous critiques, I just noticed that a couple of points have been left out. This proposal is lacking on almost every point.

term #10, which reads, Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason. This is why I am against the proposition...i mean yeah good idea, but no a very bad idea at the same time. This side note gives the defendant the ability to wave any one of the clauses. Including an impartial judge....without reason. Thus the defendant would gain the automatic advantage. He or she could wave the clause allowing one of their friends or family members to judge. This is the way i interpret it...opinions(i am very open to criticism)? :shock: