Topless Polecats
11-02-2004, 17:21
In some areas this is too broad, in others too specific...
1. Is speedy and efficient.
:!: This provision points to the rights of a defendant to not have to be incarcerated or otherwise harmed by lengthly proceedings. On the face, a good proposal. How, though, is this enforceable by the UN? Strike "efficient" and define "speedy" and we have a start.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
:!: What the hell is a functional defense? How does the UN enforce this?
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
:!: The belief being that a confronted witness will have a harder time lying and, more importantly, that the defendant's team has the ability to cross the witness. Please, provide more specificity.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
:!: "Reasonable doubt" is a measure. What if a sovereign nation has a different standard of guilt?
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
:!: Why is this necessary? Aren't there circumstances where it is better to try a case away from the locale where the crime was committed? What does "venue" here mean? Does "within the borders of my country" fit?
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
:!: Not all nations belonging to the UN employ a jury system. Some nations trust their representatives to hire/appoint "judges" (be they a single judge, or panels, etc...) and remove everyday citizens from the civil responsibility of judicial proceedings. In nations such as these, the judge has all of the power within his/her court. No jury need exist.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
:!: "Impartial" and "judge" need further definition. Can a monarch not be a judge and under what circumstances can he/she not?
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
:!: OK, I'll buy that. Again, please define the UN's recourse to any nation failing to do this.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
:!: We've seen where this somewhat innocuous sounding idea has had adverse effects on fair judicial proceedings.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.
:!: All of these provisions, since they have a broad international scope, should be written such that the Defendant should never want to waive them.
I won't even touch the civil provisions, for all of them should be struck from this proposal. Civil procedure and common law are rooted in national sovereignity. They are built upon years and years of precedence specific to the state in which they exist. They have nothing to do with international civil rights.
1. Is speedy and efficient.
:!: This provision points to the rights of a defendant to not have to be incarcerated or otherwise harmed by lengthly proceedings. On the face, a good proposal. How, though, is this enforceable by the UN? Strike "efficient" and define "speedy" and we have a start.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
:!: What the hell is a functional defense? How does the UN enforce this?
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
:!: The belief being that a confronted witness will have a harder time lying and, more importantly, that the defendant's team has the ability to cross the witness. Please, provide more specificity.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
:!: "Reasonable doubt" is a measure. What if a sovereign nation has a different standard of guilt?
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
:!: Why is this necessary? Aren't there circumstances where it is better to try a case away from the locale where the crime was committed? What does "venue" here mean? Does "within the borders of my country" fit?
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
:!: Not all nations belonging to the UN employ a jury system. Some nations trust their representatives to hire/appoint "judges" (be they a single judge, or panels, etc...) and remove everyday citizens from the civil responsibility of judicial proceedings. In nations such as these, the judge has all of the power within his/her court. No jury need exist.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
:!: "Impartial" and "judge" need further definition. Can a monarch not be a judge and under what circumstances can he/she not?
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
:!: OK, I'll buy that. Again, please define the UN's recourse to any nation failing to do this.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
:!: We've seen where this somewhat innocuous sounding idea has had adverse effects on fair judicial proceedings.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.
:!: All of these provisions, since they have a broad international scope, should be written such that the Defendant should never want to waive them.
I won't even touch the civil provisions, for all of them should be struck from this proposal. Civil procedure and common law are rooted in national sovereignity. They are built upon years and years of precedence specific to the state in which they exist. They have nothing to do with international civil rights.