NationStates Jolt Archive

This Bill has far too many holes it in, it is too vague in some areas and too specific in others. If this bill passes it will cross the line between UN regulation and individual nation prerogative, something along this line should be up to the nation. This bill must not pass...

This bill infringes on the rights of other nations that are not democratic. just because america sees democracy as the best way does not mean that it is. there are many forms of government far supirior, and we should not be trying to stamp those nations out.

also in agreement

The leader of Rethelanium wonders why the proposal currently has more pro votes than con, despite the fact that a majority of UN debate topics finds fault with it.

This bill infringes on the rights of other nations that are not democratic. just because america sees democracy as the best way does not mean that it is. there are many forms of government far supirior, and we should not be trying to stamp those nations out.

*Waves* Hi, I'm John Marat, Albion sent me to the UN to keep me out of harm's way. The bill does indeed take some freedoms from nations away. But then, so do these:

Alternative Fuels

The Rights of Labor Unions

Freedom of Humor

Wolfish Convention on POW

Common Sense Act II

Fair trial

Religious Tolerance

Required Basic Healthcare

Gay Rights

Stop privacy intrusion

Citizen Rule Required

These are all resolutions passed by the UN. There are more if you care to check. The last two are of particular importance. You see, the day you sign up to the UN you have to grant some form of self rule. And what about the one marked 'fair trial'

You see there already is provision in place for fair trials. The problem with the resolution is that its rubbish and the new one aims to make it better. Does it male it better? Well, we, like many nations are not so sure.

But using the 'this infringes on my rights to...' argument is a little weak if only for the fact that there are laws in place-- not secret laws mind you, that are binding the moment you step into the UN. There they are, all listed as laws which will grant democratic rights. freedom of humour, rightsof labour unions, gay rights and so on. They don't get
passed then magically go away. Oh no no!

By the way, where is this 'America'? We couldn't find it.

But using the 'this infringes on my rights to...' argument is a little weak if only for the fact that there are laws in place-- not secret laws mind you, that are binding the moment you step into the UN. There they are, all listed as laws which will grant democratic rights. freedom of humour, rightsof labour unions, gay rights and so on. They don't get
passed then magically go away. Oh no no!


Alright, how about the following:

Point 2: Entitles all defendants to a functional defense. ... what should be considered functional? A defense that might be successful? One that's guaranteed to be successful? We have a poorly defined term that might mean that someone caught red handed mass murdering orphans can get off on a technicality, because nobody can find a defense that can be termed "functional."

Point 5: 5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed. ... I don't understand this at all. Shouldn't it be at some sort of neutral venue? Do we have to hold trials in washrooms, if that's where a crime was committed?

Point 7: 7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read. ... I would much prefer this to be "as written." Nitpicking, perhaps, but if you can't imagine how this sort of thing can cause trouble, go watch The Life of Brian

Point 9: 9. Makes the trial open to the public and media. ... this just seems odd. Particularly the media part. For a trial to be fair, it must clearly be open ... but "open to the media" seems to imply that every word said in court is permitted to be broadcast on television, which is not necessarily in the defendant's interest, or the public's interest.

In the second section, part 2: 3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation. ... Who's small claims court? The nation's in question? What if they don't have one? Can they just re-name their Supreme Court as "Small Claims Court", and continue as if this doesn't exist? If so, what's the point of it?

Whether you're in favour of "fair" trials or not, this bill is poorly written, over-reaching, and in a couple of spots, actually not conductive to its stated purpose. It should be voted down.

I really must say, this bill is horrible.

I may be a psycotic dictator obsessed with destroying my worker's freedoms and increasing my profit margin, but that doesn't mean a thing when I say that this bill gives too much freedom to the defendant.

2.) The defendant should NOT be allowed to hire a functional defence. Lawyers aren't necessary; if the person isn't guilty then they can just step up and prove it. The same goes for the prosecution... no lawyers. Prove your case on your own.

3.) The defendant should NOT have the right to confront the witness, instead, the witness should have the right to confront the defendant. A witness to a murder isn't going to want the psycokiller to be able to see them, and of course the psycokiller wants to see who's putting him away for the next umpty-nine years. This simply gives the defendant too great of a freedom.

4.) The defendant should neither be declared "not guilty" nor "guilty" before evidence is provided in either direction. In the stead of the original standing being "not guilty," the defendant should instead be declared "undergoing due process," before any evidence is brought forth. Only after significant evidence is brought forth for one side or the other can teh decision be made as to "guilty," or "not guilty."

5.) The trial should not be held in the same general area that it was committed in. As most criminals try to flee justice, it is in Justice's financial interest to simply try them where they are and not spend the extra amount to send them back to the alleged area.

6.) The defendant should not be entitled to a jury of his or her peers. Any such jury has a greater chance of siding with the defendant than the prosecutor, as they are more likely to see the entire event from teh defendat's point of view and sympathize with him.

9.) The trial should not be made open to the public and the media. Doing so will result in damaging the reputation of the losing side. Also, allowing the media to cover the trial will allow the entire viewing audience to help provide bias for one side or the other, causing general disorder even though it is only a trivial trial.

10.) Only the judge should be allowed to wave clauses in a fair trial, and then only with the defendant's and prosecutor's permission.

I do agree that a set of rules for fair trials should be made, but this set is not so. The ideas presented for a civil trail suit their purpose, but the rest simply give the defendant too many rights. this set of rules clearly favors the defendant, and as such is not a good set of rules for a "fair trial"

Alright, how about the following:

Point 2: Entitles all defendants to a functional defense. ... what should be considered functional? A defense that might be successful? One that's guaranteed to be successful? We have a poorly defined term that might mean that someone caught red handed mass murdering orphans can get off on a technicality, because nobody can find a defense that can be termed "functional."
What is meant is that the defense attorneys be competent no matter if there is renumeration or not. A lot of timeswith the poor,the lawyer's not getting paid or isn't thatgood a lawyer (like most in Legal Aid).

Point 5: 5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed. ... I don't understand this at all. Shouldn't it be at some sort of neutral venue? Do we have to hold trials in washrooms, if that's where a crime was committed?
Meaning: If the crime was committed in say Montréal, the trial shall be in Montréal.