NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a well meaning but slanted UN Proposition. In our country - we provide very fair, speedy trials. However we lean towards the protection of the whole over the misconcieved "rights" of the individual. We are not the only country that opts to place the burden of proof of the defendant.
As a society, we understand the sacrifices we all make collectively to insure the safety of those who are most at risk.
We do not harbor criminals in our glorious nation - because we make it inhospitable for the criminal. We respect other nations rights to rule themselves as they wish - but would choose to not be told how to dole out justice and compassion within our own borders.

Please vote against this proposition.

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen:
We at Whatif are voting against the current resolution because point 10: "Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason" makes a defender capable of difficulting and stretching the duration of the trail (by "waving" clause 1 "Is speedy and efficient"), acussing himself to save the real guilty (by "waving" clause 4 "Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"), choosing a partial judge (by "waving" clause 7 "Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read") and selecting long stages at jail or painful punishments (for masochists) (by "waving" clause 8 "That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime"). Either the clauses can't be "waved" or there must be a good reason for it.

Also, "6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers" would mean that the military would only answer to the military, and we are against "parallel law". Law is law for everybody, civil or military.

At your feet,
KalEl el Vigilante
President of the Democratic Federation of Whatif

This is a well meaning but slanted UN Proposition. In our country - we provide very fair, speedy trials. However we lean towards the protection of the whole over the misconcieved "rights" of the individual. We are not the only country that opts to place the burden of proof of the defendant.
As a society, we understand the sacrifices we all make collectively to insure the safety of those who are most at risk.
We do not harbor criminals in our glorious nation - because we make it inhospitable for the criminal. We respect other nations rights to rule themselves as they wish - but would choose to not be told how to dole out justice and compassion within our own borders.

Please vote against this proposition.

So in other words, the only way to be acquitted at a trial in your nation is to blame someone else?

Also, "6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers" would mean that the military would only answer to the military, and we are against "parallel law". Law is law for everybody, civil or military.
KalEl el Vigilante, you don't seem to have a grasp of the inherent variables of International law. The Fair Trial proposal calls for a jury of peers, but does not define the term peer. That means you get to define it. You could make a case that if the defendant is a left-handed gay black woman, then only other left-handed gay black women could serve.

As a corollary, you could make the case that Whatif citizenship is the defining criteria of peerdom, and the only requirement in Whatif is a birth certificate or valid immigration document. You could even require "Peers" to graduate from a course of study in the relevant area of law, and have a paid pool of professional Peers. It's your call.

A similar case could be made for all the other fine points raised by opponents of this Act. You see a loophole? Don't be hamstrung by it - take advantage of it.

Thinking Outside The Box,
MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

A fleer is someone who flees.

A seer is someone who sees with great insight.

A sightseer sees sights.

So a peer would be...?