NationStates Jolt Archive

No Punishment Without Law Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Aligned Planets

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

3. This Article serves to reinforce the principles laid down in Resolution #21 and Resolution #47, entitled 'Fair Trial' and 'Definition of Fair Trial' respectively, whilst adding additional clarification to the legal process.

Who gets to decide what "civilized nations" are?

Me.

Well why not?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Me.

Well why not?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

You can quote Monty Python, so you can't be all bad :}

(Or rather, you can quote people who quote Monty Python!)

You can quote Monty Python, so you can't be all bad :}

(Or rather, you can quote people who quote Monty Python!)
Wohoo! I get ultimate power!

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Who gets to decide what "civilized nations" are?

civilised nations are all those who are members of the UN

and no - this does not mean that people who are not in the UN are not civilised!

civilised nations are all those who are members of the UN

and no - this does not mean that people who are not in the UN are not civilised!

Damn that last part.... :P

So - what do you all think of the Resolution?

Is it ok, are there any changes I could make to improve it?

Would you vote for it?

How will this affect people who have been put in jail for something that is a crime now, but wasn't a crime when it was committed?

(I know that's strange, but here is an example. It's hypothetical by the way - we are not this intolerant!).

Fifteen years ago there was a motion before The Council to make swearing in Church a crime. It took six months to pass and become law. The day before it was passaed a guy (Mr Smith) swore at a Priest in a local church. Two days afterwards it was reported, Mr Smith was brought in and he was charged, convicted and sentenced to thirty years in jail. (It was considered a serious crime, before you ask).

Mr Smith is still in jail for this crime.

So now - if this proposal passes - will we have to release him? Or will he still be jailed for another fifteen years - the rest of his sentence?

I understand what you say, but I don't think the UN would have any jurisdiction in such a case - it would be up to the individual to petition his own Government.

Here's why...

The guy committed a crime the day before the legislation come into power, but was sentenced under the new legislation. Correct?

The no-one stated in clause 1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission would have to extend to the Government of a country as well.

Yes, the Government may have been in error, but they made the error before this Resolution came into being. So, at the time, the Government had no guidelines to prevent it from sentencing that man unfairly.

Now, if this Resolution passes, the Governments of Nations within the UN will from now on HAVE TO sanction criminals according to the legislation at the time of the crime.

Personally, I would release the man and offer him compensation - but that would be my own Nation making an individual ruling within the constraints of the Resolution.

No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

What about laws that are not written down but are accepted by a general population as being law-breaking?

You see this in "civilized" (I use the term loosely.) cultures that have no written law, but oral law, is that therefore considered non-law by the national and international bodies that would oversea the punishment of law-breaking citizens in "civilized" cultures?

If oral law is how law is presented in some Nations, and is accepted by the population, then I see no problem.

We are not defining law itself in Nations here, but merely stating that people should be punished only by the laws that were in existance at the time of the crime, whether oral laws or written laws.

The 'No Punishment Without Law' Act is currently awaiting endorsements.

Please head to the UN Section (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24227/page=UN_proposal/start=110) to Endorse it

(provided you agree with it!)

Okay. I have a question.


1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.


It is the last part of this I have a question about.

(I am back to hypothetical examples again).

Five years ago Mr Smith used a knockout drug named Dulama to kidnapp a five year old elf-girl and abuse her.

She was rescued, and Mr Smith went to prison for six years, because that is what you get for kidnapping five year old girls and abusing them.

However just after this resolution passed (assuming it passes) it was discovered that Dulama is toxic to elves, which is why the girl passed away three years ago (this can be proven by doing an exhumation and examination of the remains, just in case you are curious).

Now - the punishment for killing five year old girls is a tad more than for kidnapping and abusing them. So, with this resolution in place, would we be permitted to add time on to his sentence, or would we have to release him when his six years are up, or would we have to retry him for manslaughter and then add stuff to his time?

The other part to this question is if someone is arrested for a crime, but before they come to trial something happens to make the punishment for the crime a lot longer) do we have to go by the time they were arrested, or the time they were tried? Because it could be argued that the basis for the punishment should be when the punishment is handed down, not when the crime was comitted. (I would not argue that, but it could be argued).


And quite honestly I do not like the phrase Civilised nations. It is patronising at best, and insulting at worst. If you could find a better one I would be more inclined to support this :}

Okay. I have a question.
So, with this resolution in place, would we be permitted to add time on to his sentence, or would we have to release him when his six years are up, or would we have to retry him for manslaughter and then add stuff to his time?

I would say that you would have to retry him, in light of new evidence. He killed a girl, whether knowingly or unknowingly, and according to the law of your Nation at the time - (as you stated) the punishment for manslaughter is much more severe than just kidnapping. As the law existed at the time of the kidnapping, I would see no conflict in retrying the individual for manslaughter - in light of the new evidence.

The other part to this question is if someone is arrested for a crime, but before they come to trial something happens to make the punishment for the crime a lot longer) do we have to go by the time they were arrested, or the time they were tried?

'at the time when it was committed.' The person has to be tried and punished according to the laws that were in existance at the time of the crime. Whether or not these laws have changed now.

And quite honestly I do not like the phrase Civilised nations.

I'm just using the phrasing of the RL United Nations :-)

Makes sense to me...it would protect people from the government should say an insane law be passed. "No walking backwards allowed".

but consider this, with the emergence of new ways of commiting crimes, (i.e. identity theft, hacking, pyramid scams), there would be little to no way to correct the injustice, as new laws are passed won't be used to charge them. A slow-moving legislature, chocked full of checks and balances, (*ahem* such as the UN :p) will be heavily penalized.

Also, creative criminals will go free, dumb ones will be eradicated. You'd be helping the criminal gene pool. :eek:

Sorry AP, had to go with my gut.

there would be little to no way to correct the injustice, as new laws are passed won't be used to charge them.

I don't understand...

This piece of legislation ensures that the person will be punished according to the laws that were in place at the time of the crime. It is up to individual Nations to set up anti-fraud campaigns, etc - Aligned Planets had already diverted funding into anti-internet (etc) fraud.

I don't see how endorsing this piece of legislation will allow criminals to get away with crimes; it will merely ensure that they are tried according to the law at the time of the crime.

I meant the un-criminals who committed the un-crime :), when it was not a crime. They probably did something bad enough to warrant the creation of new laws. But they are shielded from the effects of the new laws anyway...

I meant the un-criminals who committed the un-crime :), when it was not a crime. They probably did something bad enough to warrant the creation of new laws. But they are shielded from the effects of the new laws anyway...

Ex Post Facto cannot be a basis of law. Can't you see an inherant problem with holding people accountable for breaking a law that didn't exist?

Ex Post Facto cannot be a basis of law. Can't you see an inherant problem with holding people accountable for breaking a law that didn't exist?

How else are you going to round up all the people who are going to vote against you are the next election?

But seriously - I think this proposal is pretty good, and despite my best efforts I can't find anything in it that someone could abuse to make the world a less good place.

So if it does come to a vote I would support it, but as I have no power to do anything before that I.... won't :}

But seriously - I think this proposal is pretty good, and despite my best efforts I can't find anything in it that someone could abuse to make the world a less good place.


Oooh - TilEnca actually supports me on a Proposal for once!! :-D :-D

heh - would you mind trying to convince others to endorse the proposal then?

Thanks,

AP

See, AP. It worked! I played bad cop... :D

I'd advice using a RL legal term as name of this UN Proposal. The legal term for 'No punishment without law' is 'Nulla poena sine lege', but 'Nullum crimen sine lege' might also be applicable to this Proposal. A Proposal with a fancy name might impress people and and draw their attention so it's likely your Proposal gets more endorsements.

If oral law is how law is presented in some Nations, and is accepted by the population, then I see no problem.

However, your proposal does not state that and is unclear of that; it needs to be stated that both oral and written law or that any nation's law and how they keep it is in question here. Otherwise, the loopholes are too numerous to name.