NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm trying to get support to repeal the "Common Sense Act II", a resolution that appears to ban frivolous lawsuits (hot coffee, etc.) but in truth only harms civil rights. See the the arguments on the proposal- the last time I checked, it was near the end of the list at the U.N.
Please help!
You're a better person if you do! :cool:

Common Sense Act II was passed to prevent human stupidity from burdening legal systems. It wasn't meant to increase civil rights. Thus, I support it unless I see a good arguement.

Also, post your repeal attempt here. Otherwise, I must assume you don't actually have an arguement and vote against it.

A better solution to lessening the burden on the legal system, is to have whoever loses the case pay for all costs involved with it. This includes anything from rent(if applicable) of the building to the judges wages(assuming your judge is payed by the hour). Let those who cause damage to others be the one to pay for it, not the entire population through taxes. If these lawsuits are so frivilous and in the wrong, then they wouldn't be supported by thier judges. If thier judges do support such lawsuits, then it is your countries fault for appointing such stupid judges and your nation will suffer accordingly. We shouldn't force people to be good, they have to realize what is good themselves and choose to pursue it.

A better solution to lessening the burden on the legal system, is to have whoever loses the case pay for all costs involved with it. This includes anything from rent(if applicable) of the building to the judges wages(assuming your judge is payed by the hour). Let those who cause damage to others be the one to pay for it, not the entire population through taxes. If these lawsuits are so frivilous and in the wrong, then they wouldn't be supported by thier judges. If thier judges do support such lawsuits, then it is your countries fault for appointing such stupid judges and your nation will suffer accordingly. We shouldn't force people to be good, they have to realize what is good themselves and choose to pursue it.
This would only work if the winners where reimbursed for their loses but if a poor person, who would have won the case, doesn't have enough money to go to court in the first place they loose out. You can't be reimbursed for what you can't spend.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I agree that there should be a repeal.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

This protects companies who put dangerous substances in their products without warning the consumer. I would be ok with this clause if only it added something like "when all known information concerning the known and potential dangers associated with consumption of said product is readily available to the consumer".

4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This could be used to legitimise police brutality, as officers could use this clause as cover for beating a citizen to the brink of death for a crime as minor as a parking violation.

This protects companies who put dangerous substances in their products without warning the consumer. I would be ok with this clause if only it added something like "when all known information concerning the known and potential dangers associated with consumption of said product is readily available to the consumer".

It's assuming you have laws causing disclosures of what is harmful and what is not. Part of why I don't import much from Earth.

This could be used to legitimise police brutality, as officers could use this clause as cover for beating a citizen to the brink of death for a crime as minor as a parking violation.

Free piece of advice: If there is no video tape, they can manage to get away with it anyway.

Free piece of advice: If there is no video tape, they can manage to get away with it anyway.

But this actually could be interpreted as making it legal.

Not if you don't tell anyone, after all who believes some random nutter? ;)

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

But this actually could be interpreted as making it legal.

So can the other. Ever heard of "resisting arrest?"

This could be used to legitimise police brutality, as officers could use this clause as cover for beating a citizen to the brink of death for a crime as minor as a parking violation.

I disagree. It only applies while the crime is in progress. Once the law figure has the suspect cuffed, subdued, or incapacitated the crime being commited officially ends. Any use of force while the suspect is under police custody is naturally police brutality.

I disagree. It only applies while the crime is in progress. Once the law figure has the suspect cuffed, subdued, or incapacitated the crime being commited officially ends. Any use of force while the suspect is under police custody is naturally police brutality.

While this citizen's car is illegally parked, the policeman could commit all kinds of acts, because the the car is still incorrectly parked, so the crime is still being committed. And with other crimes where this doesn't apply, what about violence before the suspect is subdued? A policeman could easily use vastly excessive force to subdue a suspect.

And yes, I do realise that these things happen anyway. But this resolution makes it even easier to get away with, so it happens more.