NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/79004/page=UN_proposal/start=85

Fair Representation Of Indiv

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Klashonite

Description: Individuals around the world are getting little or no represenation in court against some of the world biggest companies that commit illegal crimes. This proposal aims to bring justice to those companies by giving the individuals a fair trial against them. These decree's would be strictly enforced when an individual immediately sues a major company:

1. Sending an experienced lawyers to the individual, paid for by the government.

2. Increasing the tax rate by 5% for all citizens to pay for most of the costs.

3. If the number of lawsuits against the company is equal or over 10, one team of lawyers will represent all of the cases.

4. Examine the jurors carefully before the trial so as to not allow any "unjustice" to occur.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 144 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jan 30 2005

1. terrible idea. um, do you realize that corporation=individual?

2. the oppressed peoples will oppose this with all the DLE Nukes at our disposal.

3. terrible idea. terrible, terrible, i can't think of a stronger adjective meaning badbadbadbadbad, idea. have you any idea how many lawsuits are active against a large company on any given day? hundreds, no matter what the company does. and they're unrelated to each other! what possible good could be had by giving one lawyer a percentage of the settlements from labor relations, environmental violations, sexual harrassment blackmail, anti-dumping claims, securities disclosure violations, et cetera ad infinitum?

4. what does this mean? cat scans? iq tests? political correctness screening?

and who says i have to have a civil tort system at all? who says i have to have jurors?


as you might guess, i oppose this proposal.
i have nukes, so don't push your luck.

It's been a while since I picked a proposal apart, time for some fun. :D
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/79004/page=UN_proposal/start=85 You do realize that this link won't always lead to the proposal right?

Fair Representation Of Indiv

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: KlashoniteThe usual stuff

Description: Individuals around the world are getting little or no represenation in court against some of the world biggest companies that commit illegal crimes. This proposal aims to bring justice to those companies by giving the individuals a fair trial against them. These decree's would be strictly enforced when an individual immediately sues a major company:What constitutes a major company?

1. Sending an experienced lawyers to the individual, paid for by the government.Why should the government pay for the lawyer when they are not the ones filing the lawsuit?

2. Increasing the tax rate by 5% for all citizens to pay for most of the costs.What about nations whose tax rates are already at 100%, how are they supposed to pay for this?

3. If the number of lawsuits against the company is equal or over 10, one team of lawyers will represent all of the cases.OK, let me get this straight. First you want my nation to give them one lawyer and now they get a whole team? Make up your mind.

4. Examine the jurors carefully before the trial so as to not allow any "unjustice" to occur.What do you mean, do we give them a complete physical, a strip search, a MRI, a psychiatric evaluation, all of the above, what do you mean?

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 144 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jan 30 2005
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not be supporting this.

I see the point of free legal aid but this is absurd... I will however try to imply some suggestions behind all the criticism.. at any rate, this needs a lot of work.

Some quick facts. With a 5% tax rise on an average small size working population with an average taxable income $20 000 a year, would mean $10bn in revenues to put into this scheme. Even if a ridiculously high number, like 1 in every 100 of your working population needed this free legal aid every year, that would mean they each get $100 000 (I think my maths adds up, but feel free to correct me). Not to mention that assumes 100 000 'free legal aid' claims going to court every year, on top of everyone else's claims that don't qualify for this scheme. I would hope it is plainly obvious that these figures are ridiculous - there's no need for all this money, and it's patently stupid to make access to courts this easy to people, many of whom will have spurious claims, when courts around the world are generally overworked already.

'Experienced lawyers' - this is entirely subjective and belongs nowhere in a document like this. You need to clarify this, although I don't really see how. Sorry.

'A team will represent all the cases' - this kind of makes sense from a practical point of view, and already happens ie 'class action' suits. But in this context it would place impossible demands on a single law firm. They end up with a particularly 'bad company' with lots of people suing and all of a sudden they're left with the responsibility for ALL the cases where that company is involved. What about the firm's other clients, the ones who don't qualify for free legal aid, or where it is not appropriate? Firms would fight NOT to take these 'free' cases. That's hardly conducive to 'good faith' legal representation.

'Examine jurors' - to prevent injustice? At least well-meaning, but I wonder what your quotation marks mean. Besides, examining a jury to the end that they will not be biased in favour of the company introduces bias in itself. The point of juries is that they are neutral, at least in theory. You seem to suggest that neutrality means not being unduly 'influenced' by the company (but feel free to rebut - I inferred that from the general tone of your proposal). It swings both ways, you know.

To make a long story short. I see the point, but this needs to be built up again from scratch.