NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello again folks, now, I 've been a little quiet in recent times, but I'm thinking I might come back now and again to dabble in the U.N. ...

( For its own good of course, heh )

And right now, its to toss up the idea of my launching a repeal for a resolution that I never really liked one bit. Mainly because I have a very minor interest in the Law and also because I am opposed to its concepts of Law.

Personal pre-amble aside, the resolution in question is :

" Definition of 'Fair Trial' " (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48)

( Yes, you can click that to see it as in my record thread ! )

Now, below I'll post each section of it I am against, in blue text and then insert my arguments against each section beneath each one, in normal black text.

This is not yet a repeal, just some ideas I may use to launch one. I hope that by using bold text this will get a read. I have not sent in a repeal yet, this is just to see if people would support it. There-fore it is not in the format I would normally use, it is set out as - is for demonstrative reasons.

Feel free for the love of god ( or no gods ) to contribute, please

And so it begins :

Definition of 'Fair Trial'

" A resolution to increase democratic freedoms. "

For a start, I fail to see a direct link between the judicial system and political freedoms, I recall the idea of the seperation of the state and the judiciary, but hey, if any one wants to contribute to hows, why, or why not's then feel free of course.

Moving along,

A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003.

However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is.

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:

For starters, I think Fair Trial (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029626&postcount=22) ( Yes, a link to the copy in my record thread ! ) itself is illegal and in violation of game mechanics to begin with, as it threatens to expulsion for those who do not agree to its text. Further more, this definition thread pushes the boundries of legality too. The idea being your not allowed to compose definitions of previous resolutions to change, alter or other wise re-interpret their meaning. Further more, I accept that I am applying current rule concepts retro-actively I suspect, but I hope you'll see my concerns as still being appropriate in relation to those matters as those are the rules as they are now.

1. Is speedy and efficient.

I feel the idea that a trial must be " speedy and efficient " is detrimental to the legal process and implies cases are to be rushed. If you ask me, it doesn't sound like justice and the pursuit of truth is the objective of the case any-more. When speed and efficiency become, literally, your no. 1 priority, I think the law will suffer.

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.

Ironically enough I feel this need definition. Functional how ? Can your lawyer breathe ? Do they have basic motor skills ? Are they able to find interesting uses for the office furniture when their working late with their secretary ?

3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.

Something about that smacks of idiocy to me and seems to take no note of the delicacy of questioning in court, let alone it just rips courts wide open for a witness to be intimidated by the defendant if the witness gives evidence contrary to the interests of the defendant.

I would think the defendants counsel should of course be able to question a witness as the court should allow, by this is mad-ness.

4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think this is the only one I don't have a problem with. Sadly I don't think its really enough to " plug the hole and stop the titanic from sinking ".

5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.

You have to be fucking kidding me. Yeah, theory : man guns down store clerk and 3 customers in a corner store in cold blood. Now, the question is, can we fit the jury in the candy aisle ? Jesus. This is so impractical I'm actually having trouble working out how this thing slipped by. Probably the sheep vote. Here's to hoping if I press a - head I can harness them to do some good.

6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

And, like it were suffering some kind of bi-polar nature, this ... thing, jumps back from one end of the spectrum to the opposite. Make this the second thing I don't have a real problem with.

Of course it enforces trial by jury but hey, if you have feed back about that then let rip, please. I note it does not say how many peers ...

7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

I find it sad it must be so specified the judge is to be impartial. I also find it to be a worry that the term " hom shall apply the law as it is read " gives no flexibility to the judge when they come to make their decisions.

8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.

Did some one purchase and use Nice 'n' Vague Shake 'n' Bake on this thing? Smells like fresh space filler to me.

9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.

I really hope I need not point out in depth how bad this is. Know what a " closed trial " is ? Not many people do in retrospect. Bloody hell. They call them " Madame / Mister X " for a reason you know. Remember the concept of privacy? No detail in relation to " how open " makes TRoK cry tears of sad-U.N. buff.

10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

Oh really. Will that be before or after the trial has started and they need more time to gather or fabricate evidence ? Or to delay it to escape via any statute of limitations in effect in that nation ? Once again, the ice-berg of vague-ness blows a hole in the side of the good ship credibility.

It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:

See ? Thats why we don't allow this now. So people can't come back and change the meaning of your resolution on you and every other U.N. member.

1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.

The judge is not allowed to benefit ? Does that mean no dental coverage, or just no pay check to begin with ? Definition is one thing this work is lacking.

2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.

Isn't the point of criminal courts to pursue justice ? Leave compensation to the civil courts system please.

3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.

Again, let us assume all member nations use the same court system. Heck.

4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.

Now wouldn't you think thats up the the judge and x number of peers, al good and true, to decide ?

As such: all litigants, plaintiffs, prosecutors, and varying degrees of defendants will benefit and allow for a clearer interpretation of United Nations law so that due process shall be upheld, making the legal system fairer for all people.

IYech. Just ... yech. We made a World Court when ? Never mind. Finally :

Votes For : 12556

Votes Against : 6283

" baaa "

Implemented: Sat Feb 14 2004

I say its time this was fixed ...

So ... what do y'all think of my points raised and do you think I have grounds to press a - head ? I'm off to bed now, I'll check this later once I'm up and about again, so I hope y'all contribute by then. :D

I didn't realise how terribly the original resolution was written until I read this post. Well-argued and well-pointed out. I'll support any proposal to repeal it.

I think your comments are fair. However, we could really do with canning both resolutions and, hopefully, replacing them with one of substance.

You have my support, TRoK.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I would like to state, that on a balance of probabilities, the idea of repealing this resolution is probably better than keeping it, for it has way too many flaws in relation to its strong points.

That having been said, I like to address things point by point to contribute to a discussion of a better proposal in the future. Those that are not mentioned means that I'm in agreement with your argument. Hope these words help in formulating a resolution to replace this amendment.

" A resolution to increase democratic freedoms. "

For a start, I fail to see a direct link between the judicial system and political freedoms, I recall the idea of the seperation of the state and the judiciary, but hey, if any one wants to contribute to hows, why, or why not's then feel free of course.

If done properly, the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial functions are essential to the good running of a democratic process. For if any of these functions of government link together, then it could create enourmous room for the oppression of the people outside of these political institutions. (i.e., if the executive were the judiciary, the ones that are charged with enforcing the law are also the ones that must deliver the punishment on the law. That's very similar to a police officer, arresting a person and then finding them guilty of the crime, thereby executing them on the spot.)

The above having been said... I guess the point of the resolution not taking into account different systems of government is a very valid one. Though, why you would join the UN if you are not a democratic nation is beyond me :P


...I think Fair Trial (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029626&postcount=22) ( Yes, a link to the copy in my record thread ! ) itself is illegal and in violation of game mechanics to begin with, as it threatens to expulsion for those who do not agree to its text. Further more, this definition thread pushes the boundries of legality too. The idea being your not allowed to compose definitions of previous resolutions to change, alter or other wise re-interpret their meaning.

seeing your argument for why this is not acceptable below (the whole not allowing someone to change the meaning of your resolution by a later resolution) makes sense to me.

I feel the idea that a trial must be " speedy and efficient " is detrimental to the legal process and implies cases are to be rushed. If you ask me, it doesn't sound like justice and the pursuit of truth is the objective of the case any-more. When speed and efficiency become, literally, your no. 1 priority, I think the law will suffer.

Agreed. At the same time, those long drawn out trials (usually the ones that involve celebrities... they're the ones that can afford the expensive and good defence attornies) are such a drain on the legal system.

Ironically enough I feel this need definition. Functional how ? Can your lawyer breathe ? Do they have basic motor skills ? Are they able to find interesting uses for the office furniture when their working late with their secretary ?

This is where I disagree. Wording of resolutions should not be overly specific and narrow so that the principle of the resolution can be applied to a multiplicity of nations with a wide variety of different races, personalities, and ways of life.

5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.

You have to be fucking kidding me. Yeah, theory : man guns down store clerk and 3 customers in a corner store in cold blood. Now, the question is, can we fit the jury in the candy aisle ? Jesus. This is so impractical I'm actually having trouble working out how this thing slipped by.

Hehe, I agree, if you agree with that particular interpretation of this resolution. But I initially took it to mean that the trial has to take in the same area/district/region/whatever-you-call-it in your country as the crime occurred, not the exact location. But I do see how that could be interpreted that way.

6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

Of course it enforces trial by jury but hey, if you have feed back about that then let rip, please. I note it does not say how many peers ...

I can give you a problem with this particular right. Not all trials necessarily require a jury. If a court system were to call a jury every single time that a crime committed, the people in that nation would be getting served up for jury duty much too often for the efficient running of society. If someone held up a convenience store but was caught 5 blocks down with clear evidence that he robbed the store, a jury trial is entirely unnecessary and a waste of money.

7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

I find it sad it must be so specified the judge is to be impartial. I also find it to be a worry that the term " hom shall apply the law as it is read " gives no flexibility to the judge when they come to make their decisions.

I too find it sad that it specifies that judges must be impartial... but if it isn't in law somewhere, then nothing is to stop judges that are biased and partial.

Actually, this, again, leaves the flexibility of judicial decisions up to each individual nation. It does not say that the judge has to give out a punishment but that it has to apply the law as it is read. This then depends on how flexible each nation's law is with regards to misdemenours (sp?) and felonies. For example, in gflekers, there are no prisons. Alternative methods of punishment, such as victim-offender circle sentencing, forced work sentences, etc are used. Only in the rare case of the dangerous pyschopath will they be locked down in a psychiatric institution.

10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

Oh really. Will that be before or after the trial has started and they need more time to gather or fabricate evidence ? Or to delay it to escape via any statute of limitations in effect in that nation ? Once again, the ice-berg of vague-ness blows a hole in the side of the good ship credibility.

Hmmm... i can see where that becomes problematic with the speedy and efficient thing... for if they waive that right, then it would become slow and inefficient :P

But I think that this clause is clear enough. IT basically says, "see those rights above. If you don't want some of them to be applied in your case... you just say so." See what I mean?

It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:

See ? Thats why we don't allow this now. So people can't come back and change the meaning of your resolution on you and every other U.N. member.

What if people's minds change about a particular resolution? Or if the membership of the UN drastically changes within a year? That's why the repeal function was brought in. So that people could change their minds and rewords resolutions.

The judge is not allowed to benefit ? Does that mean no dental coverage, or just no pay check to begin with ? Definition is one thing this work is lacking.

See what you mean there. And I guess that's valid if you want to nitpick about it. Obviously, however, that means that the judge is not allowed to get any of the money that is settled between them and therefore is not allowed to skew the decision in any one way so they can get more money. It's similar to the impartial thing in the criminal section of this amendment.

2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.

Isn't the point of criminal courts to pursue justice ? Leave compensation to the civil courts system please.

But if you didn't notice, this section of the amendment is talking about the civil court system.

Anyway, there's my two cents on this. Good luck with your efforts to make the UN a better place. That's why I left :P

Yech, I knew I botched some things up, soo sleepy ( going to bed now ) I will be back in the morning to reply in depth. Might I point out, I seek to repeal this should I find enough support, then repeal the original " Fair Trial " then hopefully fix something up to stop people using the U.N. to dictate national level court systems. Or something. I need a good 10 hours sleep and a green tea before I risk coming back, ;)

* Danke for all support so far. :P

It's good to see you back again Komkom :)
Anyhoo - Yes, you're quite right about the holes in that resolution, but I'd like to develop on something that Gflekers said.
They were talking about the need for definition, and the problems inherent in doing so. I would say that the problem with the particular part of the resolution that we are refering to is not the lack of definition, but lack of clarity. I'm not sure what they mean by 2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.but I'm guessing that it is referring to the defense having enough money to conduct an effective defense. If that's what they meant, then that's what they should have said.

[It has just occured to me that this may have been what you actually meant, Komkom - definition in the sense of what the clause actually meant, as opposed to defining functional. Correct me if I'm wrong.]

I can give you a problem with this particular right. Not all trials necessarily require a jury. If a court system were to call a jury every single time that a crime committed, the people in that nation would be getting served up for jury duty much too often for the efficient running of society. If someone held up a convenience store but was caught 5 blocks down with clear evidence that he robbed the store, a jury trial is entirely unnecessary and a waste of money.Uh oh. I agree that in some cases, trial by jury is not always necessary. A civil lawsuit is one British example (I think) where the judge or magistrate decides the case, but for the majority of (severe) criminal cases, a jury is required to ensure justice. It ensures that the power to convict or aquit someone is not held by one person, and so is untainted by personal prejudice.

I found your analysis of this horrible resolution both comical and persuasive. The only problem is the sheep vote: Many nations will look at the title "Repeal Fair Trial" (or something like that) and immediately think you're trying to oppress everyone. But that can't really be avoided, so I say go for it.

I didn't realise how terribly the original resolution was written until I read this post. Well-argued and well-pointed out. I'll support any proposal to repeal it.Thank you !I think your comments are fair. However, we could really do with canning both resolutions and, hopefully, replacing them with one of substance.

You have my support, TRoK.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UNDanke, Varia Yefremova, as mentioned I intend to remove both and perhaps myself later propose a resolution that prevent or limit the chances of such damaging proposals being instituted again.I would like to state, that on a balance of probabilities, the idea of repealing this resolution is probably better than keeping it, for it has way too many flaws in relation to its strong points.

That having been said, I like to address things point by point to contribute to a discussion of a better proposal in the future. Those that are not mentioned means that I'm in agreement with your argument. Hope these words help in formulating a resolution to replace this amendment.Well, I will do my best to address the points raised by yourself in reaction my own, but I point out that at this time my only objective is to repeal this resolution, not to replace it.

Once this is done, I am likely to go further and move to revoke the original resolution as well. Only then with both removed may I consider the composition of a replacement.

* Because as you probably know, one cannot create a replacement resolution - as - a repeal, you must set the repeal and get is passed, then go through the motions of getting the new resolution into place. But of course your generous contributions here will no doubt further any future new resolution I am sure.The above having been said... I guess the point of the resolution not taking into account different systems of government is a very valid one. Though, why you would join the UN if you are not a democratic nation is beyond me :PAgain the folly of my being up so late strikes it seems, heh. While I comprehend your other statements regarding the importance of the seperation of of the executive, legislative, and judicial functions, the point I was trying to get across in a more clear fashion, was that this was a case of International Law used toforce individual national level member-governments to alter or restrict their current legal structures, and seemed to be the very opposite of increasing democratic freedoms, rather, it seemed to be forcing the criminal ( and yes, later civil ) legal systems under the direct eye and solid grip of the government.seeing your argument for why this is not acceptable below (the whole not allowing someone to change the meaning of your resolution by a later resolution) makes sense to me.I'm glad. I'd also raise for the further benefit of readers that this is in fact a rule of proposal composition raised many times and eventually set because of when more conservative members were going through a period where they tried to amend or " define " the very first " Gay Rights " resolution several times. And now we have repeal powers, it is most certainly a " no - no " indeed.Agreed. At the same time, those long drawn out trials (usually the ones that involve celebrities... they're the ones that can afford the expensive and good defence attornies) are such a drain on the legal system.Aye ... but then we must ask is the legal system in question not up to scratch then ? Again I re-state my point, the objective of the trial should be to seek the truth in the matters at hand. Speed and efficiency should be secondary concerns to Justice. Pie in the sky, maybe, but one hopes we can reach our pie and have it too.This is where I disagree. Wording of resolutions should not be overly specific and narrow so that the principle of the resolution can be applied to a multiplicity of nations with a wide variety of different races, personalities, and ways of life.While you and I may assume the nature of a functional defence to be in fact a defense capable of functioning in order to assert the rights of the defendant, there is how-ever no promise that the wider majority of U.N. nations will. Remember, 6283 votes moved against this resolution, one cannot assume that those voters will interpret the law as it stands for the benefit of the defendant in order to provide equality before the law. A lot of not very nice people out there and such.

I still feel more could have been said in regards to this clause.Hehe, I agree, if you agree with that particular interpretation of this resolution. But I initially took it to mean that the trial has to take in the same area/district/region/whatever-you-call-it in your country as the crime occurred, not the exact location. But I do see how that could be interpreted that way.Agreed, and if we look in the quote box below, we will see in this instance you are of course correct. How-ever my problem with that clause arises from the fact that different societies while speaking the same language often impart different meaning to words.Main Entry: ven·ue
Pronunciation: 'ven-"yü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English venyw action of coming, from Middle French venue, from venir to come, from Latin venire -- more at COME
1 a : the place or county in which take place the alleged events from which a legal action arises b : the place from which a jury is drawn and in which trial is held <requested a change of venue> c : a statement showing that a case is brought to the proper court or authority
2 : LOCALE 1I in my own experiance have seen the term venue used in a far more relaxed context and never in a legal fashion before recently.

Again, I feel the clauses should have more detail in them so the meaning is clear and not subject to gross mis-interpretations.I can give you a problem with this particular right. Not all trials necessarily require a jury. If a court system were to call a jury every single time that a crime committed, the people in that nation would be getting served up for jury duty much too often for the efficient running of society. If someone held up a convenience store but was caught 5 blocks down with clear evidence that he robbed the store, a jury trial is entirely unnecessary and a waste of money.I am glad we agree. I personally like the concept of a jury being involved in cases but again it seems this resolution goes too far, by enforcing the use of the jury on - all - criminal cases. Again it presumes the right of the U.N. to dictate local criminal court proceedings in every single member state, with no attention paid towards local and case circumstances.I too find it sad that it specifies that judges must be impartial... but if it isn't in law somewhere, then nothing is to stop judges that are biased and partial.

Actually, this, again, leaves the flexibility of judicial decisions up to each individual nation. It does not say that the judge has to give out a punishment but that it has to apply the law as it is read. This then depends on how flexible each nation's law is with regards to misdemenours (sp?) and felonies. For example, in gflekers, there are no prisons. Alternative methods of punishment, such as victim-offender circle sentencing, forced work sentences, etc are used. Only in the rare case of the dangerous pyschopath will they be locked down in a psychiatric institution.Yes, how-ever, some nations may not be as enlightened as your own, my fear is that in many countries, the law will consequently be applied as set in stone, with no heed paid to mitigating circumstances for example, and no power given to the Judge and ( in this case ) Jury to use their own discretion in sentancing, when it is highly possible that the laws involved in the case at hand, may not be at all popular with the society they are applied too.

More often then not, a country's society will evolve faster then its legal system. This to me threatens making the legal system a monolith, with commandmants set in stone and not a whit of consideration put to the reality of a case that has been raised perhaps decades after the current laws were forged.Hmmm... i can see where that becomes problematic with the speedy and efficient thing... for if they waive that right, then it would become slow and inefficient :PYes, it does become problematic in relation to that clause as well, :PBut I think that this clause is clear enough. IT basically says, "see those rights above. If you don't want some of them to be applied in your case... you just say so." See what I mean?Yes, but agin I think my point is that YOU are being too reasonable in the matter. My issue here is that with no other detail, it could provide any defendant willing to abuse it the opportunity to delay the trial no-end. Especially in relation to demanding for example the case be heard on the cliff face the defendants wife " mysteriously " fell from. Only to be waived half way through trial so everything need be shipped back to court. Just because you and I might be able to divine from the clause some reason, doesn't mean many others will bother to do so.

And again there is my original problem, I do not feel this - particular - resolution does anything that is the valid business of the U.N. Which is why once I can wipe it and its progenitor resolution out, I'll put some serious thought into a replacement.What if people's minds change about a particular resolution? Or if the membership of the UN drastically changes within a year? That's why the repeal function was brought in. So that people could change their minds and rewords resolutions.Not quite, it was so they could - physically remove - law they no longer " liked " and could formulate - new - law that they then had to press into the hurdles of the resolution making process. This resolution got past while " amendments " such as they are were still a " grey subject " with no overt rules about them.

There were how ever rules about not contradicting a past resolution, which evolved into not ccomposing conflicting " amendments " or " definitions " style resolutions for past resolutions, which finally evolved into a blanket " no amend. / def. resolutions. Namely again, because of people trying to negate the gay marriage clause of the " Gay Rights " resolution that - a- way.

Now of course, if you hate it so bad, you can repeal it. Thats why of course I'm here now, :PSee what you mean there. And I guess that's valid if you want to nitpick about it. Obviously, however, that means that the judge is not allowed to get any of the money that is settled between them and therefore is not allowed to skew the decision in any one way so they can get more money. It's similar to the impartial thing in the criminal section of this amendment.I'm just here to nit-pick, aint I ? :P

Yeah, my point is again there just isn't enough detail to make things as clear as they could be. What about paying heed to the reality of some cultures where the fee of the court for making a decision may be some of or a fixed rate of the the proceeds awarded to a claiment ? And again, technically a Judge - will - benefit as they are payed to be there or other-wise rewarded for their time. Again, Its easy to say the sensible thing, though I fear it may not be sensible to think every-one else will.But if you didn't notice, this section of the amendment is talking about the civil court system.Quiet you, I was tired, but I'll re-address those points in another post for you + others here, some time after this one, :PAnyway, there's my two cents on this. Good luck with your efforts to make the UN a better place. That's why I left :PMy thanks ! And I left too. I just rejoined just to endorse some one, then I realised I might as well try to beat the living crap out of all the stuff I didn't like in the history books with a repeal, heh. Starting here, heh.

And now, to attend to the other two posters after my short address last night.It's good to see you back again KomkomAye, its good to be back I suppose, the feel of the crimson soaked frying-pan in my hand, the wafting sent of weak proposal, its knees still unsteady, freshly birthed from the mental gushing of a utter noob ... Good times, good hunting ... ( Tribal / Safari music plays in back-ground )Anyhoo - Yes, you're quite right about the holes in that resolution, but I'd like to develop on something that Gflekers said.
They were talking about the need for definition, and the problems inherent in doing so. I would say that the problem with the particular part of the resolution that we are refering to is not the lack of definition, but lack of clarity. I'm not sure what they mean by " 2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense. " but I'm guessing that it is referring to the defense having enough money to conduct an effective defense. If that's what they meant, then that's what they should have said.And that was pretty much what I was trying to say, you are right to a degree too about the money, but its also that the defense must be able to function, meaning the ability to act in the interests of the defendant by acquiring ( legally of course ) evidence to support the defendant and to advise the defendant on the legal process, etc. A few other things too, but you are right, its not very apt at saying what it means.It has just occured to me that this may have been what you actually meant, Komkom - definition in the sense of what the clause actually meant, as opposed to defining functional. Correct me if I'm wrong.Can't I correct you even if your right ? :P

No, its half and half, my problem is that " functional " is too loose a term in this case, and further more that the clause doesn't have much definition to it itself. So you are right for the most part.Uh oh. I agree that in some cases, trial by jury is not always necessary. A civil lawsuit is one British example (I think) where the judge or magistrate decides the case, but for the majority of (severe) criminal cases, a jury is required to ensure justice. It ensures that the power to convict or aquit someone is not held by one person, and so is untainted by personal prejudice.And here both you and Gflekers illustrate the problem, the use of the jury is forced on every single criminal case in every single U.N. member nation in every single such criminal court. There is no common-sensical lee-way applied in the use of the jury and no heed paid to your individual nations.I found your analysis of this horrible resolution both comical and persuasive. The only problem is the sheep vote: Many nations will look at the title "Repeal Fair Trial" (or something like that) and immediately think you're trying to oppress everyone. But that can't really be avoided, so I say go for it.Agreed. I'm going to hate getting this past the delegates only to get biffed by a flock of wooly "' title only " readers. Hopefully I can eventually appeal to delegates to inform their constituents about the objectives of this repeal.

...

And if worst comes to worst, when I write the repeal proper I could always resort to a dirty CAPS-Lock sentance in the first line, and hope they take to it long enough to read the bloody thing ... ( I jest of course, I have standards of conduct I'm afraid that prevent me ... )

Thank you all for your support so far, I am definately thinking it would be worth-while to try for a repeal but I will wait further for an increase in commentary should it be forth-coming.

* Garg, and forgive any gross spelling errors, I have an aversion to spell checking these posts with tags, no matter what I do, MS Word rebels at sight of them.

I must admit that until you broke this resolution down I had no idea how poorly written this resolution was, you have my support.

I'm glad to have brought it to your attention, and my thanks for your support.

I am thinking at this rate the support collected so far should warrant I compose a repeal some time over the coming week-end. I think. If I have time, and next week I'm back at TAFE ( College to you non-Australian folks ) starting an Diploma in Pathology - Enviromental Testing course. So I'll be a little pressed for time. But with any luck, I should be able to draft something up for y'all before that time.

Can't I correct you even if your right ? :PGo right ahead. I would!
Thank you all for your support so far, I am definately thinking it would be worth-while to try for a repeal but I will wait further for an increase in commentary should it be forth-coming. I would have said that if you started work on a repeal, then more contributions would be forthcoming.

I am thinking at this rate the support collected so far should warrant I compose a repeal some time over the coming week-end. I think. If I have time, and next week I'm back at TAFE ( College to you non-Australian folks ) starting an Diploma in Pathology - Enviromental Testing course. So I'll be a little pressed for time. But with any luck, I should be able to draft something up for y'all before that time.
Best of luck.

I have an idea. How about the default for petty crime would be no jury, but if the defend requested and could justifie the claim give the case a jury.

I have an idea. How about the default for petty crime would be no jury, but if the defend requested and could justifie the claim give the case a jury.
OOC: God bless America.

Yes well, my objective is not to re-impose a global criminal legal system right now, because I have to write a - repeal - ( for " Definition of an FT " ) THEN another - repeal - ( for " FT " ) THEN we can worry about a new criminal code guide-lines.

Hmmm, ( * Ignores the existance of America and the threat of imposing its legal system on the entire N.S.U.N. World. Also avoids the history of all the " No, this is not fucking America already, so fuck off with that constitution B.S. right now please " because so help me the number of times older U.N. member nations have had to point out that American law does not have " God Level Clearance " to dictate N.S.U.N. Laws over laws based on any other nation or system, because if you've not noticed this is a game made by an Australian hosted in Britain and used and Moderated by people from all over the world, so I think we're all a tad too multi-national to join the Confederacy now, thanks. But enough of that, as its not the issue yet. Sorry. Its just there is a history here as I said. )

I resent that sheep remark! Weh! I don't go "baaa" I go "eh"! Big difference!

Anyway, good job. I'll look it up and endorse it.

Yes well, don't go looking up for mine yet, its not written. I'll attend to doing that later tonight and tomorrow morning / early after-noon, now I figure it'll get enough support.

Hmmm, ( * Ignores the existance of America and the threat of imposing its legal system on the entire N.S.U.N. World. Also avoids the history of all the " No, this is not fucking America already, so fuck off with that constitution B.S. right now please " because so help me the number of times older U.N. member nations have had to point out that American law does not have " God Level Clearance " to dictate N.S.U.N. Laws over laws based on any other nation or system, because if you've not noticed this is a game made by an Australian hosted in Britain and used and Moderated by people from all over the world, so I think we're all a tad too multi-national to join the Confederacy now, thanks. But enough of that, as its not the issue yet. Sorry. Its just there is a history here as I said. )
OOC: One of the best rants I've heard in a long time. Keep up the good work, Komokom!

Krioval will support the repeal resolution so long as another resolution is drafted (OOC: totally unenforceable, I know, but fits the whole "democracy" ideal) to guarantee criminal defendants their rights.

OOC2: Despite my being an American, it bugs me to no end that some of my fellow citizens feel that the U.S. can do no wrong. I loved the "God-level clearance" bit as well. 'Course, some of 'em feel like they've got God's very own signature on their work...

Yes, well, I can't promise a " replacement " such as it is, heh.

( I mean, I have to kill these two and dump the bodies first ... ) :D

* Aye, well it can get to ones goat when any-one gets like that over their RL nation, as I said, its just for the now + 2 years this game has been going, about 1 year into it there was this period of " RAR ! THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS IT SHOULD BE SO YOU FUCKERS ! " on the U.N. forum and those such people would not deal with the dissent to that idea, now would they ? ...

...

So we shot them.

<_<

>_>

Hmmm, ( * Ignores the existance of America and the threat of imposing its legal system on the entire N.S.U.N. World. Also avoids the history of all the " No, this is not fucking America already, so fuck off with that constitution B.S. right now please " because so help me the number of times older U.N. member nations have had to point out that American law does not have " God Level Clearance " to dictate N.S.U.N. Laws over laws based on any other nation or system, because if you've not noticed this is a game made by an Australian hosted in Britain and used and Moderated by people from all over the world, so I think we're all a tad too multi-national to join the Confederacy now, thanks. But enough of that, as its not the issue yet. Sorry. Its just there is a history here as I said. )
* Aye, well it can get to ones goat when any-one gets like that over their RL nation, as I said, its just for the now + 2 years this game has been going, about 1 year into it there was this period of " RAR ! THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS IT SHOULD BE SO YOU FUCKERS ! " on the U.N. forum and those such people would not deal with the dissent to that idea, now would they ? ...

...

So we shot them.

<_<

>_>

ROFLMAO.

OOC: I love you Australians :P

IC: I get your overall point of my incorrect assumption that most people are smart and sensible. Perhaps I'm too kind inside :P

Anyhow, good luck.

heh, well thanks, and update :

Slight delay, today has been a tad hectic, so I'm doing the draft in the late morning or after-noon, so it will be up for comment for a few days. I will likely use a new thread, but link back to this just so people can get a feel for the arguments here as well. Any-hoo, good night for the moment ...

( See, if I get up a draft repeal in the next 24 hours, I can leave it to be commented on for the next 48, giving me time for get back into the swing of TAFE, and it time to score some positive critical analysis. Then on wednesday ( Saturday night / Sunday morning now ... ) I get a day off ( I think .. ) and can adapt the draft as may need be. )