NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to let you know that the proposed resolution "Crime and Process" has been posted. It is a stand alone [or as stand alone as any UN resolution can be] resolution that has been inspired by, but not an intended amendment or product of, the proposed resolution "The Right to Self-Protection", which now seems likely to pass.

It reads as follows:

***START***

The intention of this resolution is to add further clarification to any law relating to the conduct of persons involved in violent crime, and/or crime involving property.

RATIONALE: In trying to maintain a civil society, there should be no provision available whereby any person can, on the basis of fear from threat of injury or death, pre-emptively attack another appealing to the right of self-defence. Any person that believes himself or herself to be in any danger from a known, or suspected assailant/s should appeal to the appropriate authorities for protection.

1. No PRE-EMPTIVE act of violence causing injury [psychological or physical] or death against an alleged or suspected assailant will be considered legal in a court of law, unless a danger to a person’s life and personal safety is imminent and immediate. Appropriate criminal prosecution, with respect to local, regional or state law, will follow any such PRE-EMPTIVE violent act, and no extraordinary protection from legal proceedings will be granted in such a circumstance.

RATIONALE: The life and health of any person is of more worth than property.

2. No person or persons [henceforth to be known as ‘actor I’], within their respective nation, shall be protected from full criminal prosecution following any attempt, that occasions either injury or death, to prevent another person, or persons [henceforth to be known as ‘actor II’], caught in the act of unlawfully obtaining, or having already obtained PROPERTY that does not lawfully belong to actor II.

***END***

Please feel free to discuss this proposed resolution, and I will attempt to answer any queries posed.

Someone walks towards you, swinging an axe. They have not yet attacked, so you can't do anything about it. They swing, but as yet they have not harmed your person so you can't do anything about it. Only when the axe has hit you is it actually a crime, but at that point your head is lying on the ground, and so you probably won't be able to defend yourself anyway.

Your proposal would be a defacto repeal of the Self-Defence resolution (if it passes) and as such I think should be classed as illegal and deleted.

But that might be just me.

Someone walks towards you, swinging an axe. They have not yet attacked, so you can't do anything about it. They swing, but as yet they have not harmed your person so you can't do anything about it. Only when the axe has hit you is it actually a crime, but at that point your head is lying on the ground, and so you probably won't be able to defend yourself anyway.

Your proposal would be a defacto repeal of the Self-Defence resolution (if it passes) and as such I think should be classed as illegal and deleted.

But that might be just me.

I think you missed the point, conveniently, about a threat being imminent and immediate, and for this reason your example is extremely weak. Of course you are going to protect yourself in such a case as someone approaching you, threatening you, with an axe. My purpose in answering the case of "self-defence" was to add a non-pre-emptive attack policy, or at least get people to think about it. An attack on your person is dealt with intuitively and spontaneously at a unique point in time, and in such an immediate case any criminal outcome would be dealt with by the courts of a given nation. Yes, in many respects it is redundant because of this factor, but then so is the proposal "right to self-defence" in relation to personal safety. I thought it would be a good idea, however, to add a pre-emptive resolution to any law related to self-defence. Your example is the old tabloid newspaper, sensationalist approach that is opposed to laws such as this - a strawman argument designed to illicit a highly charged emotional response.

I treated the case about the protection of property separately from self-defence, as it should be. Unless a robbery, for example, turns violent it would be unwise to attempt to stop a theft. Property can be replaced, or repossessed after a police investigation, a life or injury can be permanent.

Read my post in the UN Forum for a better clarification.

Lastly, the proposal can stand on its own without the "right to self-defence" proposal. Both clauses stipulate what should happen in the case of either a threat to personal safety by an aggressor, suspected aggressor and burglar, etc.

Then you will have to define pre-emptive - what range of time and so forth.

Cause to me imminent means it is just about to happen, and so there would never be a pre-emptive attack under it.

Then you will have to define pre-emptive - what range of time and so forth.

Cause to me imminent means it is just about to happen, and so there would never be a pre-emptive attack under it.

Well exactly. This is what should be sorted out in a court of law - who did what when. It's all very messy. You can't, for example, knock somebody out because you thought they looked at you strangely and feared for your life. And you cannot go and inflict injury or death upon somebody because they have threatened you. If you have time to plan an assault against a suspected assailant, you also probably have time to approach the appropriate authorities that are supposed to deal with such matters. I suppose it depends on the kind of society you want to live in and support that will affect your opinion on this topic.

My comments on this area are secondary to the property clause, and any violence caused in a theft situation.

The current resolution is essentially a statement of principle, affirming the right to self-defence and, where appropriate, the right to protect one's property. Further legislation is likely to stray into very murky territory, probably with the effect of dividing members unnecessarily.

I'd prefer to leave this issue be, for now at least.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Well-written and considered, but it does mandate a domestic policy. On the other hand, it's vague enough to allow for different cultural beliefs and avoids being an attempt to repeal Right to Self-Protection (in my opinion).

I would vote against it if it came up for vote because of the fact that it mandates a domestic policy (at least implicitly). However, I congratulate Cup and Fork on a good proposal.

Well-written and considered, but it does mandate a domestic policy. On the other hand, it's vague enough to allow for different cultural beliefs and avoids being an attempt to repeal Right to Self-Protection (in my opinion).

I would vote against it if it came up for vote because of the fact that it mandates a domestic policy (at least implicitly). However, I congratulate Cup and Fork on a good proposal.

Thank you.

Yes, I understand that your proposal is, as stated by Mathieu Vergniaud above, an affirmation of the right to self-defence, as the outcomes of individual cases cannot be enforced or dictated by the UN, as such. However, my intention was to introduce some extra clarifications[?] to resolutions such as yours.

Moving up a notch from domestic legislation, would you be in favour of a resolution, in a similar vein to yours, that relates to nations and their military? Especially when it comes to property and territory, i.e.: pre-emption. The actions of a government or similar body compared with that of an individual person are quite different in respect to the responsibilities of the nation to its citizens. I believe such a resolution would be more within the realms of the UN. I'm new here, and I have not looked up all resolutions as yet. If such resolutions exist, pre-emption say, how does the UN enforce them?

Cup and Fork,

As discussed in lenght the resolution for the right of self-defense is in basis a good resolution, but with this proposal "Crime and Process" the sharp edge can be taken of the "UN right of self defense".

Therefore you have the support of New South-Holland.

The minister of foreing affairs of New South-Holland

2. No person or persons [henceforth to be known as ‘actor I’], within their respective nation, shall be protected from full criminal prosecution following any attempt, that occasions either injury or death, to prevent another person, or persons [henceforth to be known as ‘actor II’], caught in the act of unlawfully obtaining, or having already obtained PROPERTY that does not lawfully belong to actor II.


Tell me if I am wrong, but doesn't this say you can't use force to prevent someone from stealing from someone else?

Because if it is, then it is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the resolution and thus illegal.

Tell me if I am wrong, but doesn't this say you can't use force to prevent someone from stealing from someone else?

Because if it is, then it is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the resolution and thus illegal.

No. It does not say you cannot use force, it says you will not be protected from criminal proceedings if you injure or kill the suspect. If the suspect becomes violent or threatens you, then the "self-protection/defence" clause comes into effect. The property clause is to prevent, and deter unnecessary violence occurring during property theft, on the basis that personal safety is more precious than property. The property clause is to prevent the escalation of violence in what may have otherwise turned out to be a non-violent situation. That is, why make a bad situation [theft] worse [injury or death of victim or suspect] when you don't know what the outcome of a violent confrontation will be? The proposal assumes that this clause will increase the likelhood of non-violent confrontation ending in injury or death [either for the suspect or victim] during a burglary, etc.

No. It does not say you cannot use force, it says you will not be protected from criminal proceedings if you injure or kill the suspect. If the suspect becomes violent or threatens you, then the "self-protection/defence" clause comes into effect. The property clause is to prevent, and deter unnecessary violence occurring during property theft, on the basis that personal safety is more precious than property. The property clause is to prevent the escalation of violence in what may have otherwise turned out to be a non-violent situation. That is, why make a bad situation [theft] worse [injury or death of victim or suspect] when you don't know what the outcome of a violent confrontation will be? The proposal assumes that this clause will increase the likelhood of non-violent confrontation ending in injury or death [either for the suspect or victim] during a burglary, etc.

But what if you use "reasonable force" and injure the suspect. Under the current resolution - that is now law - you are permitted to do that. Are you trying to stop people using reasonable force as is now their right under the current resolution?

Further to this - you are attempting to restrict a passed resolution. Which I am pretty damn sure is illegal.

But what if you use "reasonable force" and injure the suspect. Under the current resolution - that is now law - you are permitted to do that. Are you trying to stop people using reasonable force as is now their right under the current resolution?

Well exactly, what is reasonable force? If the "crime and process" proposal becomes a resolution [which I doubt] it will make sure that any violent act does not overstep the mark. The resolution, as I have explained above, DOES NOT exempt the use of force [and therefore not in breach of the "right to self-protection" resolution], it highlights that to use force may inflict unwanted or unforseen results toward either party involved in a robbery, etc. It also highlights the responsibilities inherent in any violent action, or "force", against another. The clause is designed to protect life and limb of thief and victim alike over theft, and the like, of property.

Well exactly, what is reasonable force? If the "crime and process" proposal becomes a resolution [which I doubt] it will make sure that any violent act does not overstep the mark. The resolution, as I have explained above, DOES NOT exempt the use of force [and therefore not in breach of the "right to self-protection" resolution], it highlights that to use force may inflict unwanted or unforseen results toward either party involved in a robbery, etc. It also highlights the responsibilities inherent in any violent action, or "force", against another. The clause is designed to protect life and limb of thief and victim alike over theft, and the like, of property.

Which is attempting to amend and restrict the resolution.

It only restricts the "self-protection" resolution incidentally, my proposal can, and does, stand alone.

I'm sure there are many resolutions that SEEM to conflict and amend one another.

You need to defien injury. It can be misunderstood and taken advantage of. i.e. A guy steals an old lady's purse you chase him. U get the purse back by tackling him. He gets a scrape. Can you be held responsible? What if he breaks a leg then? This must be clarified. Alos, i do not see how this takes the edge of the last res. It has the same unclearness , but tells local courts to decide.

I am still thinking about how I feel about the proposed resolution. I applaud the effort and am sympathetic to the motives, however.

Reasonable force, imminent, and assault were undefined in the Self-Protection resolution. At most, this proposal would define those terms in certain circumstances.

Previous resolutions have clarified or effected other resolutions.

Whether or not the proposed resolution has merit, it is not illegal.

Well, yeah. I think when you break either of them down the resolution and proposal are cases where the UN is actually meddling with domestic law, regardless of how specific or ambiguous they are. If they are so ambiguous they are almost, if not totally useless, as the nation in question will just refer to their own law. Too specific and the UN is dictating domestic law to nations.

It's certainly an odd UN. Maybe we should have a security council comprised of the current top 5 or 10 [overall] NS players, who are also members of the UN, that are allowed veto power on proposals about to be passed.

It's certainly an odd UN. Maybe we should have a security council comprised of the current top 5 or 10 [overall] NS players, who are also members of the UN, that are allowed veto power on proposals about to be passed.
The mods would never allow it, and they're the only ones with anything remotely resembling a veto.

I am still thinking about how I feel about the proposed resolution. I applaud the effort and am sympathetic to the motives, however.

Reasonable force, imminent, and assault were undefined in the Self-Protection resolution. At most, this proposal would define those terms in certain circumstances.

Previous resolutions have clarified or effected other resolutions.

Whether or not the proposed resolution has merit, it is not illegal.

I am not a lawyer for the UN, but - using your words - "this proposal would define them under certain circumstances".

As such it would be an amendment that restricts the way the original resolution operates.

Which I am pretty sure is not permitted. The second Free Education bill expanded on the first, moving from 16 to 18, and the second RBH bill expanded on the first (and would apparently now be deemed illegal because it repeals and then does something else).

No other resolution restricts the operation of a previously passed resolution, and I am pretty sure we have been told quite a lot that that is not permitted.

This proposal does not in any way restrict any previously passed resolutions.

If you (non-lethaly) try to prevent a theft, of your own or someone elses legally obtained belongings you are fully in your right, if the thief pulls out a weapon he/she is now threatening your life directly and therefore you may protect yourself as this has turned into a life threatening situation.

This proposal does not in any way restrict any previously passed resolutions.

If you (non-lethaly) try to prevent a theft, of your own or someone elses legally obtained belongings you are fully in your right, if the thief pulls out a weapon he/she is now threatening your life directly and therefore you may protect yourself as this has turned into a life threatening situation.

Actually - it doesn't. It says if someone is trying to steal your stuff, you will be prosecuted. It doesn't say that if they become violent during this, you are allowed to do anything, because even if they pull out a gun and start shooting your family, they are still in the process of stealing things from you and so are protected by the second part of it.

This is an attempted defacto repeal or limitation of a proposal, and as such should be deleted.

Actually - it doesn't. It says if someone is trying to steal your stuff, you will be prosecuted. It doesn't say that if they become violent during this, you are allowed to do anything, because even if they pull out a gun and start shooting your family, they are still in the process of stealing things from you and so are protected by the second part of it.

This is an attempted defacto repeal or limitation of a proposal, and as such should be deleted.

I had to think twice before anwering this ridiculous post. Where in the hell does it say any of that? It only says if you INJURE or KILL the thief that you MAY be charged in accordance with local law. Where, oh where does it say: "... if someone is trying to steal your stuff, you will be prosecuted"? You are missing some rather vital points, your statement should actually read: "... if someone is trying to steal your stuff [and you try to stop them], you [may] be prosecuted". If they try and attack you, then the situation becomes an imminent and immediate threat to your safety, re clause 1.

And I add, yet again for TilEnca's benefit, that the proposal as resolution can stand on its own merit. That is, burglaries happen and nations have criminal laws. Since nations do have these things a proposal such as mine can stand on its own. It does not clash, amend or "defacto repeal" [lol] "self-protection", because "self-protection" is so general.

Actually, I would go as far to say that "self-protection" is a redundant resolution. . For example, it reads:

[I]1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

There is an implied claim here that some or all nations do not presently allow any kind of self-defence to protect life or property, and a resolution is needed to remedy this situation. For example, is the assumption that most nations charged everyone involved in a crime, even an intervening victim of crime? Or conversely, does it assume that most nation states are lawless? Inadequate domestic legislation can be the only reason for introducing the resolution in the first place, why would you introduce one that was not needed?

It claims we have a "right" to protect ourselves and our property by using "reasonable force". So now that it has passed and become a resolution, when I use reasonable force to try and stop a thief [or in the case of this resolution, a vandal] from carrying out a crime and I injure or kill them in the process - well, what? What happens then? Do I get off scott free? Well, no. Apparently, according to debates, it is up to a specific nation's courts to decide what the outcome should be.

For example, while stealing [vandalising] some property a thief is subjected to reasonable force by the property owner - or at least what the property owner thought was reasonable. So, now the court decides whether the force was reasonable or it wasn't, and the property owner is charged or not charged with assault based on the outcome. Remember, the property owner cannot use just any force, there is a limit, i.e. "reasonable" - according to what reasonable means in a particular nation. Regardless of the nation the resolution requires a limit.

That should mean that to some lesser or greater degree there exists the possibility that you may be charged with assault, or worse, for trying to stop a thief [vandal]. This, to me, is what makes the resolution redundant. A court could decide in every single case that a property owner could be charged with assault because their definition of "reasonable" might mean a light tap on the cheek of the thief. Another court may decide that "reasonable" means taking out your best kitchen knives to practice a bit of butchery. In the latter case it is probable that anyone could get off if they have killed or injured a thief. Now, how is a UN resolution needed or helpful to any nation given these extremes?

Yes, the resolution "right to self-protection" is accomodating to all nation states, but this is also its greatest weakness. There is nothing that I would need to alter in my nation to fall into compliance with such a resolution. It is so general that the UN could not enforce it without medling in domestic law.

It is difficult to find a reason for this resolution, it should be repealed as it is taking up space.

Actually, I would go as far to say that "self-protection" is a redundant resolution. . For example, it reads:

[I]1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

There is an implied claim here that some or all nations do not presently allow any kind of self-defence to protect life or property, and a resolution is needed to remedy this situation. For example, is the assumption that most nations charged everyone involved in a crime, even an intervening victim of crime? Or conversely, does it assume that most nation states are lawless? Inadequate domestic legislation can be the only reason for introducing the resolution in the first place, why would you introduce one that was not needed?

It claims we have a "right" to protect ourselves and our property by using "reasonable force". So now that it has passed and become a resolution, when I use reasonable force to try and stop a thief [or in the case of this resolution, a vandal] from carrying out a crime and I injure or kill them in the process - well, what? What happens then? Do I get off scott free? Well, no. Apparently, according to debates, it is up to a specific nation's courts to decide what the outcome should be.

For example, while stealing [vandalising] some property a thief is subjected to reasonable force by the property owner - or at least what the property owner thought was reasonable. So, now the court decides whether the force was reasonable or it wasn't, and the property owner is charged or not charged with assault based on the outcome. Remember, the property owner cannot use just any force, there is a limit, i.e. "reasonable" - according to what reasonable means in a particular nation. Regardless of the nation the resolution requires a limit.

That should mean that to some lesser or greater degree there exists the possibility that you may be charged with assault, or worse, for trying to stop a thief [vandal]. This, to me, is what makes the resolution redundant. A court could decide in every single case that a property owner could be charged with assault because their definition of "reasonable" might mean a light tap on the cheek of the thief. Another court may decide that "reasonable" means taking out your best kitchen knives to practice a bit of butchery. In the latter case it is probable that anyone could get off if they have killed or injured a thief. Now, how is a UN resolution needed or helpful to any nation given these extremes?

Yes, the resolution "right to self-protection" is accomodating to all nation states, but this is also its greatest weakness. There is nothing that I would need to alter in my nation to fall into compliance with such a resolution. It is so general that the UN could not enforce it without medling in domestic law.

It is difficult to find a reason for this resolution, it should be repealed as it is taking up space.

Well let not discuss other (already passed resolutions) as this is soley about crime and punishment

What we as the UN must decide is how far are we willing to allow other UN nations to go with civilian justise! We are not talking about Court justice but when the police are not available and citizens are forced to defend themselves and / or property.

Yes, the resolution "right to self-protection" is accomodating to all nation states, but this is also its greatest weakness. There is nothing that I would need to alter in my nation to fall into compliance with such a resolution. It is so general that the UN could not enforce it without medling in domestic law.

It is difficult to find a reason for this resolution, it should be repealed as it is taking up space.

Most resolutions aim to be accommodating to all nations. Weakness? No. More along the lines of necessity. How else would the author drum up the support to pass them?

And while perhaps we really didn't need the "right to self-protection" resolution, I don't see much use for this proposal at all. What's the outcome of this... individual criminals petitioning the UN to intervene because their arm was broken while trying to steal everything some average Joe Schmoe owned?

The idea is ok - we don't want people going on killing sprees on the basis of "protecting their property." Agreed. Unfortunately, the outcome is that the criminals use it to their own advantage and Joe Schmoe gets screwed. I'm thinking no.

Most resolutions aim to be accommodating to all nations. Weakness? No. More along the lines of necessity. How else would the author drum up the support to pass them?

And while perhaps we really didn't need the "right to self-protection" resolution, I don't see much use for this proposal at all. What's the outcome of this... individual criminals petitioning the UN to intervene because their arm was broken while trying to steal everything some average Joe Schmoe owned?

The idea is ok - we don't want people going on killing sprees on the basis of "protecting their property." Agreed. Unfortunately, the outcome is that the criminals use it to their own advantage and Joe Schmoe gets screwed. I'm thinking no.

But you could say the same thing about victims petitioning the UN about unfair rulings over what is considered "reasonable force". If the UN did intervene on such occassions then it is medling in domestic legislation, in which case you may as well make the resolution more specific. If the whole idea is to make the resolution accommodating then the UN actually cannot intervene in such a case because it is up to individual nations to decide. If the UN has no power of intervention over the resolution then what is the point in having it? The resolution seems designed to be/allow relativist/ism, but UN resolutions tend, or should, be more universal in their nature. Otherwise, why even have a UN?

Maybe I'm just not getting into the spirit of the game.

Maybe I'm just not getting into the spirit of the game.

You seem to be very much in the spirit of the game, Cup and Fork. You are working out how you view the UN and how you want it to function. That's the hard part, and I applaud you for attempting it. Most nations just kind of sit around and vote on a resolution occasionally, which to me seems quite a shame. Who knows how many highly intelligent and potentially highly contributing members of the UN have just never ventured out to do what you are doing?