NationStates Jolt Archive

I've recently become a UN member, and I started looking through the resolutions in force ... and I've got a question about one of them. Well, two questions, really.

Resolution #28 begins by saying

'No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ...'

So, what happens if a country doesn't have grand juries? Can it just ignore this? Or does it mean that countries without grand juries can't hold people to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes at all? Or do all countries have to have grand juries? (Why would you make us do that? It's a stupid idea.)

The other question is, what makes a crime 'infamous'? Can we just pass a law saying 'in our country, no crime is considered "infamous" '? If we did that, would it effectively nullify the operation of resolution #28?

It appears to be about the idea that every nation has a Grand Jury, wether you call it like that or not, does not matter.

the definition of an "infamous crime" is what the UN consideres an "infamous crime"

All in all, it's trying to say that you can't be a big mean evil country by abusing your civilians for your warmonging soldiers.

Still, not all nations' juridical systems nescessarily even have juries (although since this resolution was passed a long time ago, they probably have now). That is not to say they would be oppressive systems, they just work on a different principle from the RL American one.

As there is no agreed definition as to what constitutes a "Grand Jury", it does not necessarily need to closely resemble the system present in RL America. My interpretation of this resolution is that as long as an independent body of people examines accusations against persons charged with crimes and makes formal charges on which the accused persons are later tried, if the evidence warrants such charges, then you are in compliance.

By "independent body" I mean separated from the executive branch, so that the governing politicians cannot arbitrarily decide who shall and shall not be charged with a crime.

1. It's not true that every nation has a Grand Jury, by that name or by any other name (whether we're talking about real life or about NationStates). If the resolution is supposed to mean that every UN member must adopt a Grand Jury system, then it should say so (and, as I said, would be a really bad idea).

2. If the definition of 'infamous crime' is 'whatever the UN considers to be an infamous crime', doesn't that mean that the resolution will fail to operate unless the UN adopts a resolution defining 'infamous crime'? Has the UN adopted a resolution defining 'infamous crime'?

3. If the resolution is supposed to mean that the ruling politicians can't charge anybody with a crime just because they feel like it, wouldn't it be better to say so? In fact, generally, wouldn't it be better to repeal this resolution and replace it with one that has a clearer meaning?

4. As a point of information (in response to Tavast-Carelia), lots of real-life countries have juries without having Grand Juries. As far as I know, the USA is the only real-life country that uses the Grand Jury system.

I've recently become a UN member, and I started looking through the resolutions in force ... and I've got a question about one of them. Well, two questions, really.

Resolution #28 begins by saying

'No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ...'

So, what happens if a country doesn't have grand juries? Can it just ignore this? Or does it mean that countries without grand juries can't hold people to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes at all? Or do all countries have to have grand juries? (Why would you make us do that? It's a stupid idea.)

The other question is, what makes a crime 'infamous'? Can we just pass a law saying 'in our country, no crime is considered "infamous" '? If we did that, would it effectively nullify the operation of resolution #28?

To answer: Your nation must have a grand jury with which to indict people. And Grand Juries are not a stupid idea... NOT having Grand Juries is a stupid idea...

It's not true that every nation has a Grand Jury, by that name or by any other name (whether we're talking about real life or about NationStates).

All NationStates nations which are members of the United Nations have a form of "Grand Jury". As per this resolution. If you do not, then you cannot indict people for capital offenses.

All NationStates nations which are members of the United Nations have a form of "Grand Jury". As per this resolution. If you do not, then you cannot indict people for capital offenses.

Stealthmunchkania has no grand jury, but also has no capital offences, other than owning a copy of the unreleased bootleg album "Country Love" by Mike Love of the Beach Boys. As anyone who listened to this album all the way through would take their own life anyway, the problem has never arisen.

All NationStates nations which are members of the United Nations have a form of "Grand Jury". As per this resolution. If you do not, then you cannot indict people for capital offenses.
The Stealthmunchkanian representative articulates our position well in response to this Tekanian assertion. Ecopoeia has no Grand Jury and looks on capital punishment with horror.

And Grand Juries are not a stupid idea... NOT having Grand Juries is a stupid idea...
I would argue that both statements lack thought.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The Stealthmunchkanian representative articulates our position well in response to this Tekanian assertion. Ecopoeia has no Grand Jury and looks on capital punishment with horror.

The Stealthmunchkanian representative points well my position. That every nationstate in the United Nations which are capable of brining indictment upon a person who has commited a capital (or otherwise infamous) offense; have a Grand Jury....


I would argue that both statements lack thought.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

On the contrary, the CRoT takes the concept of Grand Jury to it's most principled extent... And crime of a felonious nature (which would result in any time of penalty extending past 1 year confinement), to have presentment of indictment from a Grand Jury... We consider any jurisprudence of less calibre than this, nothing but rank barbarism... And indicative of a poorly evolved society...

Urm...yeah....

On the contrary, the CRoT takes the concept of Grand Jury to it's most principled extent... And crime of a felonious nature (which would result in any time of penalty extending past 1 year confinement), to have presentment of indictment from a Grand Jury... We consider any jurisprudence of less calibre than this, nothing but rank barbarism... And indicative of a poorly evolved society...
Yet it is not for you to condemn another nation's juridical system, just as it's not the UN's right to impose a given juridical system on all member nations. You might think a juridical system without juries is barbaric, I might think that giving people with no legal training the power to decide over the sentence of a criminal is stupid.

Yet it is not for you to condemn another nation's juridical system, just as it's not the UN's right to impose a given juridical system on all member nations. You might think a juridical system without juries is barbaric, I might think that giving people with no legal training the power to decide over the sentence of a criminal is stupid.

And Stealthmunchkania has juries, but no 'grand jury' system, as we're not based on America.

OOC: Just a quick, somewhat off-topic question. What is the difference between a Grand Jury and an ordinary jury? We have normal juries in Australia. It can't be linked solely to capital punishment, as I distinctly recall Clinton's impeachment hearing being brought before a Grand Jury.

A Grand Jury just decides if there's enough evidence to press charges:

A grand jury is a type of common law jury; responsible for investigating alleged crimes, examining evidence, and issuing indictments if they believe that there is enough evidence for a trial to proceed. A grand jury is distinguished from a petit jury, which is used during trial; the names refer to their respective sizes (typically 25 and 12 members respectively).

Where they exist, grand juries are part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word: an impartial panel of citizens must first decide whether there exists reasonable cause or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. To this end witnesses can be compelled to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The grand jury's decision is either "true bill" (i.e. there is a case to answer) or "no true bill."

Britain abandoned grand juries in the 1930s, and today fewer than half of the states in the U.S. employ them. Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a Judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed. However, grand juries are still used in a number of U.S. jurisdictions.

Thanks Hack. Well, I don't like them, but given that Enn doesn't have capital crimes this won't affect me.

In any case, all nations are required to have juries of some sort, as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

-snip-

OOC: In some US states it goes even further, with a combination of Preliminary + Grand Jury... The Preliminary determines whether or not the case should proceed as a felony or a misdemeanor, if decision is made to proceed as a felony, it is submitted to the grand jury for indictment, where the grand jury determines if the case bears enough merit to go to a final trial.

IC: I preffer the system, as the government remains at the mercy of an indepenent panel. Keeping the courts system far more efficient.