NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNISING that Resolution #21, "Fair Trial", enshrined the right of UN citizens to a fair trial and that Resolution #47 "Definition of 'Fair Trial'," imposes specific requirements for what constitutes a fair trial;

ENDORSING STRONGLY the commitment of the United Nations to Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial;

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS, however, that different legal traditions exist within the United Nations;

AWARE that many fair systems of trial (especially in Civil Law) do not require trial by jury or the presence of the media in the courtrooms;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" oversteps its original intention of ensuring fairness by imposing procedures that are not essential to that goal, thereby denying nations their right to cultural and legal diversity;

REJECTING the imposition of legal systems which do not accurately reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds and legal traditions found within the NSUN, and

RECOGNISING the right of member states to decide whether they use trial by jury and media in the courtroom in their justice system;

Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial", is repealed.

IC:
The Dutch Democratic Republic submits this draft repeal to the General Assembly for your consideration. We are especially interested in two things:

Ways to make this repeal look more appealing to the fluffy stupor that is the assembled NS Delegacy
The removal of possible illegal references


OOC: I know that realistically this hasn't a rats ass of being passed (to paraphrase Eco) because of the huge anglosaxon/fluffy bias that means most NSers wouldn't see anything wrong with a Jury system or imposing jury systems on other nations with Civil Law. I'm still curious if it will pass the four endorsements mark.

Which are you repealing? It makes sense to repeal the Definition, but the thread title suggests it's the first resolution. Assuming it's the second you're gunning for:

RECOGNISING the "Fair Trial" resolution, passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003 and the "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" resolution passed on Saturday, February 14 2004;

Zzzzzz.

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS however that different legal traditions exist within the United Nations and;

Yes, I think that's reasonable.

AWARE that many 'fair' systems of trial (especially in Civil Law) are not compatible with trial by jury or the presence of the media in the courtrooms;

Agreed. Given this is essentially 'the meat', maybe you could flesh (ho ho) it out a bit more, perhaps arguing why such actions might be unfair (or giving a brief example)?

DEEPLY CONCERNED that "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" imposes a very limited perspective of what a good legal system is on all member states;

Agreed.

REJECTS cultural imperialism and the imposition of foreign legal systems when the intrinsic human rights to fair trial is not at stake;

This is the most phlegmatic bit. Whether or not I agree, perhaps it could be toned to cater for the fluffier more sensitive dispositions of some delegates. Perhaps adding in something on the importance of legal systems that accurately reflect the way societies function (and the impossibility of a UN mandate for this)?

AFFIRMS the right of member states to decide whether they use trial by jury and media in the courtroom in their justice system;

Why bother? This borders on the substantive. Your repeal can't take away that right; if you're going to keep this, I'd suggest switching from 'affirms' to merely 'recognises'.

----

I support it. But I do agree that it might need to be toned down.

Midori Kasigi examines the text carefully and then replies.

"we have very little crime in Kirisubo but thats never stopped from maintaining a legal system in case its needed.

normally in Kirisubo we don't use jury trials very often. they're reserved for serious crime since we believe in making life simple for everyone.

normally a judge would hear arguments from both sides and make a ruling on their own. lawyers are allowed if a person needs them.

we like what we see in this first repeal draft and feel that that its a useful step towards governments reclaiming more sovereign rights"

Also: Habeas Corpus refers to Definition. I'm not sure what this would mean for a repeal.

A few amusing loopholes in the Definition, for the debate:

1. Defendants are given the possibility to wave [sic] without reason a speedy and efficient trial, thereby having the right to choose a slow and inneficient trial if it suits their needs. Fonzoland has a statute of limitations for most crimes, by the way.

2. "...in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court..." In any country where a Small Claims Court does not exist, courts superior to it do not exist as well.

I could think of a few more, such as redefining the concept of peers, to make parts of this resolution empty of meaning. As such, it has little impact on our nation, and we see little reason to oppose a repeal. We do, however, disagree with some of the clauses therein, mainy on grounds of political effectiveness:

"RECOGNISING the "Fair Trial" resolution, passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003 and the "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" resolution passed on Saturday, February 14 2004;"

It would be more user friendly to quote numbers rather than dates. I also agree with the possible confusion between the two.

"ENDORSING STRONGLY the commitment of the United Nations to Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial;"

I think that, as a rule, you should specifically commend the original intentions, or similar. Being too critical is "preaching to the converted," your target audience are people who somewhat like the resolution.

"AWARE that many 'fair' systems of trial (especially in Civil Law) are not compatible with trial by jury or the presence of the media in the courtrooms;"

I would replace "are not compatible" by "do not require." The system either has these elements or not.
I would mention specifically that some highly complex cases (eg financial fraud, organised crime, medical negligence) can be equally or better evaluated by a panel of experts, with adequate safeguards as to their unbiasedness, than by a randomly selected jury.
I would also argue that media presence throughout ALL stages of the trial might effectively hamper the collection of evidence and the unbiasedness of the jury, while being essentially irrelevant for fairness.

"DEEPLY CONCERNED that "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" imposes a very limited perspective of what a good legal system is on all member states;"

I would favour something stronger here, in the style of "DEEPLY CONCERNED that "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" oversteps its original intention of ensuring fairness, by imposing procedures which are not essential to that goal, thereby denying nations their right to cultural diversity;"

"REJECTS cultural imperialism and the imposition of foreign legal systems..."

You want to gather support, not make enemies. This sort of language gets you nowhere. This point would be implicit in a statement such as the one I suggested before.

"AFFIRMS the right of member states to decide whether they use trial by jury and media in the courtroom in their justice system;"

By ending like this, you are telling everyone who agrees with the imposition of those two clauses not to support you. You should be more flexible and "consensual" here, as your two main points are stated before, and open the door for people who happen to disagree with different parts of the resolution.

(apologies for not using quote tags, couldn't be bothered)

normally in Kirisubo we don't use jury trials very often. they're reserved for serious crime since we believe in making life simple for everyone.

normally a judge would hear arguments from both sides and make a ruling on their own. lawyers are allowed if a person needs them.

I hope you are not a UN member then. That would be blatant non-compliance, I guess.

I hope you are not a UN member then. That would be blatant non-compliance, I guess.
I'm telling, I'm telling!

I hope you are not a UN member then. That would be blatant non-compliance, I guess.

Not really; you just redefine a jury as the judge!

Which are you repealing?


This is the most phlegmatic bit. Whether or not I agree, perhaps it could be toned to cater for the fluffier more sensitive dispositions of some delegates. Perhaps adding in something on the importance of legal systems that accurately reflect the way societies function (and the impossibility of a UN mandate for this)?

I support it. But I do agree that it might need to be toned down.

My government would like to state that it agrees with two of the positions Gruenberg outline. The repeal should really go to greater lengths to make it clear which of the two resolutions it is really repealing (though this will be automatically handled during the repeal process itself). However the clause described as "phlegmatic" really needs to be toned down. Cultural imperialism is honestly a subjective term and has no place in a resolution adopted by so many.

Mikitivity will very likely cast its lot with Gruenberg on this motion.

I'm still curious if it will pass the four endorsements mark.
Well you can count on one of the approvals being from Yeldan UN Mission.
REJECTS cultural imperialism and the imposition of foreign legal systems
I would change this to something like:
REJECTS the imposition of legal systems which do not accurately reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds found within the NSUN.

You have our support. We would like to see this REJECTS cultural imperialism and the imposition of foreign legal systems changed but we aren’t going to withdraw support over it.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Also: Habeas Corpus refers to Definition. I'm not sure what this would mean for a repeal.
I know. I'm guessing that's why the House of Cards rule was put in place when repeals were brought in - when I got Habeas Corpus through, common consensus seemed to be that repeals would never, ever happen. But in any case, most of Habeas Corpus would still stand, as it is only the final part that refers to Def. of Fair Trial.

The government of St Edmund supports the general concept of fair trials, but also that of national sovereignity. We acknowledge that in some nations fair trials might be achieved without juries, but are wary about the possibility that simply letting trial procedures be based purely on national traditions could result in unfair trials in some cases... In other words, we could support this repeal but would prefer to see a replacement resolution already drafted & ready to be proposed before we do so...

The government of St Edmund supports the general concept of fair trials, but also that of national sovereignity. We acknowledge that in some nations fair trials might be achieved without juries, but are wary about the possibility that simply letting trial procedures be based purely on national traditions could result in unfair trials in some cases... In other words, we could support this repeal but would prefer to see a replacement resolution already drafted & ready to be proposed before we do so...

I believe the Knootian position is that that wary about the possibility that simply letting trial procedures be based purely on international legislation could result in unfair trials in some cases.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The government of St Edmund supports the general concept of fair trials, but also that of national sovereignity. We acknowledge that in some nations fair trials might be achieved without juries, but are wary about the possibility that simply letting trial procedures be based purely on national traditions could result in unfair trials in some cases... In other words, we could support this repeal but would prefer to see a replacement resolution already drafted & ready to be proposed before we do so...

There are two resolutions quoted. One declares the right to a fair trial, the other defines fair trial in this manner. If you repeal Definition, the right to fairness is still enshrined (albeit tremendously ambiguous).

I think there would be a House of Cards problem with a replacement, unless you first repeal both.

I would change this to something like:
REJECTS the imposition of legal systems which do not accurately reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds found within the NSUN.

Thonberger raises her hand, "Mikitivity will second the Yeldan motion to amend this draft. It seems to imply the same thing, but in a much more diplomatic language that we feel is becoming of an unilateral statement ... such as a resolution."

OOC: Seriously, I *really* like the wording on this amendement! :)

I would like to see both resolutions repealed, partly because I regard them both as being poorly drafted and partly because I feel that the UN should not be overly restrictive in determining member states' legal systems. However, a 'fair trial' should be enshrined in law. I hope we can draft a satisfactory replacement.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I agree completely that this needs to be repealed; "Definition" is far too strict in some areas, and provides giant loopholes in other areas. The spirit of the resolution is good and necessary, but the wording needs a good overhaul.

While I would also like to see both resolutions repealed, I'm not sure that's the most efficient way to accomplish this. Couldn't we simply repeal and rewrite the Definition? We'd still have the poorly written Fair Trial on the books, but what really makes a difference is the Definition.

I'd be happy to help whoever proposed a replacement rewrite the Definition, as I have a particular interest in legal systems and would appreciate the challenge of creating a mandate that both enshrined individual civil rights and protected national sovereignty.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

I must say I was quite surprised at the amount of support provided for this draft repeal, and see this as a positive sign for the future. My staff has processed the remarks by the ambassadors of various member states and incorporated them in the draft repeal.

We have not, however, incorporated specific arguments of content about the merits and demerits of jury systems. While we agree with such arguments we feel that this would inspire a discussion about these specific merits rather than a recognition of the right of nations to determine this for themselves.

I would like to invite further comments on the changed draft by all members.

~Aram Koopman


RECOGNISING resolution #21, "Fair Trial" which enshrined the right of UN citizens to a fair trial, and resolution #47 "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" which sought to provide specific rules of what constitutes a fair trial;

ENDORSING STRONGLY the commitment of the United Nations to Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial;

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS however that different legal traditions exist within the United Nations and;

AWARE that many 'fair' systems of trial (especially in Civil Law) do not require trial by jury or the presence of the media in the courtrooms and;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" oversteps its original intention of ensuring fairness by imposing procedures which are not essential to that goal, thereby denying nations their right to cultural and legal diversity;

REJECTS the imposition of legal systems which do not accurately reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds and legal traditions found within the NSUN.

RECOGNISES the right of member states to decide whether they use trial by jury and media in the courtroom in their justice system;

REPEALS "Definition of 'Fair Trial'"

We would like to reaffirm our strong support for this repeal, which is given irrespectively of its wording.

We also express our appreciation for the excellent work of the Knootian staff in incorporating the suggestions of this forum, significantly increasing the level of fluffyness of the proposal.

Now to details:

1. Although I am far from an expert in UN law, the REJECTS clause does seem rather operative.

2. You can make the endings of the clauses more uniform, specifically the period and the double "and" could be changed (pointless point, but never hurts)

1. Although I am far from an expert in UN law, the REJECTS clause does seem rather operative.

2. You can make the endings of the clauses more uniform, specifically the period and the double "and" could be changed (pointless point, but never hurts)

I don't think the 'REJECTS...' clause is operative: it's making a statement of principle (that cultural imposition is wrong), rather than substantively rejecting anything solid.

Agree on the second though: I'd go for semi-colons at the end of each clause, with no 'and's, personally.

We agree with the honorable representative of the Knootian East Indies that it is inappropriate for the NSUN to impose the "trial by jury" system on all member nations. We do not believe that trial by jury necessarily produces the fairest and most just verdicts.

In a spirit of cooperation, we suggest consideration of the following version of the draft, edited slightly by our resident nit-picker:

RECOGNISING that Resolution #21, "Fair Trial", enshrined the right of UN citizens to a fair trial and that Resolution #47 "Definition of 'Fair Trial'," imposes specific requirements for what constitutes a fair trial;

ENDORSING STRONGLY the commitment of the United Nations to Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial;

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS, however, that different legal traditions exist within the United Nations;

AWARE that many fair systems of trial (especially in Civil Law) do not require trial by jury or the presence of the media in the courtrooms;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" oversteps its original intention of ensuring fairness by imposing procedures which are not essential to that goal, thereby denying nations their right to cultural and legal diversity;

REJECTING the imposition of legal systems which do not accurately reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds and legal traditions found within the NSUN, and

RECOGNISING the right of member states to decide whether they use trial by jury and media in the courtroom in their justice system;

Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial", is repealed.

We hope the author will find these editorial suggestions useful. We support the proposal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

ooc: Kinda ironic, I was just reading 'the ten specific procedural rights that can be argued for under the general right to a fair trial' in UK Criminal Law and looking for a further diversion from my essays - which it looks like I have found.
Call me a fluffie all you like btw, there is a reason I'm doing Law and it's not the money.

ic:
My nation, although having a non-existant crime rate, would back any furtherence in judicial reform if it creates a more efficient and just system.
Having financial crimes tried by juries composed of financially-expert citizens makes reasonable sense, if a very capitalist occurance.
Furthermore, civil law often involves legal technicalities, which it would seem more prudent to involve trial by a board of judges in the same way small cases are often heard by a civil board in many countries before referral to higher courts.

Therefore we will back this proposal on repealing both pieces of legislation providing:
A new proposal encompassing both pieces plus the reforms is drafted first and both the repeal and the new proposal are submitted together.
You wish to retain trial by jury for criminal law beyond a certain level, albeit occassionally with 'expert juries.'
An exact description of what you believe should constitute a fair trial, including areas where individual nations' systems can and should vary.
What other relevent rights will exist to do with pre-trial procedure.
Ms. Hodgelett Tirith, UN representative for Her Royal Randomness the Queen of Randomea.

Unfortunatey, Mr. Tirith, we cannot make any specific guarantees with regards to a new resolution, as a repeal will only remove existing legislation. The Dutch Democratic Republic supports the right to a Fair Trial however and hopes to promote inclusive legislation to replace the current resolution.

The recommendations by Ausserland and others have been processed in the new draft text below. If there are no further suggestions I will submit this draft for a trial run.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

RECOGNISING that Resolution #21, "Fair Trial", enshrined the right of UN citizens to a fair trial and that Resolution #47 "Definition of 'Fair Trial'," imposes specific requirements for what constitutes a fair trial;

ENDORSING STRONGLY the commitment of the United Nations to Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial;

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS, however, that different legal traditions exist within the United Nations;

AWARE that many fair systems of trial (especially in Civil Law) do not require trial by jury or the presence of the media in the courtrooms;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" oversteps its original intention of ensuring fairness by imposing procedures that are not essential to that goal, thereby denying nations their right to cultural and legal diversity;

REJECTING the imposition of legal systems which do not accurately reflect the diverse cultural backgrounds and legal traditions found within the NSUN, and

RECOGNISING the right of member states to decide whether they use trial by jury and media in the courtroom in their justice system;

Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial", is repealed.

Grammar: "by imposing procedures which are not essential" should be "by imposing procedures that are not essential" (sorry about that)

OOC: corrected

Sorry to be making suggestions so late, but it might be worth referring to the fact that one of the clauses in DoFT is simply meaningless in many member nations' justice systems:

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

Certainly, these "Small Claims Courts" don't exist in _Myopia_. We're not even sure what the term means.

Sorry to be making suggestions so late, but it might be worth referring to the fact that one of the clauses in DoFT is simply meaningless in many member nations' justice systems:

Certainly, these "Small Claims Courts" don't exist in _Myopia_. We're not even sure what the term means.

Yeah, I had noticed it before. Quite amusing/depressive, depending on how seriously you take the UN.

the resolution in question (not going to post FT, because it is too simplistic)
Definition of 'Fair Trial'



A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ninjadom

Description: 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:

1. Is speedy and efficient.

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Votes For: 12556

Votes Against: 6283

Implemented: Sat Feb 14 2004

wow, it actually gives seperate guidlines for civil and criminal trials. the only problems i have is the allowence of media in criminal trials that could possibly affect the unbiasness of the jury if any memeber gets to see it, and also the panel of experts section mentioned earlier in the argument. oh, and also the small claims court, but then again, if you dont have one, it doesnt really matter does it?

the resolution in question (not going to post FT, because it is too simplistic)

wow, it actually gives seperate guidlines for civil and criminal trials. the only problems i have is the allowence of media in criminal trials that could possibly affect the unbiasness of the jury if any memeber gets to see it, and also the panel of experts section mentioned earlier in the argument. oh, and also the small claims court, but then again, if you dont have one, it doesnt really matter does it?

Beyond the finer details, where I agree with you, this resolution loks like a list, copied from some book, describing the details of the specific philosophy behind a specific RL country's legal system. And that annoys me.

Beyond the finer details, where I agree with you, this resolution loks like a list, copied from some book, describing the details of the specific philosophy behind a specific RL country's legal system. And that annoys me.
yeah, it does a bit, but it seems like the basics that could apply anywhere really. the only thing it doesnt cover is trials held by theocracies. but if you repeal this, a nation could go through and set up anything and call it a fair trial, when it might not. i would rather see a replacement before giving support, but then again, could be hit with a HoC violation. kinda a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.

yeah, it does a bit, but it seems like the basics that could apply anywhere really. the only thing it doesnt cover is trials held by theocracies. but if you repeal this, a nation could go through and set up anything and call it a fair trial, when it might not. i would rather see a replacement before giving support, but then again, could be hit with a HoC violation. kinda a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.

It seems like some of the basics could apply anywhere, like presumption of innocence. But other "basics" are fundamentally flawed (ooc: there are plenty of non-theocratic, highly civilised RL countries that do not have trial by jury at all). Adding the huge loopholes mentioned before, I would say this is a poor piece of legislation. As I stated elsewhere, I believe poor legislation threatens the credibility of the UN, and should be remmited to the historical files.

I think the temporary legal hole before a replacement is drafted is a minor problem, which is often overevaluated. Nations who would, as you say, set up obscene systems calling them "fair trial," are the same nations that are already exploring all possible loopholes in this flawed proposal, making it almost meaningless.

but then again, what else can you do, besides scrap it all together. we cant amend it. we cant repeal and re-write it without possibly getting a HoC violation, and there isnt really anything else we can do. unless we can work around this rule, or the mods will give us a bit of lee-way on it, i dont know how it could end up being replaced.

but then again, what else can you do, besides scrap it all together. we cant amend it. we cant repeal and re-write it without possibly getting a HoC violation, and there isnt really anything else we can do. unless we can work around this rule, or the mods will give us a bit of lee-way on it, i dont know how it could end up being replaced.

What HoC violation do you mean? Would it be impossible to submit something of this sort without repealing Fair Trial? If that is the case, I can see your point.

What HoC violation do you mean? Would it be impossible to submit something of this sort without repealing Fair Trial? If that is the case, I can see your point.
i just find it highly unlikly that both would be repealed, especially since you cant write a replacment without doing the 'cant repeal one without the other' kinda thing. i admit, there is flaws in it, but it is going to be hard to get 2 repeals then a new proposal passed, especially on a subject such as this. most would see the title, not read the contents, and be instantly against

'It's not going to happen' isn't the most spectacular argument against a repeal.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/God-member.PNG

The principles of the 'definition of fair trial' resolution could NOT apply "anywhere, really". That is the whole reasoning behind the repeal. I am offended, good sir, that you imply that we are a theocracy because we do not allow ignorant layman to determine the verdicts in our court systems. As the representative from Fonzoland already pointed out, many civil law systems do not have juries, instead leaving the issue of applying democratically decided law to the professionals.

There are reasonable arguments to be levied against juries. In highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to convict based on personal feelings rather than on conviction behind reasonable doubt. Another issue with jury trials is the potential for jurors to be swayed by prejudice, including racial considerations. The matter is not, however, whether nations should adopt such a system or not. The repeal is clearly arguing that this is something nations should decide for themselves, because it is very much possible to have a fair trial without a jury system.

As a general rule, the replacement resolution – if there is one - can be about the same subject. The resolution is, after all, stricken from the record completely as if it never existed. The Dutch Democratic Republic therefore feels that it is futile to get into a debate about replacements before the resolution being challenged has actually been repealed.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG


OOC: and I cannot help but quote the wiki for a RL example of why the idea of juries is very typical for anglosaxon (not even western) culture rather than being universal. Many continental European countries do not have juries, and they are hardly backward.

“The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the US contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen. Consider Japan, for instance, which used to have optional jury trials for capital or other serious crimes between 1928 and 1943. The defendant could freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by judges, and the decisions of the jury were non-binding. During the Tōjō-regime this was suspended, arguably due to the popular belief that any defendant who risks his fate on the opinions of untrained laymen is almost certainly guilty.”

*snip*
I am offended, good sir, that you imply that we are a theocracy because we do not allow ignorant layman to determine the verdicts in our court systems.
*snip*

Even if your nation is a theocracy, that should not be a strike against it in this austere body.

ooc: (It's Ms not Mr btw)

Perhaps we should get an 'implied repeal' function into Nation States, this current method is extremely convuluted.

So it would be a normal proposal and if there is a former passed piece of legislation on the same subject the latter one implies. You would have to include dates then of course. Then you could have proposals that expressly repeal certain sections, i.e. Repealing s9 of the Definition of Fair Trade of 3456AJ (After Jennifer), xyz.
Actually you could get away with just numbering them...so the Definition of Fair Trade I.

'It's not going to happen' isn't the most spectacular argument against a repeal.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/God-member.PNG
whilst it isnt a spectacular one, it is a to the point one. in order to get a decent replacement in, you need to first get the aprovals for, then succesfully repeal 2 passed resolutions, then get the aprovals for a replacement, then get that passed too. even if you make it passed the first stage, who says you are going to make it past the second. getting it through the first draft posted on this board is bad enough.

whilst it isnt a spectacular one, it is a to the point one. in order to get a decent replacement in, you need to first get the aprovals for, then succesfully repeal 2 passed resolutions, then get the aprovals for a replacement, then get that passed too. even if you make it passed the first stage, who says you are going to make it past the second. getting it through the first draft posted on this board is bad enough.

You supported 'Repeal "UCPL"'. We still need to pass a replacement, repeal "Public Domain", and pass a second replacement. Why should this be any different?

OOC: getting the endorsements to submit the repeal now :)

Having looked through the various versions of the repeal text, I'm still not completely convinced of the need or desirability of a repeal. My main objection is:

AWARE that many fair systems of trial (especially in Civil Law) do not require trial by jury or the presence of the media in the courtrooms;

It may be so that some fair systems of trial do not require trial by jury or the presence of media in the courtrooms. I am strong supporter of trial by jury, I base my view on the fact that I think that most people possess an innate common sense when placed in these situations, because they tend to view things with a certain frankness you don't often find in the legal profession. Of course, judges are necessary, but I find they are sometimes so wrapped up in legalisms and so obsessive about legal detail, that they can actually end up damaging a trials progression.

Equally, I think everyone has the right to be judged by their peers, because if they are accused of having committed a crime, they are usually tried on behalf of society, recognising that their alleged criminal actions have negative consequences for general societal order and cohesion. Thus, it makes sense for them to be judged by their peers, who represent the society that is trying them and thus have a vested interest in ensuring a fair outcome.

Judges normally make the decision on their own, which means instead of finding a consensus, as juries normally have to do, they can go off on their own little tangents, which, needless to say, can often have very unfortunate consequences, if they follow these tangents and forget about the wider issues at stake during a trial.

As for the presence of media, I would say that their presence acts as a motivator for ensuring an impartial and fair trial, as if their is abuse of the system, they will report it. Of course, some countries media's are rigged and biased and will not do so, yet the potential for the media to act as a beneficial force is one we should bear in mind. Furthermore, by giving accurate information on trials, the public is kept informed and are not rendered confused or disorientated by the workings of justice.

For these reasons, we are abstaining for the time being until we can decide a more permanant and decisive outcome.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Compadria is always free to keep its own jury system. Your recognition of the fact that, to use your words, 'some fair systems of trial do not require trial by jury or the presence of media in the courtrooms' ought to be enough to guarantee Compandrian support for the proposal given the fundamental and justified objections that other member states have against these rules.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

Compadria is always free to keep its own jury system. Your recognition of the fact that, to use your words, 'some fair systems of trial do not require trial by jury or the presence of media in the courtrooms' ought to be enough to guarantee Compandrian support for the proposal given the fundamental and justified objections that other member states have against these rules.

At no point did I say I accepted the definition, I'm still deciding whether to or not.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It may be so that some fair systems of trial do not require trial by jury or the presence of media in the courtrooms. I am strong supporter of trial by jury, I base my view on the fact that I think that most people possess an innate common sense when placed in these situations, because they tend to view things with a certain frankness you don't often find in the legal profession. Of course, judges are necessary, but I find they are sometimes so wrapped up in legalisms and so obsessive about legal detail, that they can actually end up damaging a trials progression.

There are many fair systems of trial that do not require either. And I think you should not be basing your argument on why you like trial by jury (as nobody is taking away the right of implementing it in Compadria), but rather on why you believe the UN should force that system upon others.

Equally, I think everyone has the right to be judged by their peers, because if they are accused of having committed a crime, they are usually tried on behalf of society, recognising that their alleged criminal actions have negative consequences for general societal order and cohesion. Thus, it makes sense for them to be judged by their peers, who represent the society that is trying them and thus have a vested interest in ensuring a fair outcome.

They might also have vested prejudice, be swayed by emotionality, vote with the majority to go home earlier, etc. Common sense is not universal. Besides, I don't see how a judge fails to represent society.

Judges normally make the decision on their own, which means instead of finding a consensus, as juries normally have to do, they can go off on their own little tangents, which, needless to say, can often have very unfortunate consequences, if they follow these tangents and forget about the wider issues at stake during a trial.

Nop, you can have a panel of judges, as in most RL countries without a jury system.

As for the presence of media, I would say that their presence acts as a motivator for ensuring an impartial and fair trial, as if their is abuse of the system, they will report it. Of course, some countries media's are rigged and biased and will not do so, yet the potential for the media to act as a beneficial force is one we should bear in mind. Furthermore, by giving accurate information on trials, the public is kept informed and are not rendered confused or disorientated by the workings of justice.

My argument is again: not essential, should not be imposed. In many countries, participation of the media is restricted or prohibited at the discretion of the judge. One simple reason for this is protection of the witnesses/victims. Another simple reason is not biasing a future jury with media coverage of the preliminary stage of the trial.

My points here are not about defending one system or another. I honestly believe both are defendable, and I do not have a strong preference for either. But why should the UN favour one of them, and impose it on every nation?

Whilst I am a fan of the Jury system, I do understand the concerns His Excellency Aram Koopman has over the resolution, and it does violate national sovreignty. That said, I think we can all agree that legislation is needed that does guarentee a true fair trial. Yet, I am at pains to think of a way that fair trial can be guarenteed for certain without going into the details of function.

OOC: getting the endorsements to submit the repeal now :)
We still fully support this and will be approving it once submitted. Good luck.

I can fully support the Fonzoland defence of the repeal, and would like to thank those who have voiced expressions of support.

OOC: *kicks bleeding slow website*

The repeal has just been submitted in the repeal list. (http://www.nationstates.net/27014/page=UN_proposal/start=30) Please endorse!

Your first approval.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Done.

5 endorsements down, 125 to go!

Status: Lacking Support (requires 90 more approvals)

Come on folks!

Well, this thing failed a while ago but I learned since that I submitted it at a really rotten time. Is it actually allowed to just submit the same thing again, or do I have to change it?

I am open to changes to make it more popular, by the way.

You can re-submit as is.

You can re-submit as is.Correct. The only time changes are mandated are when it's deleted for being illegal. As long as the Proposal auto-deleted because of time, you're welcome to resubmit.

...just ask Enn, heh.

OOC: I will resubmit this today but I need people to give Knootian East Indies endorsements!

OOC: What region are you in?

OOC: I moved to the east pacific in the hope to quickly pick up endorsements after a "PLX HLP" request on their RMB. Has not really worked thus far :/

I'm all for it.