NationStates Jolt Archive

This will probably, but not necessarily, follow a repeal of Due Process.

Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, threats, or other unjust tactics, to provide a confession or give testimony that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with another person or group of persons of their choosing for the purpose of obtaining legal counsel. Governments have the right to deny this right for contacts who have a criminal record or are wanted for or suspected of any crime.

3. All persons shall have the right to legal counsel in clause 2 prior to the time at which making a statement might be advantageous to their case.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Looks good to me.

One minor point of grammar:


if he or she indeed commit it

should be "committed" or, better still, "did commit".


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Leaving aside the NatSov arguments against such a proposal, about which we'll probably have to agree to disagree, I feel that clause 2 needs some limitations: Firstly, as it's currently written the accused person arguably has a right to legal counsel from the other person of their choice even if that other person doesn't want to get involved, and secondly the right to private communication with that person could be abused by (for example) captured spies using that route for sending stolen information back to their masters... Perhaps allowing the authorities a wider veto over the choice of counsel than clause 2 currently mentions might be necessary?

This will probably, but not necessarily, follow a repeal of Due Process.

I am enheartened at the prospect of a repeal of "Due Process", less so at the prospect of your proposal.

Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

Sobered, sir? Was this body intoxicated prior to the writing of this proposal? At the very least, that clause makes for cheap shots at your proposal, which should be avoided. Perhaps DISTURBED or ALARMED might be more appropriate.

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, threats, or other unjust tactics, to provide a confession or give testimony that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with another person or group of persons of their choosing for the purpose of obtaining legal counsel. Governments have the right to deny this right for contacts who have a criminal record or are wanted for or suspected of any crime.

3. All persons shall have the right to legal counsel in clause 2 prior to the time at which making a statement might be advantageous to their case.

These stipulations strike me as micromanagement. I'll be opposing this.

Hellar Gray

The stipulations of this article are already covered under End Barbaric Punishments and Definition of 'Fair Trial.' We see no reason whatsoever for this legislation.

We see no reason to oppose this. We would actually recommend that this be proposed before a repeal of "Due Process" has passed, as it can serve as an adjunct until that time.

The stipulations of this article are already covered under End Barbaric Punishments and Definition of 'Fair Trial.' We see no reason whatsoever for this legislation.

Ahem...

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.

None of this affects any of what this proposal covers.

As for End Barbaric Punishments, yes, that covers the torture bit. But I figured it would be a good idea to put it in there anyway. The rest of the proposal is uncovered by it.

I'll add some good reasonable way for nations to veto legal council, but right now, I have to settle some paycheck issues with one of my aides. (OOC: I have to leave now, I'll respond to other comments in a few hours.)

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

None of this affects any of what this proposal covers.

*Ahem*
How about this clause?

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.

*Ahem*
How about this clause?

I saw that, but I really don't think it covers this, or at least not tightly enough for those nations who don't already grant these rights. You could present a functional defense but still have to confess. It's mainly a loophole thing.

So that gives us:

Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, or threats (besides warnings of higher sentences if a confession is not made), to provide a confession or give testimony that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All accused persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with legal counsel of their choosing. Governments may demand to pre-approve the counsel, but must allow the accused access to a competent counsel who will act on the side of the accused.

3. All persons shall have the right to legal counsel in clause 2 prior to the time at which making a statement might be advantageous to their case.

4. All persons shall be informed of their rights under this resolution at times of arrest and before questioning or interrogation.

Enrique lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The current draft is certainly a great improvement over the original. We do have a problem, though, with the provision that governments are able to pre-approve legal counsel. It would seem that this would enable governments to disqualify particularly effective defense counsel in order to stack the deck in favor of the prosecution. It would be better to say that the person must be qualified to represent the accused under the standing laws of the nation, e.g., a member of the bar.

As we've informed the honorable representative of Ceorana in another forum, we find clause 3 confusing and disturbing. We cannot understand why the business of "advantageous" is included. How are the authorities supposed to know if the statement would be advantageous? The proposal should state that the accused is entitled to consult with counsel before being questioned about the alleged offense. This, in combination with clause 4, should be sufficient.

As a technical matter, we'd recommend changing "to provide a confession or give testimony" in clause 1 to read "to make any statement or provide any answers to questions".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

How's this?

Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, or threats (besides warnings of higher sentences if a confession is not made), to make any statement or provide any answers to any questions that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All accused persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with legal counsel of their choosing. Governments may require that the legal counsel have certain qualifications, but these must not exceed those required of legal counsel used by the government, and must not include a requirement of being approved by the government.

3. All accused persons shall have the right to legal counsel as stated in clause 2 as soon as possible after arrest, and prior to making any statement or undergoing any questioning.

4. All persons shall be informed of their rights under this resolution at times of arrest and before questioning or interrogation.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

How's this?


Much more acceptable to us. We'd suggest deleting the "any" before "questions" in clause 1. Overkill.

Also, we think clause 2 could be simplified by changing the second sentence to read: "Governments may require that the legal counsel meet requirements established by law for the practice of law, but must not otherwise limit the choice of the accused."

And, as usual, we've found another nit to pick: "at times of arrest" in the final clause should read "at the time of arrest".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Much more acceptable to us. We'd suggest deleting the "any" before "questions" in clause 1. Overkill.
Sure.

Also, we think clause 2 could be simplified by changing the second sentence to read: "Governments may require that the legal counsel meet requirements established by law for the practice of law, but must not otherwise limit the choice of the accused."
Thanks, I was looking for something like that.

And, as usual, we've found another nit to pick: "at times of arrest" in the final clause should read "at the time of arrest".
On this one I disagree. Not everyone who these rights extend to will be arrested. It also applies to witnesses called at a trial, or any random person on the street who gets asked a question by a police officer. The plural allows for 0 times as well.

So...

Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, or threats (besides warnings of higher sentences if a confession is not made), to make any statement or provide any answers to questions that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All accused persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with legal counsel of their choosing. Governments may require that the legal counsel meet requirements established by law for the practice of law, but must not otherwise limit the accused's choice.

3. All accused persons shall have the right to legal counsel as stated in clause 2 as soon as possible after arrest, and prior to making any statement or undergoing any questioning.

4. All persons shall be informed of their rights under this resolution at times of arrest and before questioning or interrogation.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

And, as usual, we've found another nit to pick: "at times of arrest" in the final clause should read "at the time of arrest".

On this one I disagree. Not everyone who these rights extend to will be arrested. It also applies to witnesses called at a trial, or any random person on the street who gets asked a question by a police officer. The plural allows for 0 times as well.


Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. In the first place, the plural doesn't cover situations where there is no arrest. If there's no arrest, there's no arrest.

And you really expect a police officer to Mirandize every person he asks a question of on the street? That's patently ridiculous. And you're going to give a rights warning to every witness in a trial? A person should be advised of their rights if arrested or questioned with regard to an alleged crime of which they are suspected. The last clause, edited as we suggested, would accomplish that. In fact, we're now considering that the clause needs to be tightened by the addition of "regarding crimes of which they are suspected".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. In the first place, the plural doesn't cover situations where there is no arrest. If there's no arrest, there's no arrest.

And you really expect a police officer to Mirandize every person he asks a question of on the street? That's patently ridiculous. And you're going to give a rights warning to every witness in a trial? A person should be advised of their rights if arrested or questioned with regard to an alleged crime of which they are suspected. The last clause, edited as we suggested, would accomplish that. In fact, we're now considering that the clause needs to be tightened by the addition of "regarding crimes of which they are suspected".

Heh. You have a point. With this new draft, you have to Mirandize those who are suspected, and let others know about it indirectly.

Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, or threats (besides warnings of higher sentences if a confession is not made), to make any statement or provide any answers to questions that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All accused persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with legal counsel of their choosing. Governments may require that the legal counsel meet requirements established by law for the practice of law, but must not otherwise limit the accused's choice.

3. All accused persons shall have the right to legal counsel as stated in clause 2 as soon as possible after arrest, and prior to making any statement or undergoing any questioning.

4. All persons shall be informed of their rights under this resolution at times of arrest and before questioning or interrogation regarding crimes of which they are suspected. Other persons being questioned with regards to a crime shall not be denied access to this information, but the information does not have to be directly provided to them.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm going to submit this for a dry run. Comments are still encouraged, as this is by no means final.

The latest rewrite of clause #2 again leaves nations too little control over who knows the details of 'national security' cases.

and that's a good thing (from my point of view) because it does not limit the capabilities of defending such persons just because "they know to much".

also i would prefer that witnesses are informed about their right to remain silent, but since there is no one restricting their right, what the heck, they can get some information on their own.

i'm FOR this law

The latest rewrite of clause #2 again leaves nations too little control over who knows the details of 'national security' cases.

A requirement for practicing law could probably be "not wanted for any crime". I don't see how else to solve this except by letting governments have complete veto-power over it.

and that's a good thing (from my point of view) because it does not limit the capabilities of defending such persons just because "they know to much".

OOC: Look up the details of the RL 'Double Cross' system, in which British Intelligence used captured & "turned" German spies to feed false information to the Nazis thus making Allied victory a bit easier. Consider how impossible that would have been if those spies had been able to notify lawyers of their own choice (who, under the current wording of this clause, wouldn't even have needed to be in the nations where the spies were being held) that they had been captured...

A requirement for practicing law could probably be "not wanted for any crime". I don't see how else to solve this except by letting governments have complete veto-power over it.

Requiring that they actually be currently eligible to practice law in the nation where the accused are being held, and physically present in that nation at the time, might be one step in the right direction... Allowing either the government (more specifically its 'judicial branch', if it practises 'separation of powers'...) or the local Bar Association (if one exists) to draw up a short-list from which lawyers could be selected in such cases ( for which I think there are RL preccedents ) would be another...

So how about...

Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, or threats (besides warnings of higher sentences if a confession is not made), to make any statement or provide any answers to questions that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All accused persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with legal counsel of their choosing. Governments may require that the legal counsel meet requirements established by law for the practice of law, and may require that the counsel not have committed or be suspected of any crime, but must not otherwise limit the accused's choice. In criminal cases, if there is no counsel available, or the accused cannot afford to hire counsel, the government must provide counsel for the accused.

3. All accused persons shall have the right to legal counsel as stated in clause 2 as soon as possible after arrest, and prior to making any statement or undergoing any questioning.

4. All persons shall be informed of their rights under this resolution at times of arrest and before questioning or interrogation regarding crimes of which they are suspected. Other persons being questioned with regards to a crime shall not be denied access to this information, but the information does not have to be directly provided to them.

I decided to try a different tack...how's this new clause 3?
Right to Remain Silent
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

BELIEVING that it is important that all persons accused of a crime have their guilt or innocence determined by an effective and impartial process,

FURTHER BELIEVING that these systems must be able to act without a confession from the accused,

AFFIRMING that it is the right of the accused to determine if and when he wishes to confess to the crime, if he or she indeed commit it,

SOBERED by the possibility of a nation using various inhumane or unethical tactics to force a confession out of a person, who may not have committed the crime,

The United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, or threats (besides warnings of higher sentences if a confession is not made), to make any statement or provide any answers to questions that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All accused persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with legal counsel of their choosing. In criminal cases, if there is no counsel available, or the accused cannot afford to hire counsel, the government must provide counsel for the accused.

3. In cases where there may be danger of the accused using legal counsel to notify others of his or her capture, and this is a clear danger to the nation holding the accused, the government in question has the right to preview prospective legal counsel and deny the prisoner access to them if communication between them and the prisoner poses a clear threat to the security of the nation.

4. All accused persons shall have the right to legal counsel as stated in clause 2 as soon as possible after arrest, and prior to making any statement or undergoing any questioning.

5. All persons shall be informed of their rights under this resolution at times of arrest and before questioning or interrogation regarding crimes of which they are suspected. Other persons being questioned with regards to a crime shall not be denied access to this information, but the information does not have to be directly provided to them.

I decided to try a different tack...how's this new clause 3?

That answers that part of my complaints reasonably well (although I'd prefer to see the bit about the counsel chosen having to be qualified to practice law, and not suspected of involvement in crime themselves, left in as well), and the rewrite of clause 2 probably covers my complaint that your original text arguably wouldn't have let the chosen counsel turn down the job, so my only quibble now is the NatSov one: Given that the UN is actually forbidden to try mandating any details about the nature of member-nations' governments, and given that in most (if not all?) nations the legal system is either subordinate to or a part of the governmental system, I consider the UN trying to mandate anything about how member-nations' legal systems work as decidedly presumptuous...

That answers that part of my complaints reasonably well (although I'd prefer to see the bit about the counsel chosen having to be qualified to practice law, and not suspected of involvement in crime themselves, left in as well), and the rewrite of clause 2 probably covers my complaint that your original text arguably wouldn't have let the chosen counsel turn down the job, so my only quibble now is the NatSov one: Given that the UN is actually forbidden to try mandating any details about the nature of member-nations' governments, and given that in most (if not all?) nations the legal system is either subordinate to or a part of the governmental system, I consider the UN trying to mandate anything about how member-nations' legal systems work as decidedly presumptuous...

This isn't changing how legal systems work. It's just mandating that all people be allowed fair defenses in court, and helping to prevent/avoid wrongful convictions. It is the position of Ceorana that being wrongfully convicted is a human rights violation, and so it is in the interest of the United Nations to help assure that this does not happen.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: Look up the details of the RL 'Double Cross' system, in which British Intelligence used captured & "turned" German spies to feed false information to the Nazis thus making Allied victory a bit easier. Consider how impossible that would have been if those spies had been able to notify lawyers of their own choice (who, under the current wording of this clause, wouldn't even have needed to be in the nations where the spies were being held) that they had been captured...

and this is fair because... the Nazi were bad? What if it would be the other way around and the british would have been in the Nazi's place? then everyone would have cryed "it's not fair". For a rule to be universal, it should be satisfactory for everyone. In this case the Nazi spies should have had the right to defence by Nazi lawyers (if they wanted and found any that would have had the courage of going to England and defend them). Think of a British spy found in Nazi land and asking for a british lawyer, and your law denying his right to one.


"3. In cases where there may be danger of the accused using legal counsel to notify others of his or her capture, and this is a clear danger to the nation holding the accused, the government in question has the right to preview prospective legal counsel and deny the prisoner access to them if communication between them and the prisoner poses a clear threat to the security of the nation."

I belive in the right to good defence. National security is a reason to often invoked to infringe on citizen's rights. I like the law more the way it was before this. If this stays, any nation wanting true justice would say "NAY" (including me)

I haven't been able to access NS for a bit, but I've had an idea. What if we gave governments a certain window of time for them to track down the cohorts of the accused before they have to allow them access to a lawyer. I'm thinking 24 or 48 hours (1 or 2 days) for non-NatSec-related cases and 72 - 120 hours (3 - 5 days) for NatSec-sensitive cases. Nations will then have a chance to take advantage of the element of surprise for a bit, but will still have to let the accused have a full range of lawyers.

Thoughts?

I haven't been able to access NS for a bit, but I've had an idea. What if we gave governments a certain window of time for them to track down the cohorts of the accused before they have to allow them access to a lawyer. I'm thinking 24 or 48 hours (1 or 2 days) for non-NatSec-related cases and 72 - 120 hours (3 - 5 days) for NatSec-sensitive cases. Nations will then have a chance to take advantage of the element of surprise for a bit, but will still have to let the accused have a full range of lawyers.

Thoughts?

Or how about we don't meddle in other nations' criminal justice systems at all?

....And put my world class torturers out of a job? That's it, I need to set up a puppet to handle the war stuff before Excruciatia is ruined by UN :headbang: ;)

Or how about we don't meddle in other nations' criminal justice systems at all?

Could you provide a scenario where nations would have the ability to make judgments on this issue that would be better for the people of the nation than if the judgment was made by the UN?

IC: (with OOC phrasing :) )

Ceorana, and the big deal about making things better for the people of the nation is ___________ ? :)

IC: (with OOC phrasing :) )

Ceorana, and the big deal about making things better for the people of the nation is ___________ ? :)

You're a person, right?

You're a person, right?

IC (in OOC phrasing to save time and space ;))

Wellllll, BPL - DRE is a person. However the "people" of DRE are not :) So BPL does the best thing for all the people in DRE...all 1 of him ;) The 1.563 billion "beings" in Excruciatia are...I dunno...maybe lab-rats?

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, threats, or other unjust tactics, to provide a confession or give testimony that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.
(emphasis added) Does this mean failing to report a crime committed by a family member could no longer be an offence?

(By the way, if you use the indent tag rather than the quote tag, it's easier for people to quote your proposal in replies.)

Could you provide a scenario where nations would have the ability to make judgments on this issue that would be better for the people of the nation than if the judgment was made by the UN?A little tip there, buddy: when you're the one advocating UN interference on any issue, the key is not to sound like an arrogant jackass.

(emphasis added) Does this mean failing to report a crime committed by a family member could no longer be an offence?

As it is, yeah. Perhaps I ought to remove the part about the immediate family, as that might be a bit too much micromanagement, as different nations may have different customs for family groupings, etc.

A little tip there, buddy: when you're the one advocating UN interference on any issue, the key is not to sound like an arrogant jackass.

I didn't mean to sound like an "arrogant jackass". I was sincerely asking that question, as if there was a point where you could convince me that a one-size-fits-all mandate would be worse in practice, rather than just in principle, I might be willing to allow more national decision-making on that issue.

I didn't mean to sound like an "arrogant jackass". I was sincerely asking that question, as if there was a point where you could convince me that a one-size-fits-all mandate would be worse in practice, rather than just in principle, I might be willing to allow more national decision-making on that issue.

Excellent. Let's take a look at the meat of your proposal, shall we?

1. No person may be forced, by torture, physical force, legal requirement, coercion, or threats (besides warnings of higher sentences if a confession is not made), to make any statement or provide any answers to questions that would or could incriminate him- or herself or his or her immediate family.

2. All accused persons shall have the right to contact and communicate privately with legal counsel of their choosing. Governments may require that the legal counsel meet requirements established by law for the practice of law, but must not otherwise limit the accused's choice.

3. All accused persons shall have the right to legal counsel as stated in clause 2 as soon as possible after arrest, and prior to making any statement or undergoing any questioning.

4. All persons shall be informed of their rights under this resolution at times of arrest and before questioning or interrogation regarding crimes of which they are suspected. Other persons being questioned with regards to a crime shall not be denied access to this information, but the information does not have to be directly provided to them.

The requirement of governments to inform suspects of their rights and to give the right to legal counsel is most definitely redundant and useless in my nation. All persons who are of an age eligible to be charged with a crime have already undergone the standard law course in our education system, which explains to them their liberties and duties under the law, as well as the required periodic reviews of this material. As a result, they do not need legal counsel or to be informed of their rights. In addition, the magistrates provide for the needs of the suspect in trials, including (on those rare occasions when precedent is relevant or the law is unclear) any clarification of the law that might be of use to them.

In addition, the requirement that no person may be forced to confess has serious potential for abuse. I do not wish to see, as a result of this proposal, the people of member nations using this resolution as an excuse to appeal legitimate judicial decisions and clog up the judicial system by making false allegations of coercion on the part of law enforcement officers in an effort to escape justice.

Hellar Gray

The requirement of governments to inform suspects of their rights and to give the right to legal counsel is most definitely redundant and useless in my nation. All persons who are of an age eligible to be charged with a crime have already undergone the standard law course in our education system, which explains to them their liberties and duties under the law, as well as the required periodic reviews of this material. As a result, they do not need legal counsel or to be informed of their rights.

OOC: I believe the reasoning behind concepts such as Miranda Rights two-fold: first, most English common law systems are supposed to include an impartial jury and judge, which are supposed to make their decision based on an overwhelming presentation of facts that support guilt or innocence. A statement from anybody is just a statement, but people are inherently illogical and a confession (coherced or not) from an individual moves the court away from evidence. Second, people charged with crimes often are not in a "right state of mind", thus a miranda warning is a "check" designed to give somebody who has just been angered a chance to calm down.

For example, somebody could bust down my door and say, "Michael, you've just killed a dog, we're here to arrest you." Naturally I'm no longer going to be in the best frame of mind -- regardless if I killed a dog or not, afterall how often have you been accused of something on that order of magnitude. If I've done it, I'll be emotional ... if I've not done it, I'll still be emotional.

To say, "Well everybody has taken drivers ed, there will be no car accidents" is rather silly. People make mistakes.

All that said, NationStates is a Harry Potter like fictional word ... you may actually have a nation of Vulcans whom even when accused of a crime they may or may not have committeed will immediately flick on their attorney switches ... I've got no strong argument against that possibility. ;) But if you like, I'll think up a polite diplomatic IC response.

-M

OOC: For example, somebody could bust down my door and say, "Michael, you've just killed a dog, we're here to arrest you." Naturally I'm no longer going to be in the best frame of mind -- regardless if I killed a dog or not, afterall how often have you been accused of something on that order of magnitude. If I've done it, I'll be emotional ... if I've not done it, I'll still be emotional.

To say, "Well everybody has taken drivers ed, there will be no car accidents" is rather silly. People make mistakes.

All that said, NationStates is a Harry Potter like fictional word ... you may actually have a nation of Vulcans whom even when accused of a crime they may or may not have committeed will immediately flick on their attorney switches ... I've got no strong argument against that possibility. ;) But if you like, I'll think up a polite diplomatic IC response.

-M

OOC: A few points. The culture of the nation is highly formal and opposed to purely emotional responses. The people tend to redirect their emotional energies into producing art rather than expressing it verbally or through violence. It's sort of a mix between the culture of the Victorian English and ancient Greek philosophers. At least, that's what I was going for with this nation.

With regard to your point about driver's licenses...given the culture, the people who do disobey the law are either doing so in full knowledge of the law with the possession of a rational mental state, or they are subject to some sort of mental illness or disability. In those cases where there is mental illness or disability, the local constabulary and community is aware of this and does not charge them with a crime. At most, the guardian of the individual may be admonished to supervise their ward more carefully.

OOC: A few points. The culture of the nation is highly formal and opposed to purely emotional responses. The people tend to redirect their emotional energies into producing art rather than expressing it verbally or through violence. It's sort of a mix between the culture of the Victorian English and ancient Greek philosophers. At least, that's what I was going for with this nation.

With regard to your point about driver's licenses...given the culture, the people who do disobey the law are either doing so in full knowledge of the law with the possession of a rational mental state, or they are subject to some sort of mental illness or disability. In those cases where there is mental illness or disability, the local constabulary and community is aware of this and does not charge them with a crime. At most, the guardian of the individual may be admonished to supervise their ward more carefully.

:) Well, that is a pretty firm and well thought out culture there ... I encourage that. In fact, this is the basic sort of thing that makes for nice NSWiki paragraphs on your nation's page ... I haven't checked to see if you have one already.

That said, I believe that in Victorian England there were two cultures ... the culture of the elite and the culture of those that supported that culture. Here I'm thinking of the folks who might have lived in Whitechapel -- a community located in/near London that so strongly contrasted the ideals of the Victorian capital. This isn't to suggest that this is a bad model for a RPed nation ... rather the opposite, I think it is incredibly cool! :) It is a story rich environment for a period that actually saw the growth of liberalism (women's rights in particular) and at the same time some exceptionally scary responses to a society where women significantly outnumbered me.

Right...at the moment it seems to me that the best way to make this sovereignty-friendly is to focus on results rather than methods.

So how's this?

Functional Legal Defense Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description: REAFFIRMING Resolution #28, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'", which guarantees the right to a "functional legal defense",

NOTING that this requirement is vague and doesn't require much, if any, action by member states,

BELIEVING that this right should be more fully guaranteed by the United Nations,

Therefore, the United Nations hereby RESOLVES that:

1. All defendants must have the right to, where applicable, private and unimpeded access to the following:
a. all laws, precedents, legal procedures and related documents applying to their case,
b. a person of their choosing who is knowledgeable about the documents in clause 1.a. to represent and act as counsel to the defendant (this person may be the willing defendant),
c. ample time to prepare their case after they have access to the person noted in clause 1.b.

2. No one may be forced, by legal requirement, torture, physical force, threats, etc., to answer questions or give testimony that could incriminate them.

3. All defendants must be knowledgeable or made knowledgeable about their rights under this resolution.

OOC: When I was in high school I participated in a Model United Nations (HAMUN to be exact), and my first resolution sort of dealt with your:

1. All defendants must have the right to, where applicable, private and unimpeded access to the following:
a. all laws, precedents, legal procedures and related documents applying to their case,

I took a different approach to this though. Instead of making it a civil right that people should have access to this sort of information, I proposed the creation of a United Nations legal series that would cover all of the laws of all member nations. OK, that idea was impractical in the 1980s, and even with the net is so in RL today ... and it is beyond imaginable for NationStates, but I still like the idea.

What you have is much more reasonable ... really legalistic nations sew the seeds of their own headache. ;)