NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

AWARE of the widely varied judicial systems within member nations;

RECOGNIZING that there are many viable alternatives to the grand jury system;

NOT CONVINCED that this particular judicial system is inherently more fair, or more likely to produce correct verdicts, than other viable systems;

BELIEVING that nations should have the opportunity to select the method of bringing criminal charges which best suits their cultures and legal systems;

DISMAYED that if significant new evidence is acquired acquired after the initial trial, no retrial would be possible;

THEREFORE repeals UNR#27 "Due Process"

This has now turned into a redrafting. Any and all suggestions will be taken into account and most likely used.

Tana Petrov
Temporary UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

It's no longer there.

Okay, what happened? It took a hell of a lot of work to get this to quorum and now it's gone?

I'm going to refrain from going on because I'm really upset right now.

Okay, what happened?When the update runs, it deals with Delegates first, then Proposals. Sadly, this means that if enough Delegates are replaced to knock a Proposal below quroum, it gets removed.

Ed would be painfully familiar with this...

Thanks Hack.

If there is nothing to be done about this, then I'll resubmit on Monday. Hopefully it doesn't happen again.

Are there any suggestions for rewording or anything before I resubmit this?

Are there any suggestions for rewording or anything before I resubmit this?


You could add in a line about how repealing the resolution would cure cancer. ;)

If we were writing this, we'd probably delete the final "DISTURBED" clause. It doesn't seem necessary, and might produce opposition from those with a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything that smacks of "national sovereignty". But that's just a thought.

We certainly support the proposal and will be asking our delegate to add an approval.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thanks for the suggestion Auss. I was actually considering removing that clause and now that I've had some one suggest it, it's coming out.

I really think it's worth pointing out specific flaws. Instead of simply saying, "It could cause a problem", give an example of a problem, and say why the Grand Jury system, or double jeopardy, or some other component of Due Process is actively harmful.

I don't know that trashing the grand jury system, or double jeopardy, or any of the rest of this is a good idea. Why not just say that the definition of due process is overly restrictive and extraneous, and favors one approach to law over others without an adequate demonstration that the other systems are inferior to the one implicitly preferred?

I like being able to use terms like “due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#International_Due_Process)” in resolutions (http://www.nationstates.net/pin=82006815/page=UN_proposal/start=23) without having to be too concerned that I'm imposing American-style law on the world. Can't the commonly accepted meaning of the term suffice?

I don't know that trashing the grand jury system, or double jeopardy, or any of the rest of this is a good idea. Why not just say that the definition of due process is overly restrictive and extraneous, and favors one approach to law over others without an adequate demonstration that the other systems are inferior to the one implicitly preferred?

The issue is that the original proposal is ambigous at best. I understand your shying away from western phrases, but the resolution just doesn't define what a Grand Jury is- in Allech-Atreus, our Grand Juries are technically a single person who is empowered to try, sentence, and execute- "Due Process" doesn't define what a Grand Jury is, that's the loophole.

I like being able to use terms like “due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#International_Due_Process)” in resolutions (http://www.nationstates.net/pin=82006815/page=UN_proposal/start=23) without having to be too concerned that I'm imposing American-style law on the world. Can't the commonly accepted meaning of the term suffice?

Well, unlike the term Grand Jury, the term due process is almost a universally accepted term. Even in Allech-Atreus we have concepts of due process, and understand what the words mean. Unfortunately, this is not RL, and therefore when using terms that are rooted specifically in RL applications, we have to define those terms.

There have been a few changes made to the original repeal. They have been edited into the first post.

First, there is a contradiction:

RECOGNIZING that there are many viable alternatives to the grand jury system;

NOT CONVINCED that this particular judicial system is inherently more fair, or more likely to produce correct verdicts, than other viable systems;
...
CONCERNED that the lack of definition for key terms, such as 'due process of law' and 'grand jury' leaves Due Process open to horrific abuse as nations can define those terms to mean what they wish;
You're essentially arguing "it's unfair that people are forced to use Grand Jury" and "it's unfair that people aren't forced to use Grand Jury". I think the former case is the stronger - picking at not defining every last word tends to come across as unnecessary. So I would remove the "concerned" line, or at least rephrase it, to make it clear that because of the widely varying judicial systems of member nations, such terms may not be commonly compatible anyway.

It's better to make the original resolution look like a straightjacket than a knitted sweater.

DISMAYED that the blanket ban of double jeopardy will result in many criminals walking free as new evidence, acquired after the initial trial, would be unusable to bring the perpetrator to justice;
I think this is good, but I'm not sure the initial phrasing is quite right. It might be better to be lose "the blanket ban on double jeopardy", and basically that say if SIGNIFICANT new evidence is acquired, no retrial would be possible. You could maybe through in a reference to paedophilia to sweeten the deal, but perhaps that'd be too much.

Thank you Gruenberg for your suggestions. I have edited the original draft.

No, I don't think the "concerned" clause is really fixed. You are still essentially arguing that the proposal on the one hand is too constricting and on the other hand not constricting enough. If you are going to argue national sovereignty, there is absolutely no point saying that sovereign rights are dangerous: it's self-defeating.

The CONCERNED clause has been removed. If there are no further suggestions, this will be resubmitted on Monday morning.

Thank you everyone for your suggestions.

Full support. We've never liked the idea of a mandatory Grand Jury.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Resubmitted.