NationStates Jolt Archive

Figured I'd get the thread started on this now.

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 after the initial trial, no retrial would be possible;

THEREFORE repeals UNR#27 "Due Process"

Figured I'd get the thread started on this now.

Kill that thing. The judicial processes of individual nations need to be left to individual nations.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Wholehearted support for the repeal. The idea of imposing a Grand Jury system on all member countries is absurd.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Wholehearted support for the repeal. The idea of imposing a Grand Jury system on all member countries is absurd.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

In an unusual turn of events, I'm in complete agreement with Ambassador Zyryanov.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

In an unusual turn of events, I'm in complete agreement with Ambassador Zyryanov.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

:eek:

I guess there's a first time for everything. :p

The original resolution:

Due Process
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The global market

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Votes For: 9027
Votes Against: 4677
Implemented: Wed Aug 13 2003For those of you not up to speed on U.S. constitutional law, you will note that the author was seemingly incapable of writing his own resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text). Or even copying it down properly. :rolleyes:

Not sure I agree with the last clause of the repeal, however; if Amendment V does not negate new trials (where new evidence has been acquired, or even "acquired acquired") in the United States, then I hardly think it would prevent new trials in NSUN nations. Every new trial is not necessarily "double jeopardy."

The Federal Republic supports this repeal.

The original resolution:

For those of you not up to speed on U.S. constitutional law, you will note that the author was seemingly incapable of writing his own resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text). Or even copying it down properly. :rolleyes:

Not sure I agree with the last clause of the repeal, however; if Amendment V does not negate new trials (where new evidence has been acquired, or even "acquired acquired") in the United States, then I hardly think it would prevent new trials in NSUN nations. Every new trial is not necessarily "double jeopardy."

OOC: Yeah, in the US, it is, if you're being tried for the same offense. That's why prosecutors have to be very careful about what they charge someone with. If they hit someone with, say, a first-degree-murder charge, and it goes to trial, they cannot then go, "Wait a minute. Let's try him again for that guy's death, but this time with a second-degree-murder charge. If that doesn't work, we can go to third degree, and then if that doesn't work, we can try manslaughter."

OOC: Then why are criminals often granted a new trial on the basis of new evidence not available at the first trial?

OOC: Then why are criminals often granted a new trial on the basis of new evidence not avilable at the first trial?

OOC: Because double jeopardy only works in one direction, against the state. The state has one shot at it. A defendant, even a convicted one, can keep at it. It's there to prevent the scenario I described earlier in this thread.

Then why are you disagreeing with me?

Then why are you disagreeing with me?

OOC: Sorry, misunderstood you. Not every new trial constitutes double jeopardy. You're absolutely right. It's that distinction between who initiates the new trial that I missed in your first post in this thread. The double jeopardy clause exists to protect people from being retried by the state, as is all well and good. Sorry about that.

OOC: Yeah, in the US, it is, if you're being tried for the same offense. That's why prosecutors have to be very careful about what they charge someone with. If they hit someone with, say, a first-degree-murder charge, and it goes to trial, they cannot then go, "Wait a minute. Let's try him again for that guy's death, but this time with a second-degree-murder charge. If that doesn't work, we can go to third degree, and then if that doesn't work, we can try manslaughter."

Actually IIRC, most US prosecutors shotgun the initial trial with all the lesser degrees on the first shot, so if the jury doesn't find grounds for first degree, they might find grounds on a lesser degree. I believe the reason for this is cost rather than double jeoprdy.

Ambassador Euphobes expresses his wholehearted support for the proposal and congratulates the author for a very good job.

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

Indeed, Love esterel support this repeal.

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

I just don't understand what mean this clause? Thanks if the author or anyone can explain it to me.

I believe the original resolution contained the words"No-one shall be twice be placed in liberty of life and limb", which means that no-one shall be tried twice for the same offense. I may be wrong on the wording, but the principal is correct. Liberty of life and limb refers to the seriousness of the sentence if a person is convicted: a prison sentence or perhaps even death.
Therefore, it says no-one must be tried twice for the same crime because it unfairly puts them at risk of serious punishment again after they were acquitted once. No provision is made for re-trials on new evidence: it means 1 trial is all the state may have, whether or not new evidence arises.
At least that's what I think it means.

That is the case in most Nations. An individual may not be tried for the same offense. So if Billy-Bob robs a liquor store, is arrested, and found Not Guilty or is Aquitted, but Evidence later (say an unknown witness) comes forth, they can not be arrested again and tried for that robbery.

However, if he were found Guilty, and Evidence comes up to show his innocence (say the same unknown witness), then a new trial can be called.

I also agree with the Ambassador from Arridia that imposing a Grand Jury for National Level cases to be absurd- and a violation of a Nation's right to adjudicate Trials by their own Legal Systems. I would willingly vote for a repeal.

Another resolution well worthy of repeal. Altanar supports the effort to repeal "Due Process", as we feel the existing resolution does not adequately take into account the fact that nations have diverse and unique judicial systems.

You're starting to sound dangerously like a sovereigntist, my Altanari friend.

Ellelt would like to express its strong support for this repeal. We feel that it is none of the UN's business meddling in our judicial systems. Quite simply the way we would wish to do things and the grand jury system are in compatible.

Further as how the grand jury system works it is simply that the prosecution holds all the cards in a grand jury. The grand jury is simply there to determine if there is enough evidence to go to a trial or not. Many times this grand jury is composed of persons selected randomly from the community and these persons either have limited or no legal experience what so ever. Such people are not qualified in the opinion of the Elleltian Legal Experts, which I have consulted prior to making our stance on this particular repeal, to make such determinations.

It is the belief of Ellelt and many other nations that the UN should concern itself with international issues. The Elleltian, and the other nation's, Judaical system is not an international issue except in cases of a criminal committing a crime and then fleeing to an other country to avoid prosecution by the country wherein the crime had been committed. In those cases, it is best for the two countries involved to open diplomatic dialog as we do not feel that extradition is a UN affair either.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The New Cultural Revolution is in full support of this repeal. I personally find the principle of double jeopardy unnecessary and dangerous and look forward to the liberation of Dashanzi's judicial system.

Benedictions,

I believe the original resolution contained the words"No-one shall be twice be placed in liberty of life and limb", which means that no-one shall be tried twice for the same offense. I may be wrong on the wording, but the principal is correct. Liberty of life and limb refers to the seriousness of the sentence if a person is convicted: a prison sentence or perhaps even death.
Therefore, it says no-one must be tried twice for the same crime because it unfairly puts them at risk of serious punishment again after they were acquitted once. No provision is made for re-trials on new evidence: it means 1 trial is all the state may have, whether or not new evidence arises.
At least that's what I think it means.

Ok, thanks, it seems to answer my question and be indeed an argument for the repeal

The Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei will support this repeal, and we thank the author for submitting it.

You're starting to sound dangerously like a sovereigntist, my Altanari friend.

Should I be insulted? ;)

All kidding aside, we tend to prefer a "hands-off" approach to things, except in cases where we really feel there's a need for an international response. I guess one could consider that sovereigntist. (Although, given our penchant for embracing social-justice proposals, you might have cause to rethink your statement somewhere down the line.)

I don't know if voting in favor of this resolution is sovereignist or not, but it is the right thing to do.

Ellelt considers itself to be International Confederationist in regard to the UN. There are just somethings that only the UN can do, and some things only nations can do, and somethings that are somewhere in the middle.

National judicial systems are things that only the nations can determine. What is good for Ellelt for example may not be good for an other nation. Thats true for the actual processes concerning trials as well as punishments of the convicted.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Ellelt considers itself to be International Confederationist in regard to the UN. There are just somethings that only the UN can do, and some things only nations can do, and somethings that are somewhere in the middle.

We agree with this philosophy, and while we do feel that there are some issues and concerns that require international action that overrides national sovereignty, we also feel that those issues aren't as common as some of our colleagues might think. We think the trigger to "override national sovereignty" should be exercised with a lot of restraint. Ultimately, it's all about balance.

Ceorana stands firmly in abstention to this repeal.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

While we generally support the ends of UNR #27, its text is too limiting; it makes assumptions about how a legal system ought to work that are not sufficiently universal for a body as diverse as this one.

Thus we support repeal, with the hope that someone, someday, will come up with a better way of guaranteeing fairness and adherence to the rule of law for all our citizens.

Thus we support repeal, with the hope that someone, someday, will come up with a better way of guaranteeing fairness and adherence to the rule of law for all our citizens.

We're quite happy that you support the repeal, but some one has already come up with a better way of guaranteeing fairness and adherence to the rule of law. Each individual nation can deal with it on their own.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

We're quite happy that you support the repeal, but some one has already come up with a better way of guaranteeing fairness and adherence to the rule of law. Each individual nation can deal with it on their own.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

The key word in CP's post being "guarantee", from the standpoint of the international community. A circumstance-friendly but firm-handed replacement should be worked towards if possible.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

The key word in CP's post being "guarantee", from the standpoint of the international community. A circumstance-friendly but firm-handed replacement should be worked towards if possible.

Art Webster
Ambassador to the United Nations

And if the representative from Ceorana would like to do that, they are more than welcome to. We will not be working on a replacement. We are of the opinion that this can be left up to individual nations.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

We are in support of this repeal, and we hope that further protections of national judiciaries are undertaken with a repeal of the horribly named "Common Sense Act II", which is considered by many Kriovallers to be an abomination worse than the resolution currently being repealed.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval

For those of you not up to speed on U.S. constitutional law, you will note that the author was seemingly incapable of writing his own resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text). Or even copying it down properly. :rolleyes: I believe it was modified deliberately. At least I think it was - I only saw the discussions in the archives somewhere.

Why would someone deliberately misspell words?

Why would someone deliberately misspell words?I said modified, not misspelt, but I need to track down the discussion to be certain.

As for misspelling...meh, whatever. You don't have a frying pan.

Anyway, this topic is not about the original proposal, it's about the repeal. I can't see anything that distinctly unsettles me about the repeal. The only thing is section V - which I can't see where anything is prohibited about retrials.

Abstained.

I'm sorry to report that the mighty, yet uncultured and tech-fearing, people of Hackonia have decided to vote against this proposal. Being high on the list of most apathetic citizens, we didn't really read the resolution, but we don't like the idea of getting rid of anything called "due process."

Honest apathy. How... refreshing...

Wholehearted support for the repeal. The idea of imposing a Grand Jury system on all member countries is absurd.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The Government of Kurtrier agrees fully; The Grand Jury concept is, as the Jury on-it-self, a child of the English law. A lot of democratic countries work with other systems.

Historically e.g. the professional judges at the Imperial Chamber Court ("Reichskammergericht" from 1495 till 1803/06) of the Holy Roman Empire did at least as much as the juries in other countries for the protection of civil rights.

Kurtrier sees also a better protection through a system of professionals, who are less easy to get manipulated by clever layers.

A jury-systems opens to much the way for the prejudices going into the legal systems.

The Government of Kurtrier will be happy to get the freedom to introduce a more professional system of justice.

The Government of Kurtrier agrees fully; The Grand Jury concept is, as the Jury on-it-self, a child of the English law. A lot of democratic countries work with other systems.

Historically e.g. the professional judges at the Imperial Chamber Court ("Reichskammergericht" from 1495 till 1803/06) of the Holy Roman Empire did at least as much as the juries in other countries for the protection of civil rights.

Kurtrier sees also a better protection through a system of professionals, who are less easy to get manipulated by clever layers.

A jury-systems opens to much the way for the prejudices going into the legal systems.

The Government of Kurtrier will also start a review of old cases, where new evidence has been raised to bring some to the most atrocious criminals had to been freed by a lack of evidences, or by manipulating the jury.

The Government of Kurtrier will be happy to get the freedom to introduce a more professional system of justice.

The Holy Empire of New Propagandia supports the repeal, we believe that our justice system can perform perfectly fine and does not need the United Nations stepping in on it. We believe a re-trial is necessary in the case of outstanding evidence being found after the initial trial.


Lionel Guildford
United Nations Representative
Holy Empire of New Propagandia

I will only present the facts which apply in every nation worldwide.
1.Different nations have different ethics.Therefore different crimes.

2.The local systems seem to work perfectly at their places while bring havoc at foreign nations.

3.History has shown that international organisations are easy to manipulate due to their economy based standards.(We give you do)

4.Crimes of war/crimes at war/crimes during war must not obey peace time laws due to the violent nature survival instinct brings to human beings.

5.Often political refugees manage to overthrow goverments even if their views and beliefs are destructive and monstrous.They easily found an incomplete law to take advantage of and one or two psychotic nations to back them up.

Having said that,
I,Tatabatutu,High Shaman of The Umbar Tutan Kingdom,
vote FOR the repeal.

We are in support of this repeal, and we hope that further protections of national judiciaries are undertaken with a repeal of the horribly named "Common Sense Act II", which is considered by many Kriovallers to be an abomination worse than the resolution currently being repealed.

(Lord) Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Krioval
*cough* (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=common)

which I can't see where anything is prohibited about retrials.
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo"

*cough* (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=common)
I know a good witchdoctor...they'd fix you right up. Oh, and a repeal that uses chutzpah as an argument deserves approval.

As for the repeal at vote, the loss of guaranteed rights for the accused is problematic, but can be resolved in the future. The imposition of a one-size-fits-all judicial administration on members of this body deserves repeal. Unless there is strong opposition from region-mates, I will be voting "for."

Leetha Talone
Acting Ambassador
Rubina

I don't mind a few repeals but I don't think that just repealing everything is smart. Why not make more proposals thsi is just getting old.

I don't mind a few repeals but I don't think that just repealing everything is smart. Why not make more proposals thsi is just getting old.
Why don't you?

In fact, if everyone who whined about endless repeals submitted proposals of their own, there'd be no problem. But that'd be too much like not being a useless hypocrite, right?

Hmm... according to this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572), there's been 189 Resolutions and only 32 have been Repeals. That's only 17%, you know. Hardly Repealing "everything".

I see. Then maybe my conclusion was of low research. It was just what I have seen since I started, but ok guess that nullyfies what I said.

Hmm... according to this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572), there's been 189 Resolutions and only 32 have been Repeals. That's only 17%, you know. Hardly Repealing "everything".I'm curious (but lazy), what's the percentage of repeals to new proposals since repeals were introduced? That would be a more relevant number.

43 repeals have gone to vote (including this one); since the first repeal, 94 (about...I just skimmed through) proposals have gone to vote. So still more than 2:1.

Ausserland has voted FOR the repeal.

The grand jury system is, as the repeal states, only one of a number of quite acceptable methods of bringing suspected criminals to trial. There is no justification for the NSUN to force its use on all member nations. We believe that other methods may be less subject to error and abuse, and more fair to defendants.

We also object to the original resolution's prohibition of retrial of persons when substantial new evidence of guilt is developed. This simply flies in the face of true justice. The same purpose can be properly served if effective safeguards against malicious prosecution are employed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Islenska is in full support of the repeal. I thank the Karmicarian Ambassador for getting this peice of legislation out so we can finally be rid of it.

43 repeals have gone to vote (including this one); since the first repeal, 94 (about...I just skimmed through) proposals have gone to vote. So still more than 2:1.I get 44 (but that's not enough to change the percentages).

Of proposals going to vote: 28% have been repeals.
Of proposals passed (since repeals have been allowed): 40% have been repeals.

Makes for some interesting numbers.

I'm lazy, but obsessive. :)

The following is a statement from Flash Blonde. Flash cannot be in this debate because he has important duties within the Antarctic Oasis (such as being hit in the face with a pie) and will be otherwise occupied for most of the debate.

"The Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepeguins will vote for this repeal. While we agree with the resolution that no one should be forced to dance the limbo becuase of his offenses (oh wait I don't think that's right) ... as an agnostic nation we strongly resent religious nonsense in a proper UN resolution (and I'm sure that's not right either) ... well we just think this is a local matter."

"As for a replacement, we will not tollerate a waltz. Nor will we suffer purgatory. Let limbo die and be struck out from the record. As it is written, so let it be done."

Hey I'm new at this dictation thing, was I supposed to write everything he said? - Red Hot Blonde, junior secretary to Flash Blonde. (No relation, by the way, except for a common first generation ancestor.)

I support the repeal, but only because of the specific restrictions in within UNR #27. Although I do agree nations should have the right to carry their judicial functions as they see fit, I also believe cases may arise where UN involvement will be neccesary. Some nations walk on a line dividing justice and murder. And though they are free to exercise the power over their nation there must be some boundaries. Total freedom does not exist because it allows one to impede the freedom of others.

-Chancellor Anguimalla
Nex Messor

You mean we will not be able to make people dance under a bar while singing Hey oh! Hey ee oh?

I was thinking to myself, don't we all agree that the judicial systems of a nation ought to be fair? I then remembered that this is the point - it is up to individual nations to decide policy for themselves. But then I thought, again, as members (admittedly I'm a new member) of the UN, aren't we allowed to tell countries how we think they should work? Isn't that what the UN does? It's all very confusing, really (:confused: :headbang: ), and I'm holding my vote until I can think it through. Any help would be appreciated.

There's no reason to assume that if the system isn't specifically grand jury based, it isn't fair.

Perhaps a tangential "replacement" could be a UN body that monitors the fairness of UN member judiciaries to ensure...well...what, really? Is there a call for a resolution that defines "fairness" in UN state court/judicial systems? If so, I sure as hell don't have the necessary tightrope-walking skills to draft it, and best of luck to the poor bast-...I mean, person who tries.

I was thinking to myself, don't we all agree that the judicial systems of a nation ought to be fair? I then remembered that this is the point - it is up to individual nations to decide policy for themselves. But then I thought, again, as members (admittedly I'm a new member) of the UN, aren't we allowed to tell countries how we think they should work? Isn't that what the UN does? It's all very confusing, really (:confused: :headbang: ), and I'm holding my vote until I can think it through. Any help would be appreciated.
With power comes responsibility. Yes, the UN has the ability to tell its member states what to do; at the same time, I think we would all agree to some extent that it should exercise restraint.

Thank you, Acting Ambassador Talone, for your kind words.

Benedictions,

The original resolution:

For those of you not up to speed on U.S. constitutional law, you will note that the author was seemingly incapable of writing his own resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text). Or even copying it down properly. :rolleyes:

Not sure I agree with the last clause of the repeal, however; if Amendment V does not negate new trials (where new evidence has been acquired, or even "acquired acquired") in the United States, then I hardly think it would prevent new trials in NSUN nations. Every new trial is not necessarily "double jeopardy."

The Federal Republic supports this repeal.

Does anyone know if a better Due Process resolution is being proposed?
I'm in favor of Due Process; I'm just not in favor of defining Due Process as "the jury system".
(I have voted "for" this repeal.)

*cough* (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=common)

While I'll admit that I did place that proposal in the Silly Proposals thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12039020&postcount=3910), I'd like to state that I did so because I found the wording to be hilarious. So it's being there is actually a complement.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I was thinking to myself, don't we all agree that the judicial systems of a nation ought to be fair? I then remembered that this is the point - it is up to individual nations to decide policy for themselves. But then I thought, again, as members (admittedly I'm a new member) of the UN, aren't we allowed to tell countries how we think they should work? Isn't that what the UN does? It's all very confusing, really (:confused: :headbang: ), and I'm holding my vote until I can think it through. Any help would be appreciated.

First, we'd like to welcome the representative of Rilascio to the NSUN.

We're going to avoid the general question of what the NSUN should be doing. There are several schools of thought on that, and it tends to wrench threads far off-topic. We'll just confine our comments to the specific issue at hand....

The resolution requires all NSUN member nations to use the grand jury system in criminal prosecutions. But the grand jury system is only one way of bringing suspected criminals to trial. There are other systems that work very well in many countries. Why should the NSUN force every country to use the same system? Maybe one of the others would work better for specific nations. In fact, the grand jury system is considered by many to be more open to abuse than others and unfairly prejudiced in favor of the prosecution.

So it comes down to this.... Is there a valid reason for the NSUN to be force-fitting a one-size-fits-all system on thousands of nations, whether it's the best one for them or not? We say there isn't, and we've voted for the repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

"Very well explained."

Grand Utoy Stewey nods politely to Ambassador Ahlmann.

There's no reason to assume that if the system isn't specifically grand jury based, it isn't fair.

Perhaps a tangential "replacement" could be a UN body that monitors the fairness of UN member judiciaries to ensure...well...what, really? Is there a call for a resolution that defines "fairness" in UN state court/judicial systems? If so, I sure as hell don't have the necessary tightrope-walking skills to draft it, and best of luck to the poor bast-...I mean, person who tries.

There is one. It's called the Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181).

There is one. It's called the Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181).Most judicial systems are comprised of other stages besides sentencing; perhaps those in Kivisto are the exception. The "Fair Sentencing Act," which is amazingly accurately named, only tangentially addresses the many stages that an accused's rights are at risk.

--L.T.

It is true that FSA does not cover all aspects of the trial, but it does cover one of the largest parts. I shouldn't have brought it up, at any rate. It isn't on topic with this repeal.

FOR the repeal, by the way.

There is one. It's called the Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181).

Thank you for the edification.

While FSA may not deal specifically with the whole of due process (as it is known in places like the "USA"), isn't it enough? Do we need a "Miranda" law and a "Fourth" or "Fifth Amendment"?

Perhaps all we really need is a sticky.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do or write can be used against you and can be just cause for your being violently thrown out of the general assembly and on to the ground from the first floor window."

We also object to the original resolution's prohibition of retrial of persons when substantial new evidence of guilt is developed. This simply flies in the face of true justice. The same purpose can be properly served if effective safeguards against malicious prosecution are employed.We see a problem with this, one that perhaps the Ambassador would like to address. While unlikely, it is possible that the authorities could withhold evidence in order to leave open the option of retrial - a form of “jury shopping”. If retrial is to be allowed, shouldn't it come with discovery provisions or evidentiary procedures that require prosecutors to come forth with everything or abandon what they don't bring to trial - a kind of “use it or lose it” rule?

We see a problem with this, one that perhaps the Ambassador would like to address. While unlikely, it is possible that the authorities could withhold evidence in order to leave open the option of retrial - a form of “jury shopping”. If retrial is to be allowed, shouldn't it come with discovery provisions or evidentiary procedures that require prosecutors to come forth with everything or abandon what they don't bring to trial - a kind of “use it or lose it” rule?

To us, that would be a form of malicious prosecution -- or, at the very least, malfeasance on the part of the prosecutor. There are several ways this could be prevented. The most obvious is a requirement for a showing by the prosecutor that the evidence was actually obtained post-trial before the retrial would be granted.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

On Behalf of the Empire,
It seems to my superiors, after looking over the rules and regulations of the NSUN, that the key difference between it and the RWUN (Real World) is that compliance to rules in the NSUN is maditory. This effectively makes all participants in the NSUN only semi-sovergn nations. I therefor think that if we are to truly have an organization of United Nations that will hold all of its members accountible for following it's rules, then it would not be a horrible idea for all individuals that violate certain basic human principles to be tried in a matter that is, if not completely the same (note: there are slight differences in the orginization of the courts, even from state to state in the US) then similar enough that a citizen in a NSUN nation will be able to receive treatment in equal fairness that would be received by any other NSUN civilian.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

On Behalf of the Empire,
It seems to my superiors, after looking over the rules and regulations of the NSUN, that the key difference between it and the RWUN (Real World) is that compliance to rules in the NSUN is maditory. This effectively makes all participants in the NSUN only semi-sovergn nations. I therefor think that if we are to truly have an organization of United Nations that will hold all of its members accountible for following it's rules, then it would not be a horrible idea for all individuals that violate certain basic human principles to be tried in a matter that is, if not completely the same (note: there are slight differences in the orginization of the courts, even from state to state in the US) then similar enough that a citizen in a NSUN nation will be able to receive treatment in equal fairness that would be received by any other NSUN civilian.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

Wow! A whole lot said without actually saying anything. What is your position on the repeal? Please do tell us.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

Apologies for any vagueness that existed in our previous comment. It is our belief, as stated before, that there should be a similarity and uniformity - at least to some extend - in the judicial systems of NSUN. We vote against the repeal, though we do see where those in favor are coming from. However, we do feel that a uniformity throughout the judicial systems is more important than the sovereign rights of the nations within the NSUN. We feel that the due process is the best available solution to this problem though we would appreciate to hear the opinions of other NSUN reps.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

We would like to thank the representative from The Jotzerland Empire for clarifying their position.

It is unfortunate that you are against the repeal, but you have stated your case well and we to can understand where you are coming from.

Again, we thank you.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

Due process is great, I think. The only thing is.. double jeopardy should be allowed if significant evidence is discovered later.. otherwise you have murderers walking out of the courtroom going 'ha, awesome, I got away with it!" and there's nothing anyone can do...

Ellelt has Voted In Favor of the repeal.

And we would not oppose UN regulation concerning war crimes trials or even a proposal defining judicial corruption or malfeasance. That is; however, not the point of this thread although it brings up some interesting points.

Ellelt opposes the grand jury system as it is actually used, which is an outgrowth of English Law, In that the prosecutor gives the grand jury his evidence and they determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial.

As stated in my previous post, many times the persons who compose the grand jury do not have adequate legal training to accurately determine this as based upon the written laws of the nation wherein the grand jury is composed.

Further, and this pertains not only to grand juries but general juries, it is not unheard of for persons comprising those juries to make decisions on the basis of racial, religious, ethnic, sex-gender-sexual orientation, prejudices.

The resolution that this repeal aims at forces all UN nations to use a jury system and the jury system may or may not be the best system of justice for that nation to use.

There are many RL examples of different systems of justice working well and working not so well. But ultimately it is the individual nations and their peoples who determine what fair is according to their morality(ies), religion(s) [if any], ideology(ies).

In short...As pertains to justice on an international level the UN should limit itself to war crimes/trials, extradition, and definitions of judicial malfeasance.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

With all due respect, we feel that the representative from The Jotzerland Empire, is basing his/her concerns based on RL comparisons with the RL UN. We would urge our fellow delegate to disregard the RW UN, in considering this repeal, and look at what NS UN has placed in this proposal, the one up for repeal. Please review sir, and keep your frame of reference here, then reevaluate your position. We understand that you may still choose to vote against, but we feel you will be making a more informed decision, if you exclude RW concerns.

With all due respect, we feel that the representative from The Jotzerland Empire, is basing his/her concerns based on RL comparisons with the RL UN. We would urge our fellow delegate to disregard the RW UN, in considering this repeal, and look at what NS UN has placed in this proposal, the one up for repeal. Please review sir, and keep your frame of reference here, then reevaluate your position. We understand that you may still choose to vote against, but we feel you will be making a more informed decision, if you exclude RW concerns.

A logical concern, so allow me to elaborate on where the decision makers in my nation are coming from when they make their decision. What we have in the NSUN is an incredible opportunity of sovereign states joining together to form a world organization. We understand the importantance that states place on their ability to claim that they are sovereign, however, when they decided to join the NSUN they did so knowing of the stipulation that, as members, they would have to abide by all rules of the NSUN. In understanding this condition and still signing up they made a conscience decision to give up a small portion of their sovereignty. As nations we all face the same consequences if our nation violates an international law, we feel, that in this same vein, it is important if our citizens go through the same judicial process as any other citizen throughout the NSUN. We, as a nation, feel that This is not to say the due process is the end all be all when it comes to the judicial service, but it is to say that we feel there should be a universal judicial system throughout the NSUN. At this time, we feel that Due Process is the best available.
Hail Jotz

You do understand, sir, that while a draft of a new Due Process proposal could be discussed, one cannot be brought to vote unless the current resolution is repealed?

You do understand, sir, that while a draft of a new Due Process proposal could be discussed, one cannot be brought to vote unless the current resolution is repealed?

Quite right, sir. We do however feel it to be true on both accounts that:
A) Due Process is the most logical judicial process
B) It is extremely important for to the Empire that their be a
universal judicial system throughout the NSUN and that it
seems that due process, as described in the original
amendment would be the wisest choice for this system.

Hail Jotz,

In all fairness I don't see how the "Grand Jury" system is the most logical. There are a number of systems that are very logical and the grand jury system is only one of a number of logical systems, all more or less equally logical. Moreover, logic would demand that the guilty be found guilty and the innocent found innocent. Preventing double jepordy actually allows many a guilty person to go free in order to prevent harrasment of the innocent. This is practical not logical. The need to make this universal is not obvious to a casual observer.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-211087492.jpg Red Hot Blonde - speaking for representative Flash Blonde who is currently away on business in the Antarctic Oasis.

with this proposed repeal. Whilst we happily recognise the right of nations to determine their judicial processes, the repeal of this legislation makes it possible for member nations to implement any number of totalitarian, racist, sexist or otherwise deeply unpleasant systems as their judicial processes. National sovereignty has limits for members of the United Nations. Some matters, such as those regarding fundamental rights, or the process of justice, may be held to be universal by member nations and legislated upon.

What are these purported (hypothetical?) alternatives to the Grand Jury system? How do they guarantee the citizens of every UN nation equal access to their right to a fair trial? Are we not, in fact, being asked to remove legislation in order to allow some less scrupulous states the freedom to implement draconian measures that would appal most member states?

This assembly is repealing itself out of existence. Some matters are right for supra-national bodies to legislate upon and the right of access to due process is amongst them. National sovereignty has no place in this argument. Please can somebody present their argument that the legislation is flawed - something that we do not currently believe it is - without resorting to flawed NatSov arguments.

Respect due to the Jotzerland Empire for their thoughtful and apt contributions.

Regards

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

In all fairness I don't see how the "Grand Jury" system is the most logical. There are a number of systems that are very logical and the grand jury system is only one of a number of logical systems, all more or less equally logical. Moreover, logic would demand that the guilty be found guilty and the innocent found innocent. Preventing double jepordy actually allows many a guilty person to go free in order to prevent harrasment of the innocent. This is practical not logical. The need to make this universal is not obvious to a casual observer.

On Behalf of the Empire:

It is true that logic is a vague term but we feel that these general guidelines are a good idea for what we in The Jotzerland Empire are looking for in a Judicial Process. We feel that it would be better for 10 guilty parties to go free than for 1 innocent party to be found guilty. We also support this because it provides several rights to the defendent, such as not being forced to be a witness against themself. This is why we believe in a method that gives numerous advantages to the defendent.
Hail Jotz,

We understand the importantance that states place on their ability to claim that they are sovereign, however, when they decided to join the NSUN they did so knowing of the stipulation that, as members, they would have to abide by all rules of the NSUN. In understanding this condition and still signing up they made a conscience decision to give up a small portion of their sovereignty.While that is true, it doesn't mean that we can't take steps to mitigate the amount of sovereignty we have to give up.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
NSO Mafia Don

However, if the argument against Due Process is that it limits sovereign rights then every amendment passed by this union will be repealed because they all in someway or another impose restrictions upon the governments of the states within the NSUN.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

However, if the argument against Due Process is that it limits sovereign rights then every amendment passed by this union will be repealed because they all in someway or another impose restrictions upon the governments of the states within the NSUN.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

Quite. And, given the current run of repeals that is running through this assembly, I repeat - the UN is busy legislating itself out of existence. Some matters, such as the juducial system, are within the remit of the UN to legislate upon.

Sincerely

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

Quite. And, given the current run of repeals that is running through this assembly, I repeat - the UN is busy legislating itself out of existence. Some matters, such as the juducial system, are within the remit of the UN to legislate upon.

Sincerely

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

Uh...no, not really.

Hmm... according to this thread, there's been 189 Resolutions and only 32 have been Repeals. That's only 17%, you know. Hardly Repealing "everything".

As was said, that's hardly everything.

I repeat - the UN is busy legislating itself out of existence.
You do realize that there are entire regions, both large and small, devoted to that very goal, yes?

However, if the argument against Due Process is that it limits sovereign rights then every amendment passed by this union will be repealed because they all in someway or another impose restrictions upon the governmentNational Systems of Taxs of the states within the NSUN.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

Wrong! The UN has passed several sovereignty friendly resolutions. Here's a list.
UN taxation ban (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029575&postcount=5)
National Systems of Tax (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9052912&postcount=106)(Repealed so the author could submit a replacement)
Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)
United Nations Security Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)
Representation in Taxation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129)
Abortion Legality Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148)
International Emergency Number (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421344&postcount=168)
Marriage Protection Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973206&postcount=183)

Bear in mind that this is not an exhaustive list, but it still proves that the UN can pass resolutions that respect a nation's sovereignty.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
NSO Mafia Don

While we appreciate the concerns of the representative of Tharkent, we believe they are grounded in a failure to properly consider readily available information on the issue.

Whilst we happily recognise the right of nations to determine their judicial processes, the repeal of this legislation makes it possible for member nations to implement any number of totalitarian, racist, sexist or otherwise deeply unpleasant systems as their judicial processes.

This is simply untrue. We commend the attention of the representative to NSUNR #21, "Fair Trial", NSUNR #26, The Universal Bill of Rights", NSUNR #47, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'", and NSUNR#73, "Habeas Corpus", among others.

What are these purported (hypothetical?) alternatives to the Grand Jury system? How do they guarantee the citizens of every UN nation equal access to their right to a fair trial? Are we not, in fact, being asked to remove legislation in order to allow some less scrupulous states the freedom to implement draconian measures that would appal most member states?

The alternatives are by no means "purported" or "hypothetical". They are well-established and widely used in the mythical world of RL. They include committal procedures and preliminary hearings.

This assembly is repealing itself out of existence. Some matters are right for supra-national bodies to legislate upon and the right of access to due process is amongst them. National sovereignty has no place in this argument. Please can somebody present their argument that the legislation is flawed - something that we do not currently believe it is - without resorting to flawed NatSov arguments.

The representative apparently has chosen to ignore our earlier statement on this issue. We contend that the grand jury system is not the only viable system for bringing criminals to trial and is perhaps less effective and resistant to abuse than others. (OOC: Which is why it's been abandoned by most nations that once used it and many states of the US.) We further contend that the prohibition against retrial of suspects when new evidence of guilt has been discovered promotes miscarriage of justice. There's nothing "national sovereignty" about these arguments, even if the representative attempts to dismiss them as such.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Uh...no, not really.The UN's remit is whatever the UN membership chooses to put within it's remit. Everything beyond that is subjective. Therefore, at present a nations judicial system is within the UN's remit since the UN has legislated upon it.

As for if the UN should include this in it's remit....well, obviously the membership thought it should be included at some point in the past.

Tharkent, are you saying then that your nation can not create its own system within the bounds of the previously mentioned resolutions (Thanks Ausserland...I was researching them but you already laid them out :D )?

Ellelt feels that it can, Ellelt also feels that other nations can as well and would like to point out the problems associated with the grand jury and jury system.

1. Grand juries as they are used are composed of members of the community who may or may not have any legal training or knowledge, but yet are thought competent to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a person to trial. That is quite simply not true if a nation has complex laws concerning evidence such as Ellelt does.

2. Juries, both grand and general, are composed of persons of the community and as such also may hold prejudices of that community. Recently there was a Mistrial incident in Ellelt because the jury found a man guilty based upon his political party affiliation prior to the Elleltian Socialist Revolution. He was deemed innocent after repeal, and the appeals court heard the same testimony and saw the same evidence that the jury did---so obviously in that case there was a problem that could have been avoided by a totally professional Judaical system.

3. Jury systems are corruptible and influenced by slick talking lawyers and such and are prone to abuses by the more wealthy of society in some countries (although not Ellelt as we have banned private lawyering practices--lawyering like everything else is ran by the state...Thank Lenin!). And we fail to see the "inherent fairness" of the rich being able to get away with murder or any other crime because they could afford to pay a slick lawyer and a poor person can't. If anything, to our mind, this is the epitome of unfairness.

4. Upon reviewing the various resolutions that would not be repealed by this repeal...there is adequate attention already paid by the UN to ensure that Human Rights of the accused are taken into consideration by member nations of the UN.

5. There are various viable alternatives and one that has been considered by the Politburo of the Elleltian Communist Party, should UNR 14 be repealed is to substitute our grand juries with a panel of professional judges (who would know our laws concerning evidence as a matter of course) to determine if there is or is not enough evidence to bring an accused person to trial. Further guilty or not-guilty verdicts would instead of being deliberated by juries would be handled by a panel of 3 judges, who would hear the evidence and then determine guilt based upon that evidence, and who would also due to their legal training block the suppression of vital evidence. Suppression of evidence is a common practice in those mythical RW nations that practice the grand jury/general jury system of justice (specifically the mythical land of the USA), and it the motions to suppress evidence that is currently heard by judges in those countries.

I think that this should soundly defeat any of the arguments for the jury system that persons may have. However, as has been said in previous posts, Ellelt does not feel it is the business of the UN to be involved in the peacetime civilian Judaical systems of the various member nations except in controlling malfeasance. That my Fellow Ambassadors and Delegates should be obvious.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

*Ahem*

Sir Bolt clears his throat and quietly straightens the small stack of papers infront of him before leaning into the small mic to make sure everyone heard him.

"For"

Barren tosses the papers over his shoulder sending the unstapled pages everywhere before leaving the room.

Quite. And, given the current run of repeals that is running through this assembly, I repeat - the UN is busy legislating itself out of existence. Some matters, such as the juducial system, are within the remit of the UN to legislate upon.

Sincerely

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

They are now, because existing resolutions allow them to be. Judicial systems within individual nations should not be within the UN's remit. Thus, this repeal.

As for if the UN should include this in it's remit....well, obviously the membership thought it should be included at some point in the past.

Yeah, and in the past, we got little slices of genius like Required Basic Healthcare (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Required_Basic_Healthcare), Legalize Prostitution (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Legalize_Prostitution) and Replanting Trees (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Replanting_Trees). Here's a hint: all three of those were repealed. We're simply now going about fixing the past mistakes this body has made. And it's quite the chore, too, considering how many mistakes were made.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

On Behalf of the Empire:

The Jotzerland Empire, before counter pointing the well-stated arguments made by the Elletian Ambassador (for I am still gathering information from my superiors), would like to try and put one point of this argument hopefully to rest. That is the national sovereignty argument, for in the guidelines for repeals it is stated that:

"Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" is not sufficient grounds for a Repeal."

This is not to provide any information backing due process, as you can see my current allocution does little to explain why we favor due process as we shall further discuss that in a later address, however, our point our current proclaimation is that nations should not base their decision to repeal due process on National Sovereignty. Thank you for your time.
Hail Jotz,

Impossible. Not only is it impractical, it's giving the UN the power to control our criminals. Who are they to truly decide what sort of example our countries make of them; we all have different outlooks.

I, for one, see to deterring crime by a public scene of violence, instilling the fear of that shame and misery happening to my people should the commit crime and be caught. There are others, I'm postitive, who wish to make a very small scene, to make crime appear invisible to the people.

To have a Grand Jury dictate what the sentences for crime is ludicrous, and I strongly feel that this repeal is a Godsend, yet that it shouldn't have been needed, for a Grand Jury should never have been brought to power in the first place.

1. Grand juries as they are used are composed of members of the community who may or may not have any legal training or knowledge, but yet are thought competent to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a person to trial. That is quite simply not true if a nation has complex laws concerning evidence such as Ellelt does.

Any process, judicial or not, will not be able to function properly if its participants cannot adequately preform their task. It is the responsibility of lawyers to be able to clearly explain to the members of juries both laws affecting the case and how those laws were or were not violated.

2. Juries, both grand and general, are composed of persons of the community and as such also may hold prejudices of that community. Recently there was a Mistrial incident in Ellelt because the jury found a man guilty based upon his political party affiliation prior to the Elleltian Socialist Revolution. He was deemed innocent after repeal, and the appeals court heard the same testimony and saw the same evidence that the jury did---so obviously in that case there was a problem that could have been avoided by a totally professional Judaical system.

The Jotzerland government wonders where it is that you keep the judges for your appeals court so they would be seperate from the community and unable to form their own bias opinions, furthermore The Jotzerland Government suggests that you remind your legal specialists (judges, lawyers) of the Voir dire process for selecting a jury of peers. In addition to this, The Jotzerland Empire is curious as to how your appellate courts are run, in The Jotzerland Empire our appellate courts are simply hearings on certain legality issues brought up during the original process, not an entire retrial of the case. We are very interested in new thoughts, though, and would appreciate discussing this at a later date.

3. Jury systems are corruptible and influenced by slick talking lawyers and such and are prone to abuses by the more wealthy of society in some countries (although not Ellelt as we have banned private lawyering practices--lawyering like everything else is ran by the state...Thank Lenin!). And we fail to see the "inherent fairness" of the rich being able to get away with murder or any other crime because they could afford to pay a slick lawyer and a poor person can't. If anything, to our mind, this is the epitome of unfairness.

We are not sure we see where this argument is coming from. The best we can tell is that it is an argument against professionals being well trained and successful at their job. Perhaps the better question is why all lawyers can't be so well versed in successful argument and legal strategy.

4. Upon reviewing the various resolutions that would not be repealed by this repeal...there is adequate attention already paid by the UN to ensure that Human Rights of the accused are taken into consideration by member nations of the UN.

Perhaps you feel that this is the case, but it is the belief of the people of whom I represent that adequate is not what we want Human Rights to be. We feel that civilians deserve something more than barely sufficient.

5. There are various viable alternatives and one that has been considered by the Politburo of the Elleltian Communist Party, should UNR 14 be repealed is to substitute our grand juries with a panel of professional judges (who would know our laws concerning evidence as a matter of course) to determine if there is or is not enough evidence to bring an accused person to trial. Further guilty or not-guilty verdicts would instead of being deliberated by juries would be handled by a panel of 3 judges, who would hear the evidence and then determine guilt based upon that evidence, and who would also due to their legal training block the suppression of vital evidence. Suppression of evidence is a common practice in those mythical RW nations that practice the grand jury/general jury system of justice (specifically the mythical land of the USA), and it the motions to suppress evidence that is currently heard by judges in those countries.

I am confused as to why a panel of judges, who could possibly benefit politically from outcomes of cases, would be less susceptible towards bias or self interest than a jury of peers whom are not connected to the case. In addition to this fact, I am curious as to why the judges over seeing a case before a jury would be unable to maintain the legality of the hearings in their own court (such as any illegal suppression of evidence or if there is enough evidence for the trial to legally take place).

Thank you for your time.

Hail Jotz,

The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

Although, as I have mentioned before, I am FOR the repeal, it seems most agree there must be some kind of change and all I have seen in this forum, with all do respect, is complaints. As concerned UN members should we not instead be posting resolutions and means to correct this problem? Ideas for what UNR #27 should be replaced with? (If you feel it should be replaced at all)
I believe we need to answer two questions to begin our strides towards an answer. First, is there ANY CIRCUMSTANCE in which the UN has right to determine any kind of judicial process from a member nation. And second, if so, what constitutes this action and what are the limits of this action.
Finally, just some food for thought, for those of you strongly against any kind of UN control over judicial systems in member nations. Any control UN has is SOLELY over MEMBER nations. Each nation joined of free will knowing this.

Chancellor Anguimalla
Nex Messor

Although, as I have mentioned before, I am FOR the repeal, it seems most agree there must be some kind of change and all I have seen in this forum, with all do respect, is complaints. As concerned UN members should we not instead be posting resolutions and means to correct this problem? Ideas for what UNR #27 should be replaced with? (If you feel it should be replaced at all)
I believe we need to answer two questions to begin our strides towards an answer. First, is there ANY CIRCUMSTANCE in which the UN has right to determine any kind of judicial process from a member nation. And second, if so, what constitutes this action and what are the limits of this action.
Finally, just some food for thought, for those of you strongly against any kind of UN control over judicial systems in member nations. Any control UN has is SOLELY over MEMBER nations. Each nation joined of free will knowing this.

Chancellor Anguimalla
Nex Messor

Those are insightful points, Chancellor. Welcome to the halls of the United Nations.

Since I have already determined that it is neither practical nor desirable for the UN to interfere in national judicial systems, and my nation has removed itself from the UN because of similarly ineffective and harmful interference in other areas, I can hardly deem your comments as particularly applicable to the Federation, but others might do well to take heed of them.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Any process, judicial or not, will not be able to function properly if its participants cannot adequately preform their task. It is the responsibility of lawyers to be able to clearly explain to the members of juries both laws affecting the case and how those laws were or were not violated.

Under the system that we would use, for our nation that would not be necessary. The judges would already know and understand the laws concerning evidence required to bring a citizen to trial. Your argument is moot and silly.



The Jotzerland government wonders where it is that you keep the judges for your appeals court so they would be seperate from the community and unable to form their own bias opinions, furthermore The Jotzerland Government suggests that you remind your legal specialists (judges, lawyers) of the Voir dire process for selecting a jury of peers. In addition to this, The Jotzerland Empire is curious as to how your appellate courts are run, in The Jotzerland Empire our appellate courts are simply hearings on certain legality issues brought up during the original process, not an entire retrial of the case. We are very interested in new thoughts, though, and would appreciate discussing this at a later date.

The Elleltian appeals system is a hearing format where all papers, notes, and other evidence from the previous trial is reviewed by the appellate justices. In the case that I mentioned the minutes from jury deliberation were found to have been influenced by a single member of that jury poisoning the fair judgment of that jury by bringing up irrelevant political matters. The physical evidence of the trial lead to the opinion of the appellate justices that the accused (and previously convicted) was in fact not guilty and that the jury had perpetrated a miscarriage of justice. Ellelt strives to arrive at justice by the examination of evidence and testimony, not by seeking punishments for persons who may or may not have certain political or religious beliefs. We would hope that your nation would operate on the same principles.



We are not sure we see where this argument is coming from. The best we can tell is that it is an argument against professionals being well trained and successful at their job. Perhaps the better question is why all lawyers can't be so well versed in successful argument and legal strategy.

If you do not understand that argument then it is apparent that you do not understand economics. Using a private enterprise system (capitalism) lawyers of great skill would be able to charge large amounts of money per day or hour (however they charge in a given country) for their services. This would simply mean that a poor defendant with little or no money could not purchase their services. Thus, this would mean the de facto preference in the jury system toward more wealthy defendants, as they would be able to hire either the best, or the most cunning (usually the latter) of lawyers who could twist legal interpretation of the laws of a nation/locality.



Perhaps you feel that this is the case, but it is the belief of the people of whom I represent that adequate is not what we want Human Rights to be. We feel that civilians deserve something more than barely sufficient.

We concur that adequate is not exactly what we want in regard to Human Rights. However, one must take into account in the UN that we have a membership of over 30,000 nations. These nations range in economic power from imploded to powerhouse or greater, in the running of their government from anarchy to dictatorship, and in technology from primitive nomads to intergalactic empires. They are ran by humans, robots, commuters, and I know of at least one nation that is controlled by sentient dolphins. A one-size-fits-all approach to judicial fairness in inadequate for the needs of these nations--indeed that it is the right of the member nations to determine for themselves and their people what fair and adequate to them means. Indeed also it is our opinion that these nations in the UN are mature enough to determine what is and is not an abuse of the aforementioned resolution in regard to criminal rights, and if they don't the gnomes most certainly do.


I am confused as to why a panel of judges, who could possibly benefit politically from outcomes of cases, would be less susceptible to wards bias or self interest than a jury of peers whom are not connected to the case. In addition to this fact, I am curious as to why the judges over seeing a case before a jury would be unable to maintain the legality of the hearings in their own court (such as any illegal suppression of evidence or if there is enough evidence for the trial to legally take place).

Thank you for your time.

Hail Jotz,

The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

Then that would be because you have not read the Elleltian Constitution which we are currently translating into English, the language commonly used for debate on the UN Floor.

Judges are appointed, not elected. We do not believe that the election of judges would further justice, rather just the opposite. For that reason the Minister of Justice nominates and the President of the Council of Ministers appoints Justices for Ellelt's national benches, and a similar process is used for the Soviet Socialist States that make up the USSE.

Further, I believe that reviewing the actual processes used by the nations that have been forced to use the grand jury/general jury you would find that it is the judges who in concert with the defense or prosecution suppress the evidence themselves so that the jury never hears or sees that evidence. Which according to that system is not illegal but rather perfectly legal. Again this leads to the question of who can purchase (in countries which have private enterprise/capitalism who can afford) the cunning lawyers.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Statements edited and approved by:

Andre Serzkovski
Minister of Justice, USSE, and Attorney at Criminal Law.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the NSUN:

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild rarely addresses this body. Given our nation's love-hate relationship with this "deliberative" body and our Prime Minister's general view of the membership of this body, Schwarzchild has taken the opportunity to watch these deliberations rather than take place in them. That ends today.

(Presents Diplomatic Credentials to Clerk)

Given the nature of this discussion, and the penchant of late for this august body to repeal everything in sight, my Prime Minister feels some degree of oversight is overdue. It has become increasingly clear that instead of solving problems, this body is only interested in the "shotgun" technique of repealing previous resolutions and rather than have any followup, move on to the next item in the que to repeal. It is clear that rules prohibiting a simultaneous "repeal and replace" are in place and this rule causes great difficulty to the process of improving upon existing resolutions, rather than junking them wholesale. Further, rules in place prohibit the writing of the proper replacement resolution until the previous resolution is repealed. While we are aware of the difficulties that exist, it seems a better system must be instituted by this body.

That being said, having heard the deliberations upon the repeal of NSUN #27, it is clear that the resolution is unsound and is worthy of being repealed. This is the position of the CoS. Would any of the worthy delegates, legates or representatives kindly apprise me of plans of a resolution better suited in the works?

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild votes "FOR REPEAL."

I thank the ladies and gentlemen for their time.

Sir Thomas Bartholomew Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild (pop approximately 3 billion)

Given the nature of this discussion, and the penchant of late for this august body to repeal everything in sight, my Prime Minister feels some degree of oversight is overdue. It has become increasingly clear that instead of solving problems, this body is only interested in the "shotgun" technique of repealing previous resolutions and rather than have any followup, move on to the next item in the que to repeal. It is clear that rules prohibiting a simultaneous "repeal and replace" are in place and this rule causes great difficulty to the process of improving upon existing resolutions, rather than junking them wholesale. Further, rules in place prohibit the writing of the proper replacement resolution until the previous resolution is repealed. While we are aware of the difficulties that exist, it seems a better system must be instituted by this body.

The representative is mistaken. There is no rule prohibiting the writing of a replacement until a previous resolution is replaced. You can draft as many replacements as you want. This is regularly done both in this forum and in off-site forums. You cannot legally submit a replacement which would duplicate or contradict the extant resolution. There's a major difference.

That being said, having heard the deliberations upon the repeal of NSUN #27, it is clear that the resolution is unsound and is worthy of being repealed. This is the position of the CoS. Would any of the worthy delegates, legates or representatives kindly apprise me of plans of a resolution better suited in the works?


Is the representative aware of the several resolutions concerning the criminal justice system that we cited earlier? We'd suggest, if he is interested in the matter, that he review those resolutions and see if he believes something else remains to be covered.

There seems to be an unfortunate misconception on the part of some members that the resolution discussed here is the only one covering the criminal justice system. We'd suggest a bit of research in the resolutions list would be fruitful in promoting more enlightened debate.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I, for one, see to deterring crime by a public scene of violence, instilling the fear of that shame and misery happening to my people should the commit crime and be caught. There are others, I'm postitive, who wish to make a very small scene, to make crime appear invisible to the people.

Due Process is not to decide in what manner, public or private, that you may provide punishment or rehabilitation to any convicted criminal in your nation. It's goal, instead, is to make sure that the way you go about deciding on if an individual is guilty or innocent is done in a fair way that respects the rights and dignity that the citizen holds.

Hail Jotz,

The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

The arguements between Ellelt and Jotzerland both require much consideration. I do not fully agree with either, however, each has made key points which I must comment on. Just not at this time.

*Pulls up lawn chair, sits down, and digs into some popcorn.*

I've got 5 bucks on Jotzerland!

Chancellor Anguimalla
Nex Messor

Given the nature of this discussion, and the penchant of late for this august body to repeal everything in sight, my Prime Minister feels some degree of oversight is overdue. It has become increasingly clear that instead of solving problems, this body is only interested in the "shotgun" technique of repealing previous resolutions and rather than have any followup, move on to the next item in the que to repeal.

With all due respect to the honorable representative from Schwarzchild, the argument that "everything in sight" is being repealed was already disproven earlier in this debate, when The Most Glorious Hack pointed out there have been 189 Resolutions and only 32 Repeals. If that is a "shotgun" technique of repealing, then the shotgun is missing quite a few of its shells.

We feel compelled to point out that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with repealing bad legislation, no matter how often you have to do it. And once again, we also feel compelled to remind some of our fellow delegates that anyone can create replacement legislation to a repealed proposal.

It is clear that rules prohibiting a simultaneous "repeal and replace" are in place and this rule causes great difficulty to the process of improving upon existing resolutions, rather than junking them wholesale. Further, rules in place prohibit the writing of the proper replacement resolution until the previous resolution is repealed. While we are aware of the difficulties that exist, it seems a better system must be instituted by this body.

The rules may be that, but the rules are what they are, and really can't be addressed here. (OOC: it's a game issue)

Due Process is not to decide in what manner, public or private, that you may provide punishment or rehabilitation to any convicted criminal in your nation. It's goal, instead, is to make sure that the way you go about deciding on if an individual is guilty or innocent is done in a fair way that respects the rights and dignity that the citizen holds.

Hail Jotz,

The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

The representative of Jotzerland is quite correct. Now we'd ask him to please explain why he believes the grand jury system is the only way -- or even the best way -- to accomplish that. In other words, why does he believe that this one particular system should be forced on almost 30,000 member nations of the NSUN?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

On Behalf of the Empire:

First, I would like to commend my fellow members of the NSUN for their continued civility and diplomacy during the debate of this issue.

Secondly, I would like to remind my peers of a few choice resolutions that have been passed by our own United Nations. The first that I would like to remind you of would be Resolution 21, which was the resolution that granted to all civilians within nations of the NSUN the right to a fair trial. The exact wording, for those curious, is such:

"We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution."

The second of the resolutions to which I wish to refresh in your minds is Resolution 47, the definition of fair trial. Wording of this resolution is as follows:

"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. "

We thank you for your time.
Hail Jotz,

The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

How can we seriously debate abolishing the right to due process?!

Come on let's get serious this should be defeated

How can we seriously debate abolishing the right to due process?!

Come on let's get serious this should be defeated

First, welcome to the UN. Second, please read the proposal. No one is discussing abolishing due process, merely deleting a poorly written proposal that any member can author a replacement to.

The language adopted previously doesn't prevent other, additional protections to be adopted against arbitrary punishment. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. The reference to a grand jury leaves open its size and structure, and countries outside the common law system could develop their own approach. The general guarantee of due process is important enough so that I would recommend not changing the previous language. What this does do that is particularly important is that it lets the world know that the UN has adopted a resolution that opposes arbitrary detention, and that in nations that have an independent judiciary, the courts can cite this resolution in working to improve local conditions. In nations that don't have a grand jury (or its equivalent in local terminology) they probably are a dictatorship anyway, and would ignore the resolution even while pretending to abide by it.
Vote against repeal!:)

How can we seriously debate abolishing the right to due process?!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Ray, pretend for a moment that I don't know anything about metallurgy, engineering, or physics, and just tell me what the hell is going on.

Dr Ray Stantz: (smiling) You never studied.

http://www.stadsteatern.stockholm.se/press/pinfo/0000016300020.jpg

In other words, try reading some of the arguments both in the repeal and in this thread before jumping to conclusions.

The reference to a grand jury leaves open its size and structure, and countries outside the common law system could develop their own approach.

Due process shouldn't have anything to do with a "grand jury", no matter what the structure. It should merely guarantee that nations follow the legitimate judicial and law enforcement procedures of their specific legal code and judicial setup, and provide the same rights to all of their citizens.

The language adopted previously doesn't prevent other, additional protections to be adopted against arbitrary punishment. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. The reference to a grand jury leaves open its size and structure, and countries outside the common law system could develop their own approach. The general guarantee of due process is important enough so that I would recommend not changing the previous language. What this does do that is particularly important is that it lets the world know that the UN has adopted a resolution that opposes arbitrary detention, and that in nations that have an independent judiciary, the courts can cite this resolution in working to improve local conditions. In nations that don't have a grand jury (or its equivalent in local terminology) they probably are a dictatorship anyway, and would ignore the resolution even while pretending to abide by it.
Vote against repeal!:)
Paradica's Grand Jury consists of the Prime Minister and her cabinet, and serves only to comply with this resolution. Never has it been used to veto a judge's conclusion, which would be the only actual use for it. However, if we were to find a conclusion insufficient, the government already has the power to veto it and declare a second trial by constitution. Does this make us a dictatorship? No. It simply means we have the brains to devise a court system more fitting of the Paradican government system.

The representative is mistaken. There is no rule prohibiting the writing of a replacement until a previous resolution is replaced. You can draft as many replacements as you want. This is regularly done both in this forum and in off-site forums. You cannot legally submit a replacement which would duplicate or contradict the extant resolution. There's a major difference.

So noted. Thank you.



Is the representative aware of the several resolutions concerning the criminal justice system that we cited earlier? We'd suggest, if he is interested in the matter, that he review those resolutions and see if he believes something else remains to be covered.

There seems to be an unfortunate misconception on the part of some members that the resolution discussed here is the only one covering the criminal justice system. We'd suggest a bit of research in the resolutions list would be fruitful in promoting more enlightened debate.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ambassador Ahlman, we are content to offer no commentary until the drafts are fully read and disgested by our government. We are not under any illusion that this was the only resolution addressing the criminal justice systems of it's member states, we are however concerned with the rash of repeals that this body has promoted of late. We are concerned that the repealing of certain resolutions (with no replacement resolution in the voting que to address the issues that the repealed resolution failed to adequately address when it was in force) will leave issues unaddressed. This is a function of the rules, and until certain mechanics are changed or correctly addressed by those appropriate powers that be, then this will continue to be a problem in our eyes.

Thomas B. Lynniston, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

With all due respect to the honorable representative from Schwarzchild, the argument that "everything in sight" is being repealed was already disproven earlier in this debate, when The Most Glorious Hack pointed out there have been 189 Resolutions and only 32 Repeals. If that is a "shotgun" technique of repealing, then the shotgun is missing quite a few of its shells.

Quoting the entire four year history of the body does not address the current issue. We as members are seeing far more proposed repeals than actual legislation in this session. Further, we are not seeing any replacement resolutions to correct the problems pointed out by the repeals.


We feel compelled to point out that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with repealing bad legislation, no matter how often you have to do it. And once again, we also feel compelled to remind some of our fellow delegates that anyone can create replacement legislation to a repealed proposal.

We feel compelled to point out that your argument bypasses our actual concern. Our nation will agree to repeals when previous legislation is "bad." What we will not countenance is the continued desire to repeal and not actually SOLVE the alleged problem that justified the repeal in the first place. Repeal bad legislation to your heart's content. We are simply asking that SOMEONE, ANYONE have legislation ready (if appropriate) to bring forth to address the concerns expressed in the repeal.



The rules may be that, but the rules are what they are, and really can't be addressed here. (OOC: it's a game issue)

We think there is no better place than this chamber to address the matter in question. If enough members are not content with the rules as articulated by those powers that be, then they need to express it as a body to those powers that be. (ooc: I consider this a dodge by both players and the mods. I have heard second and third hand that players when expressing concern about these matters have been ever so politely told to buzz off, I bring it into the open so it may be addressed in the open rather than ignored individually...so I may judge for myself without a filter just what the actual mechanical difficulty is and why it IS a mechanical difficulty)

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Quoting the entire four year history of the body does not address the current issue. We as members are seeing far more proposed repeals than actual legislation in this session. Further, we are not seeing any replacement resolutions to correct the problems pointed out by the repeals.

I see, can you provide some numbers to back that assertion up, then? Until you do, I am inclined to dismiss that as a baseless assertion.

We feel compelled to point out that your argument bypasses our actual concern. Our nation will agree to repeals when previous legislation is "bad." What we will not countenance is the continued desire to repeal and not actually SOLVE the alleged problem that justified the repeal in the first place. Repeal bad legislation to your heart's content. We are simply asking that SOMEONE, ANYONE have legislation ready (if appropriate) to bring forth to address the concerns expressed in the repeal.

That's fine, but you're ignoring the fact that anyone can bring up new legislation to replace something that has been repealed. We've gone around and around on this with other delegations, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that bad legislation should be kept around, for any reason. If you want to write a replacement, go ahead. No one's stopping you. It has no connection at all to repealing something.


(ooc: I consider this a dodge by both players and the mods. I have heard second and third hand that players when expressing concern about these matters have been ever so politely told to buzz off, I bring it into the open so it may be addressed in the open rather than ignored individually...so I may judge for myself without a filter just what the actual mechanical difficulty is and why it IS a mechanical difficulty)

(OOC: there are other forums to do that in, the UN forum is not the correct one.)

I think Ambassador Lynniston is missing the point. As I see it, the current Due Process resolution is badly flawed, and poorly written, which is why we are voting for the repeal, whether or not there is a replacement currently being discussed. Why? Because the current resolution is flawed! I understand, Sir Lynniston, that you would prefer to see some law adressing this, rather than no law, however, as pertains to your people, you can do that at home. I will also add my voice to those who have said, if you would like a replacement, feel free to draft one.

everyone deserves the right to a fair trial..
i am completely AGAINST repealing the due process!

there are nations with dictators who abrubdtly kill innocent people, without the people having a fair trial. and we should sit back and let this happen? repealing this process would allow viscious dictators do a such.

the due process is something that is strongly needed. it's only fair and legitimate.

so i vote AGAINST the repeal.

(ooc: I consider this a dodge by both players and the mods.)
I've addressed this question quite thoroughly in the UN Rules Comments thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12048208&postcount=173), so as to avoid a hijack.

Quoting the entire four year history of the body does not address the current issue. We as members are seeing far more proposed repeals than actual legislation in this session.Oh really? Let's look at the resolutions that the UN has voted on this year. So far we have voted on 67 resolutions (not counting this one), of those resolutions only 25 of them were repeals meaning that 42 were new legislation. That means that 62.7% of the resolutions voted on this year were not repeals. Futhermore a repeal is just as much a piece of legislation as a new resolution.

Further, we are not seeing any replacement resolutions to correct the problems pointed out by the repeals.And what about those resolutions that are so bad that replaceing isn't possible?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Kingdom of Sirabia wholeheartedly endorses the repeal of this poorly written peice of legislation!!

We don't want to head off topic here, but to address the issue of the number of appeals this body is addressing, may we point out that, including this vote, four of the last 5 issue facing this community have been repeals:

"Repeal "Due Process""
"Repeal "World Heritage List""
"UN Fair Wage Convention"
"Repeal "Public Domain""
"Repeal "Hearing Impaired Aid Act"

It does seem like we are repealing ourselves out of existence. That wasn't a random comment on our part.

Respectfully

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

We don't want to head off topic here, but to address the issue of the number of appeals this body is addressing, may we point out that, including this vote, four of the last 5 issue facing this community have been repeals:

"Repeal "Due Process""
"Repeal "World Heritage List""
"UN Fair Wage Convention"
"Repeal "Public Domain""
"Repeal "Hearing Impaired Aid Act"
1. You missed out "Unconventional Arms Accord", which should be fourth on your list. So 4 out of 6.
2. Two proposals have made it to quorum in this time period and been deleted. A further one is queued.
3. That is not a representative sample. (Inaccurately) plucking out a selection of 5 from over 200 is not going to give a useful results. Look: for October, we saw 6 proposals and 1 repeal; back in March, we had 8 proposals in a row...following a period of repeal intensity. It waxes and wanes (but the idiocy of those mindlessly complaining about repeals whilst not proposing anything themselves remains a relative constant).

(but the idiocy of those mindlessly complaining about repeals whilst not proposing anything themselves remains a relative constant).
I demand that you post a replacement for that comment. Where is it? Where!?!?!

I demand that you post a replacement for that comment. Where is it? Where!?!?!

I should think that one would wait until the comment is repealed first!

On Behalf of the Empire:

It is of the opinion of my superiors that our discussions and debates would be more useful and appropriate if we would discuss about the pros and cons of passing the repeal and the pros and cons of the legislation that repeal focuses on, instead of discussing the practices of the UN as a whole and insulting one another. Ladies and Gentlemen to not be discussing the merits of the legislation at hand would be doing a disservice to not only the legislation, but also to the civilians of the nations that we represent. Thank you for your time.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

On Behalf of the Empire:

It is of the opinion of my superiors that our discussions and debates would be more useful and appropriate if we would discuss about the pros and cons of passing the repeal and the pros and cons of the legislation that repeal focuses on, instead of discussing the practices of the UN as a whole and insulting one another. Ladies and Gentlemen to not be discussing the merits of the legislation at hand would be doing a disservice to not only the legislation, but also to the civilians of the nations that we represent. Thank you for your time.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

We agree wholeheartedly with the honorable representative of Jotzerland. And, in that spirit, we're still waiting for him to answer the question we directed to him earlier.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

His Most Excellence, Governor Immaculate of Bogostan, is pleased to commend
the Jotzerland Secretary of the Press for his timely reminder regarding the
prevailing definition of "fair trial". I beg your indulgence as I most humbly convey
His illustrious words as best I am able.

"1. Is speedy and efficient."

Our Leader replies, "Lo, the superbly appointed Courts of Bogostan are truly
efficient and rarely are they rivaled in their speed. "

"2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense. "

The Governor notes, "We would be most displeased should we find our defendants unduly dysfunctional."

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

At Our Leader's Request the Ministry of Social Recompense has released this
statement, "Unfortunately, the sciences of necromancy have not yet been
advanced to the stage where this is a universal practicality. The Ministry of
Industrious Advance is working to remedy its failings in this arena, pending
Our Leader's Approval of the implementation."

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

His Excellence observes, "As there can be no reasonable doubt of the existence of guilt, this is surely an unnecessary statement of the impossible."

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

The Immaculate asks "If the crime should be committed in a whorehouse, does
one expect Our finely-crafted trials to be held in that venue? Surely not. The costs
of refitting the video surveillance equipment alone would be prohibitive. "

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

The Governor has stated that "The Oppressed Peoples of Bogostan already enjoy
compulsory jury duties. Yet many have been the cases in which the defendant has
waived the cost of sitting a jury in order to more expeditiously settle the due costs
of prosecution and punitive judgment. Although this reduces the State's Revenues,
We must concur that there are times when it is the Right thing to do."

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

From the Illustrious Book of Righteous Principles, "An impartial judge is a
poorly-paid man indeed. Such foolishness is beneath Our Peoples' dignity!"

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

His Excellence is most dismayed. "Having witnessed the immense variance in the
"proportion" of verdict to the merits of the crime in so many "First World" countries,
We are not assured that this represents the realities of the ratifiers and if it
truly were implemented must needs reduce the State's coffers unbearably."

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

Our Leader asks, "Is this not the definition of a trial?" "Foolishness, " he decries it.

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

The Governor must needs muse, "How can it be fair for the defendant to waive
her rights or applicable legal clauses and not the prosecution? Are not all
citizens to be judged when needed and recompensed when justice demands?"


This one thanks you all for your time.

The Secretary of The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation has been instructed by The Beloved President for Life of the Democratic Republic of Excruciatia to vote for this repeal.....

.....so won't this be fun watching who is going to sanction who for voting with one of the UN "problem children" :p :p :D :D

I see, can you provide some numbers to back that assertion up, then? Until you do, I am inclined to dismiss that as a baseless assertion.

I see. Well, you are certainly entitled to your enlightened opinion. After all I am just a dumb as dirt end user, thanks for your kind assistance.


That's fine, but you're ignoring the fact that anyone can bring up new legislation to replace something that has been repealed. We've gone around and around on this with other delegations, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that bad legislation should be kept around, for any reason. If you want to write a replacement, go ahead. No one's stopping you. It has no connection at all to repealing something.

I KNOW I can propose new legislation, Altanar. I might even get around to that process. I am frankly annoyed that you equate my argument and concerns with keeping bad legislation around. I will GLADLY vote with the rest of the thousands in the cheap seats to repeal bad legislation. What YOU are not addressing is the fact that SOME of these repeals explicitly promise replacement legislation and then in fact the authors and their various writing groups do precisely NOTHING to follow through on those promises.

When someone says something that is not liked it turns into a gang up fest on that person. Or "Let's make the dweeb feel like a piece of garbage." Well forgive me for not concentrating a huge portion of my life to the intricacies of this bloody game and the arcane rules that govern it's existence. Somehow it is not right for someone who puts only 4 hours a week in to question those of you who put in 20?

This whole stink with me started out with a series of questions I asked nearly three years ago that were addressed with ill grace and pure rudeness. It is nice to see that some things in this place never change.

Oh, yes. I forgot....my post count ruler isn't all that long either. Guess I'm as bloody useless as you think I am.

I think Ambassador Lynniston is missing the point. As I see it, the current Due Process resolution is badly flawed, and poorly written, which is why we are voting for the repeal, whether or not there is a replacement currently being discussed. Why? Because the current resolution is flawed! I understand, Sir Lynniston, that you would prefer to see some law adressing this, rather than no law, however, as pertains to your people, you can do that at home. I will also add my voice to those who have said, if you would like a replacement, feel free to draft one.

Sir/Ma'am:

How I am voting on this repeal is not at issue here. I have already committed to vote for the repeal.

If you bothered to read my posts, my point of view is replacement legislation only need be written if appropriate.

But my personal opinion is mostly irrelevant anyway, but to illustrate my point of view:

EXAMPLE: Player A proposes, writes and gets a repeal approved and enacted. Player A notes in the research when writing this repeal that it would leave a certain area without key legislation, even so far as adding a clause in the repeal that future legislation would be forthcoming to clarify this area of the law. An implied promise to those voting for the repeal.

Then Player A does nothing to fulfill this promise after the repeal is enacted. I have seen this done before, and very likely it will be done again.

Why should I trust this resolution author or his/her group again? The answer is, I shouldn't.

OOC: There are plenty of innocent reasons why a player might not follow a successful repeal with a replacement. One is that the replacement might not get enough support to make it to the floor, and the author eventually gives up. Another is that some RL event makes NS a lower priority for that player.

In short, repealing bad legislation is a good thing. Anybody can then attempt a replacement, and in the meantime, NSUN members can regulate the matter individually as they wish. This is hardly a tragic outcome.

Might we return our focus to the merits of this particular repeal now?

I understand where the representitive of Schwarzchild is coming from. If one votes for a repeal based on the promise of a replacement, and that replacement doesn't happen, one would feel betrayed and be less inclinde to trust future promises.

However, some laws warrant repeal regardless of any potential replacement, and even if a promised replacement falls through, the door is open for anyone else to replace the law.

The practicalities of the repeal seem logical and balanced, however the government of Edwardstein cannot help wonder that the original drafters of this resolution might have had an intent to preserve a right to a trial by international court which could supercede any nations taking away people's right to a fair trial. I may be missing the whole point but I would be interested in a comment or two on this.

Edwardstein remains undecided.

And to think my boss is somewhere in a desert oasis getting hit with a Palentine pie in the face. He’s really missing out on all this fun. I see a number of mistakes (the experts call them fallacies) that are being stated in this debate by some of the newer members. I say some because Retired Werepenguins is relatively new to the UN and this is my first week here and you don’t see me saying these stupid things.

First of all, it is a mistake (or a fallacy or whatever) to suggest that anyone who supports a repeal of a UN resolution is against the principle for which the UN resolution purports to support. That is simply nonsense. Some things should be handled at the national level. Some resolutions are so poorly worded that they in fact go against the very principles that they pretend to espouse. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone in here argue against due process (which is not the subject of this resolution anyway) and I’m sure that Retired Werepenguins isn’t going to scrap its grand jury system anytime soon if the repeal passes.

The resolution talks about “limbo” for sushi’s sake! We need to focus on the real problems of the resolution, not on some puffed up puffin of pie in the sky ideals.

Second is the question of a so called replacement and the necessity for a speedy one. I somehow doubt there is going to be a mass exercise in scrapping the grand jury system in any UN member nation anytime soon. Some might have study committees. New nations who want to join the UN and use other equally effective systems will not have to worry about the costs of conversion.

As to the matter of not being able to punish the guilty should new significant evidence be brought to light at a later date, I am reminded of a protestor I saw this morning outside of the building who had a sign reminding people about their orange juice. I’m not sure what that meant but I think that our efforts to ensure that the innocent are not punished for crimes they did not commit does not cause those who are truly guilty not only to escape the proper punishment they deserve but to flaunt their crimes for all the world to see.

That ladies and gentlemen would be true anarchy, and Retired Werepenguins, being anarchy itself should know one when it sees one. Thank you.

Red Hot Blonde from Retired Werepenguins

I agree with all of the nations above that have been noticing this pattern of repeals with the UN. Why are we repealing everything we vote on to pass? That just doesn't make much sense...
But anyway, I think the issue of repealing due process is a pure and utmost form of violation of human rights. We all understand that each country is different. We have communisms and democracies, but we need to set a standard for human rights. No matter what your government is, we need to pay attention to the basic rights of all humans!! If you lived in a communist country, wouldn't you want to have the right to due process?? Let the lawof the country determine what happens to people, but at least let them have a trial. Its a right we all deserve.

I agree with all of the nations above that have been noticing this pattern of repeals with the UN. Why are we repealing everything we vote on to pass? That just doesn't make much sense...
But anyway, I think the issue of repealing due process is a pure and utmost form of violation of human rights. We all understand that each country is different. We have communisms and democracies, but we need to set a standard for human rights. No matter what your government is, we need to pay attention to the basic rights of all humans!! If you lived in a communist country, wouldn't you want to have the right to due process?? Let the lawof the country determine what happens to people, but at least let them have a trial. Its a right we all deserve.


With all due respect to Etres Vrais we are totally insulted by your comments regarding communist nations!

Ellelt is a Marxist-Leninist country, with a totally communist economy and we do have due process now and will have due process after the passage of this sorely needed repeal.

Yes there should be a standard set of human rights...and we already have one. It is contained in the many human rights resolutions that have not been repealed. Please read the damned list of passed resolutions before making insulting comments.

Now as to the this actually necessary repeal.

Ellelt, and all the other communist countries that I am aware of will continue to have due process following the passage of this repeal.

Why? What does due process mean?

Due Process is the legal format that a nation employs in the dispensation of justice. All nations have laws and therefore must have Judaical system to handle those who break those laws. That judicial system must have a process for determining guilt or innocence be it by a professional judge who determines guilt or innocence upon hearing of testimony or by a jury voting on that issue.

Due Process is a legal format that a nation employs not some human right. Nations of the UN should have the right to employ whatever system for determining guilt or innocence of the accused they see fit. The resolution which this repeal is repealing is nothing more than UN meddling in a national affair.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.
Second Secretary of the Communist Party of Ellelt
Member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of Ellelt.

Careful, Vladdy-boy. You're starting to sound like one of those evil national sovereigntists. ;)

Careful, Vladdy-boy. You're starting to sound like one of those evil national sovereigntists. ;)


I cant help it sheik...you all have corrupted me ;)

I cant help it sheik...you all have corrupted me ;)

Good. Welcome!

Just a little update on how the vote is going.

Votes For: 5,758

Votes Against: 1,932

I cant help it sheik...you all have corrupted me ;)

We do what we can, Vlad. ;)

I don't mean for any of my comments to offend anybody nor for anyone to take them personally. I am just standing for basic human rights. (Although if any of you are corrupted, that is your issue, not mine... ;) Take care.

I don't mean for any of my comments to offend anybody nor for anyone to take them personally. I am just standing for basic human rights.

Your nation will not suffer the loss of its Human Rights. We want to get this flawed resolution off the books so that nations may take care of Due Process themselves. That's all.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

I have yet to see anyone here on the GA floor say they did not support human rights of one form or an other.

Those of us who support the repeal at hand recognize that it is not the UN's business to be involved in our national Judaical affairs, and those of us with International Federalist Leanings and/or International Confederationist ideology (myself for example) recognize that UNR 14 is doing just that.

Juries may work well for you, but they do not work well for us. Our laws on evidence are far too complex for any lay-Elleltian to grasp fully with or without explanation by a prosecuting attorney. As such we find that many resources of ours are wasted by being forced to use a grand jury system when we could more easily find a spare judge or two to make those determinations.

Further as was pointed out earlier there have been several appeals in our court system lately where the accused was released because of illegal procedures committed by the jury. Unfortunately we have enough evidence in some cases to rule a mistrial if UNR 14 wasn't blocking that action. In other cases the accused was found guilty not on evidence presented to the jury but rather on prejudices of the jury arising from the accused social class or political ideology prior to the Elleltian Socialist Revolution.

Should Ellelt allow its justice system to become corrupted by prejudices against an accused person who in fact upon viewing the evidence and testimony is indeed innocent of the crime he was accused of but guilty of holding an unpopular idea? We say no. Ellelt would rather not have to spend billions of Rubles every year on the massive appellate system that UNR 14 has forced us to have, and instead use that money to get the damn trial right the first time.

I have said it before and I will probably keep on saying it in regard to the subject of national judicial systems: There are over 30,000 nations in the UN, some of them are Communist, some Socialist, some Capitalist, some are ran by homo sapiens others by sentient dolphins and others by other species; the nations of the UN range from primitive nomadic peoples to intergalactic empires...a one-size-fits-all approach is not the way to go with international legislation.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins is all for "rights." (Some people, especially some congress people in the "Anti-human" party might get offended at the limitation of "human" to the term, but most of us just assume that pures are self centered and just don't understand how to write multi-species correct terminology.) But this isn't about human rights. It's not even about "due process." This is about a UN resolution with the title of "Due Process." There are a number of clauses in the resolution, only one of them involves "due process."

From the debate so far I've only heard complaints about gand juries and about double jepordy and the limbo probem. Yes you do have to throw out babies with the dirty bath water, but that's a fallacy that the repeal of a thing is a repudiaiton of a thing. If a resolution were to be passed saying that all member nations should eat sushi, I'm sure that Retired Werepengins would vote to repeal it even though we would still continue to love sushi and eat as much as we can afford.

Juries may work well for you, but they do not work well for us.

It is here that I would like to remind you of UNR 47, with an emphasis paid towards article 6. A defendent is entitled the right to have his case heard infront of a jury of his peers as part of the definition of a fair trial that we have agreed ever civilian is entitled.

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.

If it is true that the laws of your land are to complicated for your civilians to comprehend even with a trained professional explaining the laws to them, I would like to focus your attention to clause 10. If a defendant believes that a jury hearing his case may be biased or would not be looking out for justice and fairness then you can inform them of clause 10 and they can simply wave the right to have a jury.

Thank you for your time,

The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

UNR 47 also needs to be repealed. However that is not the subject of this debate and your Irrelvent comments are noted and prompltly ignored.

However, many defendants choose to waive their rights persuant to clause 10 of UNR 47. That is one of the closing clauses when they sign a confession, not that that is relevent to this debate either.

What YOU are not addressing is the fact that SOME of these repeals explicitly promise replacement legislation and then in fact the authors and their various writing groups do precisely NOTHING to follow through on those promises.

And as I have said before, so what if they don't? Other nations have pens and computers. Get to writing if it offends you so much. A crap piece of legislation is still a crap piece of legislation, regardless of the motives or intent of the people trying to repeal it. I could frankly care less about their intentions; I'd rather not have my nation bound by the crap law and will always vote to repeal crap legislation. If it really bothers me at some point, I'll write a replacement proposal for it. My pens and computers all work fine.

When someone says something that is not liked it turns into a gang up fest on that person. Or "Let's make the dweeb feel like a piece of garbage." Well forgive me for not concentrating a huge portion of my life to the intricacies of this bloody game and the arcane rules that govern it's existence. Somehow it is not right for someone who puts only 4 hours a week in to question those of you who put in 20?

This whole stink with me started out with a series of questions I asked nearly three years ago that were addressed with ill grace and pure rudeness. It is nice to see that some things in this place never change.

Oh, yes. I forgot....my post count ruler isn't all that long either. Guess I'm as bloody useless as you think I am.

Now you're talking about issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with this repeal, and everything to do with coddling your emotions. I'll have no part of that, thank you very much.

And as I have said before, so what if they don't? Other nations have pens and computers. Get to writing if it offends you so much. A crap piece of legislation is still a crap piece of legislation, regardless of the motives or intent of the people trying to repeal it. I could frankly care less about their intentions; I'd rather not have my nation bound by the crap law and will always vote to repeal crap legislation. If it really bothers me at some point, I'll write a replacement proposal for it. My pens and computers all work fine.

Indeed, we even agree, how nice...no histrionics whatsoever.


Now you're talking about issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with this repeal, and everything to do with coddling your emotions. I'll have no part of that, thank you very much.

Good, consider it sarcasm and we move on.

Indeed, we even agree, how nice...no histrionics whatsoever.



Good, consider it sarcasm and we move on.

Agreed, and I apologize if I came across as rude. It's just that this issue has been debated to death, usually by people with no concept of what's really going on.

No retrial if significant evidence is found that further incriminates the person on trial in the first place? Totally stupid and useless.

Agreed, and I apologize if I came across as rude. It's just that this issue has been debated to death, usually by people with no concept of what's really going on.

Indeed.

I know it frustrates the mods, but the underlying cause of the endless debate is frustration on the player's parts too. It certainly drives a good deal of the core audience away from the game mechanic and breeds ill feelings (justified or not, I might add).

That's nice. I'm happy that you could share your feelings with us. Now, could you please take that particular discussion elsewhere and stop cluttering my thread. Thank you.

On Behalf of the Empire:

Why do we, as a nation, wish that there be universal due process? Well, perhaps it is just the idealism that is prevalent throughout our nation. We view every being within the many nations of the United Nations as equal, we feel that they all deserve to have their rights recognized when going through the potentially life altering process that is criminal trial. So, why can't we just focus on our own business and allow countries to set their trial procedures as they please? We feel we owe it, not just to our citizens, but civilians throughout the UN to try. If there is the chance to save an innocent person from prison by having them be tried under due process, then we have to make an attempt to provide them with that. There are flaws in any and every system, we happen to believe that due process has the least amount. We trust the citizens to be able to fairly and justly do the task assigned to them. Can there be a bias within a jury? Of course. Can there be a biased judge that is a member of a secret counsel chosen by an emperor, just as easily? Of course. You won't get rid of bias by altering the way that the judical process is preformed. You can get rid of bias through educating your nation, getting rid of stereotypes, having interaction with other nation and common customs such as the right to a fair trial.
Obviously if this resolution is repealed we will continue to follow our national law supporting Due Process and encourage other countries to follow our lead.
We encourage other nations, in the limited time leading up to the final counting of votes to maintain a CIVIL debate and discussion. There is no reason to berate nations which have a dissenting opinion. Discuss the merrits of their argument, elaborate on the finer points of your own, but remember that we are all equals within this union of nations and each country's representitive deserves the respect and consideration to hear their point.
Thank you for your time.
Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press.

On Behalf of the Empire:

blahblahblahblahblah i haven't read the repeal or understand what's going on blah blah blah




NEXT!

We would join with the representative of the Jotzerland Empire in wishing this debate could consist of civil debate and discussion. But it's very difficult to have a true discussion when the opponents of this repeal continually post high-sounding discourses on the nebulous concept of due process and repeatedly ignore the issues raised by the repeal.

We asked a specific question of the representative: why he believes that one specific method of bringing suspected criminals to trial -- the grand jury system -- is the only one suitable for use in all 29,000 NSUN member nations and should be force-fed to them. We later reminded him of our question. He chooses not to respond.

The repeal highlights two specific problems with the resolution. We have several times voiced our agreement with the repeal's concerns and attempted to explain why we believe they merit repeal. Do we see the opponents of the repeal offering counterarguments? No. Instead we're lectured on the need for justice for all. We don't need your lectures. We hoped to engage in meaningful debate. We regret that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

On Behalf of the Empire:

To begin, my utmost apologies to the representative of Ausserland for I missed the question when it was originally asked. That question shall hopefully be answered to your satisfaction here, and if not so then I have no doubt that you will question my response and I will try to answer that to the best of my abilities as a representative. Before doing this, though, I would like to commend the representative from the great nation of Kivisto for his skills in diplomacy, I hope one day to be able to have the skill to be able to mimic even a fraction of your ability to discuss items with such tact.

To discuss why I believe due process to be the most fair form of a judicial system, it depends on what fair would be. It has become clear that many people believe that a judicial system's chief goal should be to convict any and all guilty parties. While this is a worthy goal, for sure, the goal that my self and superiors feel is the most desirable is to first make the possibility of an innocent party being found guilty as small as possible, and then to convict the guilty.

Furthermore, we believe in the practice of not allowing double jeopardy regardless of what evidence may be found after the fact. It should be the duty of the state to put together a strong case before the case goes to trial. We feel that the double jeopardy clause is important, though, mainly for the reason that it protects the defendant from judicial abuse, that is...to be repeatedly prosecuted as a form of harassment.

I believe that our desires for a universal code of judicial system was explained earlier, and for the sake of time I will refrain from repeating unless you would prefer I do so.

I hope that this is a sufficient answer, however if it is not I would be more than happy to elaborate, again my apologies for my late response.

Hail Jotz,
The Jotzerland Secretary of the Press

We appreciate the representative of Jotzerland's willingness to engage in discussion. But he still has not answered the question we asked. We asked why he considers the grand jury system so essential to fairness in criminal justice that it should be forced upon all nations of the NSUN. The grand jury system does not equal due process. Due process can exist (and does exist in many nations of the mythical world of Real Life) without the grand jury system. There are several viable alternatives, as we pointed out earlier. These alternatives are considered by many to be more effective and more fair to the defendants than the grand jury system as usually implemented. (OOC: This is demonstrated by the fact that, in RL, many nations which once used the grand jury system have discarded it: the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)

As for double jeopardy, it does, as the representative points out, serve as a protection against malicious, repetitive prosecution. But it isn't the only way to provide that protection. And it is a way for the guilty to walk free. A person wilfully kills another. He is tried and acquitted, perhaps because of ineptness of the prosecution, maybe because the evidence simply doesn't convince the jury, or whatever. Later, evidence is discovered that amounts to proof positive that he committed the crime. He cannot be retried. To us, this is an affront to true justice.

The protection against repetitive prosecution can easily be provided by law requiring a positive showing by the prosecution that the evidence in question is (1) substantial and relevant, and (2) discovered or developed after the first trial.

As for the representative's concern for a "universal code of judicial system", we would once again commend his attention to the NSUN resolutions titled "Universal Bill of Rights", "Fair Trial", "Definition of Fair Trial", and "Habeas Corpus". If the representative feels that there are aspects of the criminal justice system not adequately covered by these resolutions, we would welcome seeing his draft of a proposal filling the perceived gaps. We promise we would give it careful consideration.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I fail to understand what is so hard to understand about the real concept of due process.

I have outlined what due process is and how it does not equate to the grand jury/jury system. Maybe I should use really big letters in an annoying color to get the point across. However, I feel that would only annoy people and make them not want to vote in favor of this much needed resolution.

I further fail to see what is so hard to grasp about the concept of nations being able to form their own opinions and procedures in regard to their legal/judicial systems. Maybe I should put that in big bold letters to, but I probably wont...it would be annoying.

And quite frankly I'm sick of the clap trap presented as argument by the opposition. It is really disheartening to hear things like "but we need a replacement for this." We disagree on that but it leads me to wonder if those who use that for an argument cant write a resolution of their own.

Anyway enough of my rambling and lamenting and back to the real debate.

due process of law
–noun the regular administration of the law, according to which no citizen may be denied his or her legal rights and all laws must conform to fundamental, accepted legal principles, as the right of the accused to confront his or her accusers.

Also called due process, due course of law.


Why can this not be determined by the nations who write their own laws anyway? Ellelt can have a procedure, Ausserland can have a different one, and yet an other nation can have a yet different procedure. What is so Hard to Grasp about that?

The resolution that is being repealed UNR 14 was misnamed as well as meddlesome. I Urge all UN members to vote in favor of this much needed repeal so the member nations may create their own due processes of law.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The repeal highlights two specific problems with the resolution. We have several times voiced our agreement with the repeal's concerns and attempted to explain why we believe they merit repeal. Do we see the opponents of the repeal offering counterarguments? No. Instead we're lectured on the need for justice for all. We don't need your lectures. We hoped to engage in meaningful debate. We regret that doesn't seem to be in the cards.


Did someone say "cards"?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/circles.gif

Actually I would disagree Sheik. In the past 24 hours there has arisen one new concept in this debate...namely that UNR 14 was misnamed as well as being meddlesome and trampling on the rights of the several nations that make up the UN.

Other than that, I dont think there is much to add except....where does one get a set of cards like that?

Vladimir Khernynko.
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Other than that, I dont think there is much to add except....where does one get a set of cards like that?


OOC: Love and esterel was kind enough to host all of the ones we've created over the past year or so. I'll TG you the link.

By the word of the Holy Emperor,

This debate is indeed filled with justice-minded and blissfully ignorant people whose knowledge on the topic ranges only as far as the repealing of due process, that a Grand Jury is in the process of being removed.

It is also agreeable, therefore, that this debate is unfortunately taking one step forward, and better than two steps back.

To that reason, I question if anything has been said or done to find the reasoning and defense of why this repeal should be successful, as well as if anything has been soundly proposed, for it is a sign of weakness of the world to simply remove something.

I wish it known that I do indeed side with a repeal. The reasons of which are, although similar to the ignorance, more well thought through and stabilized.

The UN has become aware that this world is filled with different governments and, therefore, greatly varying judicial systems. By forcing these judicial systems to conform to the UN standards, the governments that rely on their own judicial power become shaken. This would be a very counterproductive thing to the world power who's goal is to strengthen the world.

As well, they have also acknowledged that scores of alternatives to the Grand Jury are out there, and that the current ruling of the UN is not necessarily the fairest. To some who practice the same style of governing as the UN, it is. But to others, like myself, who rule with a more I daresay, fear-based crime deterrant, it is not the best system; unfair to my fellow kind and myself.

Along the above stated lines, the UN grants us freedom with this repeal. It has come to the conclusion that countries should be allowed to do what they wish with criminals, be it pardon them, throw them away, beat them, kill them, what have you.

To that extent, I am strongly for this repeal, and I am dismayed to say that my vassals and I have been, to this point, unable to devise something to replace the resolution in question, and for that, I soundly apologize. I will have my vassals working at double time so that I may propose something to the intelligent in order to fill the void we aim to create with somethin inherently better.

Surely the point of the United nations is to build a better world, and not just to be a forum for finding a middle ground between tyranny and utopia.

According to the U.N. sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rghts, individuals do have fundamental rights and states have obligations to uphold those rights.

This particular resolution is deeply flawed because it removes one regulation and doesn't replace it with any new protection.

We, in the small but Free Land of AnarchoAkrasia vehemently call for this resolution to be rejected. Not because We disagree with the sovereign right of any peoples to choose their own legal procedures, but because this resolution, if adopted will have far reaching consequences for Human rights.

*snip*
To that extent, I am strongly for this repeal, and I am dismayed to say that my vassals and I have been, to this point, unable to devise something to replace the resolution in question, and for that, I soundly apologize. I will have my vassals working at double time so that I may propose something to the intelligent in order to fill the void we aim to create with somethin inherently better.

Well said.

It's refreshing to know that a resolution, despite having failed before from Title Syndrome, can be debated (even to death) and found to be the correct course of action. Here's to passage.

Ben Royce reached into his inside jacket pocket to retrieve the flask that would solidify his toast in the customary fashion, but discovered that it was gone. He made a quick inventory with his eidetic memory and realized that the only person with whom he'd had anything close to personal contact with was the page from Gruenberg -- they'd discussed some finer points of grammar as they'd walked into the GA chamber. Seething, he turned on his heel and returned to his seat, scanning the room for the fresh-faced thief...

Surely the point of the United nations is to build a better world, and not just to be a forum for finding a middle ground between tyranny and utopia.

According to the U.N. sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rghts, individuals do have fundamental rights and states have obligations to uphold those rights.OK, I'm going to have to stop you right there, I just looked through the list of passed resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572) and I don't see one with that title. (OOC: In other words, this is NS not RL)

This particular resolution is deeply flawed because it removes one regulation and doesn't replace it with any new protection.And that's because we can't, we have to repeal first and then replace. (OOC: Good Lord, Fris (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12048208&postcount=173) just explained this)

We, in the small but Free Land of AnarchoAkrasia vehemently call for this resolution to be rejected. Not because We disagree with the sovereign right of any peoples to choose their own legal procedures, but because this resolution, if adopted will have far reaching consequences for Human rights.
Oh grow up and knock off the scare tactics.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We'd like to welcome the representative of AnarchoArkasia to the Assembly, and appreciate his concerns. However...

Surely the point of the United nations is to build a better world, and not just to be a forum for finding a middle ground between tyranny and utopia.

According to the U.N. sponsored Universal Declaration of Human Rghts, individuals do have fundamental rights and states have obligations to uphold those rights.

The correct name of the resolution in question is the "Universal Bill of Rights". The representative may have gotten it confused with the similar document published by the UN in the mythical world of Real Life. That document has no meaning here.

This particular resolution is deeply flawed because it removes one regulation and doesn't replace it with any new protection.

It can't. You can't have new legislative provisions included in a repeal resolution. That's illegal under the rules.

We, in the small but Free Land of AnarchoAkrasia vehemently call for this resolution to be rejected. Not because We disagree with the sovereign right of any peoples to choose their own legal procedures, but because this resolution, if adopted will have far reaching consequences for Human rights.

Exactly what are these far-reaching consequences? We've asked a couple of times what negative effects this repeal would have. All we get are high-sounding orations about generalities. We'd suggest the representative look over the resolutions we've cited twice before in this discussion that guarantee fairness in criminal proceedings. Then come back and talk in terms of specifics.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR the repeal of "Due Process" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region. This is currently the opinion shared by the large majority of UN voters.

Hellar Gray

I think that due process is an important concept generally accepted by all nations and legal systems, even if differently interpreted and applied in different systems. Repeal of the resolution seems in part driven by concerns about specific language and style, and a committee might be asked to review it and other resolutions to suggest clarifying language. Repeal would send a bad symbolic message that the UN no longer cares about the values inherent in the idea of due process. I think it would undermine support for the UN in my nation, and perhaps in others as well. The suggestion that too many resolutions are simply being repealed for the sake of repeal is I think valid too.
Please reject repeal! :)

If you lived in a communist country, wouldn't you want to have the right to due process??Yes, you would, and that's why our people do.

The problem is not with due process per se; the problem is that the resolution assumes that all nations adhere to English Common Law (or should), which is false.

We need a resolution guaranteeing our citizens fair and equitable treatment before the law; we disagree with Karmicaria and others who claim that, left to themselves, governments will naturally afford their citizens these things. But that law must focus on the end, not the means; it must set goals for us to achieve without descending to micro-management of our legal systems.With all due respect to Etres Vrais we are totally insulted by your comments regarding communist nations!Down, boy. A bit of education is all it should take to show Etres Vrais that stereotypes are a bad thing.

We need a resolution guaranteeing our citizens fair and equitable treatment before the law; we disagree with Karmicaria and others who claim that, left to themselves, governments will naturally afford their citizens these things. But that law must focus on the end, not the means; it must set goals for us to achieve without descending to micro-management of our legal systems.

I do agree somewhat with your objection to Karmicaria's claim (if that is indeed her claim) but I would like to add one important point. Participation in the United Nations is entirely optional and there are too many nations in the world that are not in the United Nations. The UN can't solve the common problems of man, no matter how hard we desire to do so. Citizens deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law and the UN should encourage this as much as possible, with the understanding that we lack the ability to force it on everybody and that there is often more than one possible solution to any given problem.

Regardless of the merits of the grand jury system and the overall resolution in question, the UN should not be legislating for member nations.

Next they'll be wanting to tax the world population. If you think there's corruption in govt now, try creating one with a 5 trillion dollar budget.

repeal

Participation in the United Nations is entirely optional and there are too many nations in the world that are not in the United Nations. The UN can't solve the common problems of man, no matter how hard we desire to do so. Citizens deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law and the UN should encourage this as much as possible, with the understanding that we lack the ability to force it on everybody and that there is often more than one possible solution to any given problem.We must respectfully... <pauses, looks at map, notes that Retired Werepenguins is from the Antarctic Oasis, considers retracting that statement, decides not to>...disagree with you in part.

The voluntary nature of United Nations membership, combined with the fact that we are but 20% of the world and that this will likely never change, strongly restricts what we can do in areas where universal cooperation is needed (eg., global disarmament, environmental issues, international standards, etc.); yet the fact that we are so limited does not mean that we must succumb to the belief that we should shy away from action in other areas.

We must ask ourselves: “What are we? What do we stand for?” If we can't - or won't - make anyone do anything they don't want to do, then we stand for nothing – and if we stand for nothing, what good are we?

Human rights, standards of decency, rules of conduct, ethical behavior – these are all things where our compliance is neither advanced not impeded by yours. In such cases, it behooves us to go ahead and try to make a difference. If you would quit because we want to guarantee political liberties, go ahead and quit. It does nothing to harm the rest of us or interfere with our behavior if you stay or go; the same applies to honesty, decency, the ethical treatment of our neighbors and citizens, the works.

So with regards to due process, we submit that this body can make a difference. If you want to give your citizens fair and equal treatment under the law, you're welcome here. If you want to be arbitrary and unjust, the door is that way... <points>.
_________________________Tribes of primitive hunters, with rhinestone codpieces rampant, should build pyramids of Chevy engines covered in butterscotch syrup to exalt the diastolic, ineffable, scintillated and cacophonous salamander of truth which slimes and distracts from each and every orifice of your holy refrigerator, Sears be its brand.Beat that, Hack.

The problem is not with due process per se; the problem is that the resolution assumes that all nations adhere to English Common Law (or should), which is false.

We need a resolution guaranteeing our citizens fair and equitable treatment before the law; we disagree with Karmicaria and others who claim that, left to themselves, governments will naturally afford their citizens these things. But that law must focus on the end, not the means; it must set goals for us to achieve without descending to micro-management of our legal systems.

We rarely find ourselves in agreement with the representative of Community Property, but, in this case, we do. We believe that the protection of human rights is a commendable and appropriate endeavor for the NSUN. We believe that the opposition to this repeal has been largely grounded in people's failure to recognize that the system they know about (although they often seem not to understand much about it) is not the only way to skin the proverbial cat. We also applaud his comment about setting goals -- although we'd perhaps strengthen the term to "requirements" -- while avoiding micromanagement of the means to achieve them.

Where we might part company with the representative is on the need for further legislation on the issue of criminal justice. As we've pointed out repeatedly, there are already four resolutions on the books which specifically address that issue. There are probably others that bear tangentially on it. We're simply not certain that more is necessary. If the representative believes it is, we would welcome seeing a draft of a proposal to fill the perceived gaps. We would certainly give it careful and respectful attention, and would be happy to cooperate in the effort.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We must respectfully... <pauses, looks at map, notes that Retired Werepenguins is from the Antarctic Oasis, considers retracting that statement, decides not to>...disagree with you in part.

The voluntary nature of United Nations membership, combined with the fact that we are but 20% of the world and that this will likely never change, strongly restricts what we can do in areas where universal cooperation is needed (eg., global disarmament, environmental issues, international standards, etc.); yet the fact that we are so limited does not mean that we must succumb to the belief that we should shy away from action in other areas.

We must ask ourselves: “What are we? What do we stand for?” If we can't - or won't - make anyone do anything they don't want to do, then we stand for nothing – and if we stand for nothing, what good are we?

"Well I certainly wish to thank," (looks up Community Property in her AO dossier and wonders why the region gives the job of national descriptions to the foul mouthed dolphins) "the distinguished representative from Community Property for his very kind remarks. I certainly would not want to give the impression that we can not and should not stand for 'nothing.' But if we are to raise the standard it cannot be by brute force of UN fiat, but instead through the shining examples of member nations and through resolutions that encourage all member states to do better."

"Consider the very nature of the issue of 'due process.' In our major universities there is a common expression - so I've been told by Flash - that it's intuitively obvious to even a casual observer. I think it's true to say that it is never intuitively obvious. Consider how the due process part was written in the resolution that is currently under repeal due to other reasons. How 'intuitive' is it really? How easy is it for any crackpot dictator to twist the simple non definition to suit his or her own definition for due process? The very nature of UN resolutions makes it impossible to create rights that normal nations take decades if not centuries to codify and define in their laws. Unless there is already a basis for those rights in national laws."

"So in other words, it's not impossible to raise the world's view on human rights, but one must do it through positive enforcement through resolutions and not by trying to throw hurdles at people who can just as easily walk around than try to jump over."

"You know this debate is so civil, I am going to be disappointed when Flash comes back from the delegate debates and takes over the role of debating resolutions on the floor. This has been, for the most part, fun."

Red Hot Blonde.

"You know this debate is so civil, I am going to be disappointed when Flash comes back from the delegate debates and takes over the role of debating resolutions on the floor. This has been, for the most part, fun."“Just wait,” murmured Tom the janitor with a smirk, “Until Ambassador Jackson stops chasing skirts and finally shows up for work.”

Im all for repealing Due process

Im all for repealing Due process

Best first post ever. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Votes For: 7,967

Votes Against: 2,654

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Sat Dec 9 2006


That is the current standing as of this post of the recorded votes. It appears that the repeal will indeed pass, Thank Lenin!

We look forward to the day which appears to be at hand when the United Socialist States of Ellelt may create its own form of due process without interference from the UN.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

I think that due process is an important concept generally accepted by all nations and legal systems, even if differently interpreted and applied in different systems. Repeal of the resolution seems in part driven by concerns about specific language and style, and a committee might be asked to review it and other resolutions to suggest clarifying language. Repeal would send a bad symbolic message that the UN no longer cares about the values inherent in the idea of due process. I think it would undermine support for the UN in my nation, and perhaps in others as well. The suggestion that too many resolutions are simply being repealed for the sake of repeal is I think valid too.
Please reject repeal! :)
You want the language clarified? Fine, but the only way to do that is to repeal the resolution and replace it.
Next they'll be wanting to tax the world population. If you think there's corruption in govt now, try creating one with a 5 trillion dollar budget. Don't worry about that, there's a little thing called the UN Taxation Ban (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029575&postcount=5) that keeps that idea at bay.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Down, boy. A bit of education is all it should take to show Etres Vrais that stereotypes are a bad thing.Indeed. Just because the commies are a bunch of filthy, freedom-hating hippies doesn't mean they can't manage a fair trial.


Doctor Denis Leary
stuff

Indeed. Just because the commies are a bunch of filthy, freedom-hating hippies doesn't mean they can't manage a fair trial.Freedom-loving, man. Don't make me start singing songs from the 60's...

Don't make me start singing songs from the 60's...
No. Just ... no.
http://mamesiba.hp.infoseek.co.jp/Jukebox/AnimalHouse.jpg

As Bluto said, "Sorry."

UN Taxation Ban[/url] that keeps that idea at bay.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Yeah but they could repeal it.

Indeed. Just because the commies are a bunch of filthy, freedom-hating hippies doesn't mean they can't manage a fair trial.


Doctor Denis Leary
stuff


Dr. Leary. For the record no member of the Elleltian Communist Party is filthy. Party Rule 128 mandates that all Party members shall bathe at least once a week. Further No member of the Communist Party of Ellelt is a hippie...those long-haird drugs taking freaks were all liquidated in Ellelt as Enemies of the state. Although we managed to give them all a fair trial before they were expelled from the Party and sent to Ziberia for a long long long time to think about cutting their hair and having normal views. Well the ones that didnt have "industrial accidents" that is.

Demitri Petrovich
Secretary for Elleltian UN Embassy.

"The resolution Repeal "Due Process" was passed 9,405 votes to 2,842."

Congratulations Karmicaria!

Congratulations on the passage of this fine piece of legislation! One more horrible resolution down!

Our congratulations to the distinguished representative of Karmicaria on the passage of this repeal. She has done the nations of the NSUN a fine service.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It's about damn time that sucker went down. Free drinks for all who supported the repeal in the Stranger's Bar!

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Nations should be able to choose what methods they use to handle criminal charges, with the safety of the citizens in mind.

Our sincere congratulations to Karmicaria on passage of this wonderful repeal!

OOC: Yeah but they could repeal it.

OOC: You do realize how much opposition a repeal of the taxation ban would have, don't you?

Thank you everyone! We're glad that sucker's gone!


Hey! Accelerus! Does your wife know that you're buying drinks for everyone?


Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Diplomatic Manipulator
Queendom of Karmicaria

Well done.

Free drinks for all who supported the repeal in the Stranger's Bar!

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Woo!

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


(Oh, and yeah... Congratulations!)

OOC: You do realize how much opposition a repeal of the taxation ban would have, don't you?

OOC: Yes, but it does mean it isn't impossible. "Outlaw Necrophilia" had and still has a lot of opposition, yet it stands(for now at least).

At the risk of pointing out the mind-numbingly obvious, he meant >50% opposition.

At the risk of pointing out the mind-numbingly obvious, he meant >50% opposition.

OOC: Well it's hard to predict how many people will or won't oppose something. "Unconventional arms accord" had a ton(aka, way past the minimum required) of approvements from delegates, you'd think it didn't have a chance at failing. Low and behold, it did.

OOC: Well it's hard to predict how many people will or won't oppose something. "Unconventional arms accord" had a ton(aka, way past the minimum required) of approvements from delegates, you'd think it didn't have a chance at failing. Low and behold, it did.
OOC: First off, I've yet to see a single attempt to repeal the taxation ban that even came remotely close to attaining the required number of approvals. Secondly, just because a delegate approves a proposal doesn't force them to vote FOR it when it comes up for vote.

OOC: First off, I've yet to see a single attempt to repeal the taxation ban that even came remotely close to attaining the required number of approvals. Secondly, just because a delegate approves a proposal doesn't force them to vote FOR it when it comes up for vote.

OOC: And we all know that delegates approve a resolution so that they can vote against it don't we? Just because no one's written a repeal well enough to gain support in the past does not mean it won't happen in the future.

OOC: And we all know that delegates approve a resolution so that they can vote against it don't we?
Excepting the word "so", I've done that before.

Anyway, this is all irrelevant.

OOC: And we all know that delegates approve a resolution so that they can vote against it don't we?
OOC: Are you impling that we can't change our minds?

OOC: Are you impling that we can't change our minds?

OOC: No, but I would think it was unusual.

There are some delegates who approve almost everything, because they don't think that the approval stage should be necessary. They won't necessarily vote for everything, though. There are other delegates who will approve submissions based on first impressions, but their final vote is arrived at democratically within their region, so their minds may be changed for them.