NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: I'm just tossing this out here, because it may be addressed, but while watching the Star Trek: the Next Generation pilot, I was amused when Picard was tried for all of the crimes the human race had committed.

During the trial Data said that the New United Nations had passed a resolution that declared that no person could be held guilty for the crimes committed by his or her race.

Is that covered already?

I don't think it is.

First, hi Mik! Good to see you. I tried to respond to this when you first posted it and was rewarded with a database error.

I really don't think this is covered by UN legislation. Freedom of Conscience and others mention ethnic groups and race, but I don't think that covers race, as in "species" or "the human race". This might be something we need to legislate on.

what would that resolution be classified under?

In the UBR there's something about not being held accountable for crimes of family members. That could be a starting point for this proposal - which I agree would be a good idea.

Would this include something about citizens of a nation being enslaved after a war?

I do not have any particular problem with a political leader being charged for heinous acts committed by his nation.

Perhaps we should make certain that all of those involved in the actual commission of a criminal act on the part of a nation can be charged for it. This would prevent unfair scapegoating of both their own citizens and foreigners by governments. I now present an initial and somewhat rough draft for the inspection of my colleagues.

Hellar Gray

The Scapegoat Accord

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: ?

The United Nations,

Remaining committed to the ideals of justice and fairness for all peoples,

Noting that there are unfortunate occasions upon which a nation may choose to charge with a crime those who had no involvement in the crime,

Believing firmly that it is unjust to either charge a person with a crime they had no involvement in or to punish them for that crime,

Standing opposed to the abuse of power in cases in which a party not involved in the commission of the crime is used as a scapegoat,

Resolves that no person shall be charged with or punished for a crime against any member nation unless the person was involved in the commission of the crime,

Recognizes fully that all member nations have the right to charge a person with a crime against other persons or with being an accessory to a crime against other persons, and

Commends all nations that choose to eliminate the practice of scapegoating in their criminal justice systems.

I do not have any particular problem with a political leader being charged for heinous acts committed by his nation.

Perhaps we should make certain that all of those involved in the actual commission of a criminal act on the part of a nation can be charged for it. This would prevent unfair scapegoating of both their own citizens and foreigners by governments. I now present an initial and somewhat rough draft for the inspection of my colleagues.

Hellar Gray

The Scapegoat Accord

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: ?

The United Nations,

Remaining committed to the ideals of justice and fairness for all peoples,

Noting that there are unfortunate occasions upon which a nation may choose to charge with a crime those who had no involvement in the crime,

Believing firmly that it is unjust to either charge a person with a crime they had no involvement in or to punish them for that crime,

Standing opposed to the abuse of power in cases in which a party not involved in the commission of the crime is used as a scapegoat,

Resolves that no person shall be charged with or punished for a crime against any member nation unless the person was involved in the commission of the crime,

Recognizes fully that all member nations have the right to charge a person with a crime against other persons or with being an accessory to a crime against other persons, and

Commends all nations that choose to eliminate the practice of scapegoating in their criminal justice systems.

This is something along the lines I was envisioning, but I was thinking in more general terms. Perhaps more along the lines of differentiating crimes of state vs. individual crimes and not making an assumption that scapegoats are involved.

I believe that in Star Trek they also said that one can not be guilty for the crimes committed by a forbearer -- which is covered in your first operative clause "Resolves ...". Though I'd suggest we include the idea that one can not be guilty of something that was committed by his or her predecessors. The most basic RL examples might be things such as internment ... a government can apologize, but a standing President was not responsible for that policy and thus can not be tried for it.

The question then becomes, can a government be responsible if the decision makers have changed, and to that I think the answer should be yes.

First, hi Mik! Good to see you. I tried to respond to this when you first posted it and was rewarded with a database error.

I really don't think this is covered by UN legislation. Freedom of Conscience and others mention ethnic groups and race, but I don't think that covers race, as in "species" or "the human race". This might be something we need to legislate on.

:)

One of the cooler things about NationStates is we can assume the possibility of other races and address species is we want. So if one day Dolphins want to complain about human tuna fishing nets, they can't hold the current Council of Mayors of Mikitivity guilty for other people's silly fishing practices. ;)

This is something along the lines I was envisioning, but I was thinking in more general terms. Perhaps more along the lines of differentiating crimes of state vs. individual crimes and not making an assumption that scapegoats are involved.

I believe that in Star Trek they also said that one can not be guilty for the crimes committed by a forbearer -- which is covered in your first operative clause "Resolves ...". Though I'd suggest we include the idea that one can not be guilty of something that was committed by his or her predecessors. The most basic RL examples might be things such as internment ... a government can apologize, but a standing President was not responsible for that policy and thus can not be tried for it.

The question then becomes, can a government be responsible if the decision makers have changed, and to that I think the answer should be yes.

OOC: Before I show my revised draft, I would like to mention that there was no assumption of scapegoating, though I have little doubt that in many cases it is indeed scapegoating. The reference to scapegoats was an attempt to provide a rhetorical anchor to the text, to give the average voter something they could readily identify with and respond to rather than simply presenting them with what seems to be esoteric blather. This would likely have the effect of improving the margin of FOR votes.

As for explicitly differentiating between crimes committed by the state and crimes committed by individuals, I am unconvinced of the necessity and practicality of such a move. It would be more difficult to write to a category and would involve writing definitions that would make a relatively simple matter of justice quite complicated indeed.

Also, your idea of charging an aggregate body such as a government of a nation strikes me as somewhat ludicrous. A government, unlike an individual decision-maker, has no will of its own and therefore does not have the capacity to consent necessary for being held responsible for its actions. Except of course, in the case of a government run by a species which has a collective mind, which would be a problematic exception to The Scapegoat Accord for a number of reasons.

The Scapegoat Accord

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed By: ?

The United Nations,

Remaining committed to the ideals of justice and fairness for all peoples and all nations,

Noting that there are unfortunate occasions upon which a nation may choose to charge with a crime against a nation or species those who had no involvement in the crime, but were simply a part of the same nation or species as the criminal,

Believing firmly that it is unjust to either charge a person of a nation or a species with a crime they had no involvement in or to punish them for that crime simply because they belong to the same nation or species as the criminal,

Also believing that nations and persons should be held accountable for their crimes in a manner appropriate to the nature of the crimes,

Standing opposed to the abuse of power in cases in which a party not involved in the commission of the crime is used as a scapegoat simply because they are of the same nation or species as the criminal,

Resolves that no person shall be charged with or punished for a crime against any member nation unless the person was involved in the commission of the crime,

Recognizes fully that all member nations have the right to charge a person with a crime against other persons or with being an accessory to a crime against other persons, and

Commends all nations that choose to eliminate the practice of scapegoating in their criminal justice systems.

I have to concur with Accelerus in keeping governments out of such definitions. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, i'll suggest the example of Nazi Germany- you can draw the line at leaders and commanders, but to try the postal service of a country simply because they are members of the government is extreme.

My other concern is the final operative clause. Will this legislation prevent prosecution of individuals who actually are responsible for the crimes of their race/species/genericgroup? Consider the hive-mind species... What's the protocol there?

OOC:
Also, your idea of charging an aggregate body such as a government of a nation strikes me as somewhat ludicrous. A government, unlike an individual decision-maker, has no will of its own and therefore does not have the capacity to consent necessary for being held responsible for its actions. Except of course, in the case of a government run by a species which has a collective mind, which would be a problematic exception to The Scapegoat Accord for a number of reasons.


Aren't war reparations essentially based on finding a national government at fault for causing "damages"? Or back to my internment example, the United States paid reparations to some of the Japanese Americans that were interned in the 1940s.

That said I think the basic idea here is that a policy to intern citizens isn't a crime that ordinary people whom weren't responsible for that decision can be tried for. That then leaves us with finding a way to determine who or what is? :)

Aren't war reparations essentially based on finding a national government at fault for causing "damages"? Or back to my internment example, the United States paid reparations to some of the Japanese Americans that were interned in the 1940s.

That said I think the basic idea here is that a policy to intern citizens isn't a crime that ordinary people whom weren't responsible for that decision can be tried for. That then leaves us with finding a way to determine who or what is? :)

I see no legal principle upon which we could legitimise such moves. That said, they are laudable acts of kindness and good will, which deserve encouragement. Would you like me to add a clause encouraging the use of government reparations?

With regard to Allech-Atreus' concern about hive minds, I can modify the clauses to account for that easily enough.

I'm having problems with the terminology. I'm not entirely sure what "involvement in the commission of a crime" is (if a governing body resolves to permit carpet bombing, is every member of the governing body accountable?) and I get confused when you switch between nations and people. I think that the language needs to be cleaned up (OOC: yes, I'm being a tad hypocritical) before I can vote for or against it. I do agree with the idea in spirit (although I would like it made clear that ordering an action implicates someone in it, so that the generals get prosecuted as well as the privates)

I see no legal principle upon which we could legitimise such moves. That said, they are laudable acts of kindness and good will, which deserve encouragement. Would you like me to add a clause encouraging the use of government reparations?

With regard to Allech-Atreus' concern about hive minds, I can modify the clauses to account for that easily enough.

No, the reparations are fine ... but they also are akin to a government saying, "Oooops, we were wrong."

The question is, how would the following situation apply to the current draft:
Somebody wants me charged with false imprisonment because my government imprisoned a political group 100-years ago.

I think most of us would say, "No way." Will the draft proposal give us a legal way to say that? :)

I'm having problems with the terminology. I'm not entirely sure what "involvement in the commission of a crime" is (if a governing body resolves to permit carpet bombing, is every member of the governing body accountable?) and I get confused when you switch between nations and people. I think that the language needs to be cleaned up (OOC: yes, I'm being a tad hypocritical) before I can vote for or against it. I do agree with the idea in spirit (although I would like it made clear that ordering an action implicates someone in it, so that the generals get prosecuted as well as the privates)

Actually the draft proposal / idea phase is a wonderful time to raise comments just like these! :)

I myself would vote for the present draft, but also have been thinking if there is some why to reword things a bit.

I'm having problems with the terminology. I'm not entirely sure what "involvement in the commission of a crime" is (if a governing body resolves to permit carpet bombing, is every member of the governing body accountable?) and I get confused when you switch between nations and people. I think that the language needs to be cleaned up (OOC: yes, I'm being a tad hypocritical) before I can vote for or against it. I do agree with the idea in spirit (although I would like it made clear that ordering an action implicates someone in it, so that the generals get prosecuted as well as the privates)

That was actually the entire point of using the term "involvement". It allows us to be flexible in charging the leaders, planners, helpers, and executors of the action, while leaving out the possibility of charging someone who had nothing to do with it.

No, the reparations are fine ... but they also are akin to a government saying, "Oooops, we were wrong."

The question is, how would the following situation apply to the current draft:
Somebody wants me charged with false imprisonment because my government imprisoned a political group 100-years ago.

I think most of us would say, "No way." Will the draft proposal give us a legal way to say that? :)

Yes. This would cover it:

Resolves that no person shall be charged with or punished for a crime against any member nation unless the person was involved in the commission of the crime,

For the most part, I like what you're developing. There is one tiny little bit that I would to see the wording cleared up in.

Resolves that no person shall be charged with or punished for a crime against any member nation unless the person was involved in the commission of the crime,

This pretty much negates your average trial, which is designed to determine whether or not a person was involved in the commission of a crime, and usually occurs after charges have been laid. If the authorities have reasonable cause to believe that the person was involved. the person will be charged. If it is later discovered that the person was not involved, then those authorities will be in contravention of this.

If it were altered to read "Indicted" instead of "Charged", I think that might get cleared up.

For the most part, I like what you're developing. There is one tiny little bit that I would to see the wording cleared up in.



This pretty much negates your average trial, which is designed to determine whether or not a person was involved in the commission of a crime, and usually occurs after charges have been laid. If the authorities have reasonable cause to believe that the person was involved. the person will be charged. If it is later discovered that the person was not involved, then those authorities will be in contravention of this.

If it were altered to read "Indicted" instead of "Charged", I think that might get cleared up.

Excellent suggestion. Thank you.

Unfortunately, that leaves it open to prosecuting those indirectly involved, as defined by whomever is bringing the charges. Say, for instance, that Cluichstan uses its Death Star (http://z8.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Paradise/index.php?showtopic=19) to wipe Kivisto off the map (we're not going to, of course; it's just an example), thus committing mass genocide. Let's say the High Sultan himself approved the attack, thereby, in some eyes, making the entire Cluichstani government effectively complicit in the act. Some hack (OOC: no, not the mod), then, working in the Cluichstani Ministry of Pornography (yes, we have one) could be charged, as he was part of the government that authorised it. That we be absurd, and, thus, we believe the clause needs to state explicitly that there must be direct involvement in the commission of the crime, be it the actual, physical commission of the crime or the authorisation of said crime.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Concur with the previous statements, indirect involvement should be excluded. We don't want Buzzford-Welsh Armaments to be prosecuted for legally selling the Cluichstani government bullets that it decides to use for genocide

Quite.

The question is how to focus the scope of the legislation without opening to doors to massive abuse. Sheik Nadnerb's suggestions are quite applicable- requiring direct involvement in the commission of crimes has to be the focus. Otherwise, the entire purpose of the legislation, which is ostensibly to prevent single people or entities from being charged with wide-sweeping crimes in which they took now part, is completely lost.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

Another thing - such an alteration I feel should explicitly state that being ordered to do something nasty is not an excuse, unless the person or persons family will be put in danger because of it.

E.g. I was only following orders is not acceptable, but if I didn't do it they would eat my children would be

:)

One of the cooler things about NationStates is we can assume the possibility of other races and address species is we want. So if one day Dolphins want to complain about human tuna fishing nets, they can't hold the current Council of Mayors of Mikitivity guilty for other people's silly fishing practices. ;)

Trust me Mik, my nation's brave Naval defenders wouldn't hold your Mayors accountable for fishing nets....they might swear at your mayors if they had the chance, actually, they swear at anybody when they get the chance.:D

Back to the topic. While I might not vote for the resolution, I'm liable to abstain insted of voting against. I don't really see a pressing need for the resolution.