NationStates Jolt Archive

To allay confusion, the current proposal at vote has been given its own official topic. The Narnian Council's proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553997), unfortunately, was beaten to quorum by another, very similar one:

The Right to a Fair Trial
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: South Oceana

Description: Observing that there is currently no guarantee of justice for those accused of criminal acts.

Noting that convictions are often unsafe due to the absence of any legal requirements for a trial under international law

Remarking that miscarriages of justice are common.

Believing that it should be everyone’s right to be protected from malicious and unfair prosecution by law.

Further believing that the more rigorous examination of evidence seen in a fair trial will lead to fewer innocent people being unfairly punished.

Hereby mandates that all WA member nations guarantee a fair trial to anyone facing prosecution in their territory, in accordance with the following requirements:

Article 1 § That the accused be seen as innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, thus placing the onus of proof on the prosecuting authority.

Article 2 § That the defendant be given the right to present his case or to be represented by a person of his choosing.

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court.

Article 5 § That information and testimony may not be extracted under duress or using any form of physical or psychological torture.

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.

Article 7 § That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed.

Article 8 § That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed.

Article 9 § That the proceedings of the trial conclude within a reasonable time period.

Votes For: 784

Votes Against: 197

Voting Ends: Wed Apr 16 2008Please bear in mind that this is the fair trial proposal currently at vote. The other one (with its own stickied topic) is in the queue right behind it.

Please keep your comments on The Narnian Council's proposal to this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553997); comments on this proposal can be posted below. Thank you.

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.
Ever since the inception of our nation, over 3,000 years ago, major criminal offences such as, but not limited to murder, kidnapping and sexual crimes, are judged by our princess itself. Minor offences and petty crimes have historically been judged by the arresting officers themselves. While our government applauds the initiative and understand the good intentions of this proposal, we are not comfortable with changing our justice system any time soon, hence, we are forced to vote against this proposal.

Thank you.

Aya Shimizu
Head Ambassador for the World Assembly
Royal Council of Foreign Affairs
The Grand Principality of Bergelland

Like Ambassador Shimizu, my government has objections to the same clause:


Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.

This clause places a specific structure of how trials should be conducted. And yet the resolution does not cover similar details such as *who* is on this jury? Is it a jury of ones peers? Is it a jury of former criminals?

While I am not advocating that such details be included, the inclusion of one detail, and yet the absence of others strikes my government as odd.

Should this resolution fail and be resubmitted with a rewritten Article 3, "Evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of ones peers" my government would likely be much more inclined to support this.

We support the general idea, but have objections to the World Assembly focusing on things such as setting specific number based targets.

Howie T. Katzman
Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

the right of our high king to have his foes clapped in irons and the right of our secret police force to drag people of for "REEDUCATION" when infringing on the civil rights of others and indeed the right of government officials to have people shot for "buzzkilling" mean that we must vote against this proposal

and indeed i think i speak for many when i say this is a step too far.
F:(reedom to try people as and how so ever we see fit is paramount to the color and character of each nation and proposals such as this can only draw us all into one great Grey homogeneous mass!

While certainly agreeing with the spirit of the resolution, my government cannot accept Article 3, which if implemented would make trial by jury mandatory in all criminal cases. Under our present legal system, trial by jury is only mandatory in serious criminal cases, mostly felonies and a number of other offences, and there are proposals to abolish it altogether. For this reason, we are obliged to vote against this resolution.

Baldwin, Count Rogges
Permanent Representative of Kalmar-Lotharingia to the World Assembly

my government cannot support this resolution, as it steps far over the bounds set out by Section 1 of the overwhelmingly supported World Assembly Resolution #2.

I quote:

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Considering that Resolution #2 was passed with a 75% majority just 24 hours ago, I do not believe there has been a major shift of opinion regarding it's validity.

This resolution should not be supported by any nation who believes in consistent international law.

Our Government Finds error with all portions of this proposal, as listed below. Thus we vote NO on this proposal. Proposals to impact all nations need to be much more detailed in presentation. The world is not a utopian place.

Article 1 § That the accused be seen as innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, thus placing the onus of proof on the prosecuting authority.

The onus of "beyond all reasonable doubt" would not be a viable measure for all crimes.

Article 2 § That the defendant be given the right to present his case or to be represented by a person of his choosing.

What if the person of his choosing is unavailable or unwilling to represent them? If the rapist selects the victim's father as his defense cousel and is refused, is he allowed freedom or maintained as simply a suspect forever?

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.

You would mandate a 5 person jury for the petty theft of a loaf of bread?

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court.

Our nation, like most, requires suspects in custody to Identify themselves at a minimum.

Article 5 § That information and testimony may not be extracted under duress or using any form of physical or psychological torture.

Duress? Any Form? Vague lines like this would allow a suspect to claim the mere impact of being questioned as duress, thus freeing them.

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.

You would allow the 300 pound monster of a man who raped the 7 year old girl to personally question her?

Article 7 § That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed.

Our system of government already has an appeal process built in, with a subject tried, if found guilty, moved next door to second courtroom and tried again by a second judge (and jury if needed). Only then is sentance announce, with it's impact carried out immediately. Criminals subject to death are taken to the city square and hung 30 minutes later. (We have VERY little crime)

Article 8 § That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed.

A sentence is by it's very nature punitive, and proportional is based on each nation's own values. Our nation Hangs capital offenders and removes the fingers of computer hackers. Other nations may feel it is better to give a murderer a fluffy bunny, force him to name it George and make him care for it. Each nation must be allowed to set their own standards without impact from other nations "morals" or "values"

Article 9 § That the proceedings of the trial conclude within a reasonable time period.

Define reasonable.

I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with the delegate from Amur Panthera Tigris. Furthermore, I feel the proposal from The Narnian Council is far superior to this one. As such, I've voted against this proposal, and recommend that everyone else do likewise.

Let us avoid the problems of many NSUN proposals. Don't vote for the bad, incomplete ones, only to force it to be repealed a week later.

AGAINST.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador

The Sultanate of Dunyastan wholeheartedly agrees with the sentiments posed by Amur Panthera Tigris, and in particular Article 3.

Dunyastan is AGAINST this resolution.

i vote for. i havent read narnians proposal. id probably vote for that one too. a definition of fair trial helps me out greatly.

We look forward to hearing its authors arguments in support of their proposal, and in answer to some of the concerns raised.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Right-Wing _America finds issue with the basis of all articles. While we support the right to a fair trial it is our belief that these articles should not apply to those that are a threat to our national security. These include traitors and terrorists. Due to this Right-Wing _America must vote no

Theres a fatal problem in this, a lack of trust in government officials. Why should a peson be assumed innocent til proven guilty? Far too many people get off due to technicalities, lack of warrants often allow evidence to be destroyed by convicts because police are forced to wait. Say what you want about the Nazi's, but they were effective at capturing and tracking people because they took no stops. Now then, if we assume a government is non-biased and in reasonable economic shape to produce effective crime labs. It stands to reason that conviction rates of criminals would sky rocket if more trust and power was put in the hands of the state.

A fair trial puts the scum at evens with the just.

Our Royal Government having been apppointed Delegate of Our Region, We have put Our views to their Right Honourable Excellencies, the Heads of State and Government of Our Region. The decision is still outstanding. Without prejudice to the eventual position of the Region, We nonetheless respectfully put these comments to the World Assembly:

- The resolution addresses mainly criminal trials. There is no concern in the resolution for the fairness of civil proceedings, which can be just as critical. There is no objection on the part of Our Government to a right to fair trial in criminal proceedings, but a resolution entitled like the one before the honourable World Assembly ought to have a wider purview.

- The resolution mandates jury trials, no matter what the gravity of the charge. (If Our Government's first objection should be regarded as unfounded, the resolution might also be read as requiring jury trials on every civil claim as well.) Of course, that's quite expensive and - often needlessly - time-consuming. Our Government also considers that sovereign States should be allowed to choose systems other than trial by jury. Our Government would, however, put this under the proviso that such systems should be judicial and fair.

- On the same matter, the resolution mandates that the jury be at least five strong. Our Government considers that too low a number. In a jury of twelve or similar or more, any prejudice or other unwanted quality on the part of one juror tends to be outbalanced by the other eleven members of the jury. The same does not work with the same likelihood in a jury of only five.

Accept, Excellencies, renewed assurances of my highest respect.

Shahdov II.
By the Grace of God King of Merapi
Duke of Alma
Lord High Admiral
Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports of the Krakatoa

These trials, are a waste, of the WA, time and efforts, we should be spending the time building a police force to secre the rules, and strictly enforcing them. The WA should just deal with those that do not wish to submit with miltary sactions. Thats why we are here, to rule the lesser ones. Lets not waste our time with trials that will last on and on...


Arch-Duke Drake Ivanovich, Advisor to the High Council, and Lord High Inquistor

The Skybound Republic has voted against the measure. We like our own system of justice and we feel it is fair. (As proof of my honesty, My civil rights are judged by the UN to be excellent and my political freedoms are superb.)

The Supreme Assembly of the People's Republic of Azabustan voted 230-20 to approve the Judicial Improvement Act of 2008 which contains language endorsing the Fair Criminal Trial Resolution submitted by The Narnian Council currently awaiting quorum within the World Assembly. The Supreme Assembly of Azabustan encourages all governments to withdraw support for the The Right to a Fair Trial Resolution currently on the floor of the World Assembly and instead support, by all means possibly, The Fair Criminal Trial Resolution submitted by The Narnian Council.

Signed,
Koen Tsurumaki
President Pro-Temp of the People's Supreme Assembly

We're very much amused by the discrepancies of this official poll with those of the current voting tally (82% opposed vs. 78% in favor). You can add our voice to the chorus of nos. The Narnian Council's proposal really deserved a fair hearing (no pun intended), but this substandard document would block any chance of that.

Article 1 § That the accused be seen as innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, thus placing the onus of proof on the prosecuting authority.

My country is strongly against this article, as we do the exact opposite in our court. Guilty untill proven innocent makes sure that criminals can't get away because they're to good at being a criminal.

against

We would mantain what system of juror we please; there is no need for the world assembly to interfere needlesly in this.

I think the difference between votes on the floor and votes in the thread is a great showing of how few people actually read into the debate of a proposal before voting for it. Admittedly, even I voted in favor of this before reading this thread. (I have now changed my vote). I think a few of you have given good arguments about why this is a poor proposal.

I urge people to bring the attention of their regionmates to the debate here, to help defeat this proposal.

The Dominion of ka-Spel strongly supports a bill addressing the right to a fair trial; this, however, is not the bill.

Princess Coldheart
Dominion of ka-Spel Secretary of State

It seems that we still have not recovered from the shock brought about by the collapse of the United Nations. This *expletive deleted* piece of legislation was mindlessly brought to the floor by dazed delegates and gnomes to the World Assembly floor... to which the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes AGAINST.

HEY WORLD ASSEMBLY, WAKE UP!!!!!

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli
Ca Grennoque Gobbierroque Ambassadoro te la Tramblo Monda
His Majesty's Government's Ambassador to the World Assembly

These trials, are a waste, of the WA, time and efforts, we should be spending the time building a police force to secre the rules, and strictly enforcing them. The WA should just deal with those that do not wish to submit with miltary sactions. Thats why we are here, to rule the lesser ones. Lets not waste our time with trials that will last on and on...


Arch-Duke Drake Ivanovich, Advisor to the High Council, and Lord High InquistorSpeaking of rules Arch-Duke, perhaps you should spend some time reading these ones (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This proposal beat mine to quorum, which currently stands at 130+ approvals. Although I agree with the principles, I cannot support this rival proposal, and have decided to abstain.

_______________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Having just received our official confirmation from the WA gnomes, Tzorsland is pleased to vote in the affirmative on this resolution.

I have been keeping the previous representative from the Tzorsland Puppet Confederation, a Major General Stanley appraised of the recent resolutions that have been up for a vote. Apparently when the institution that cannot be named was dissolved he retired and moved his entire nation to Florida. Imagine that. Anyway, he apparently was very excited about this resolution, saying, “Trial by jury … I know that score!” (Ah the odd things those Gilbert and Sullivan puppets say these days.)

I am aware that there is an alternate resolution that got trumped on the queue. In all honestly both of these resolutions are good in their own ways. I prefer the style of the current resolution up for vote. I like how it applies to “anyone facing prosecution,” which includes non citizens. I like how it supports the right to be silent and rejects testimony obtained from torture. For these reasons I am inclined to support this resolution. It is a good resolution. It is not perfect, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. (Neither is the resolution that would be next on the queue should this fail.)

What I would like to do is demonstrate how I will be advising my nation to deal with the various articles of this proposal should it pass. As there will be some negotiation with our national legislature about some of these suggestions, I will be proposing extremes to be talked down from. How far down they talk me is yet to be seen. Hell, they might agree with every point I make, who knows.


Remarking that miscarriages of justice are common.

As a quick side note, where are these miscarriages common? In Kivisto, crime itself is almost completely unheard of, let alone miscarriages of justice. Was there a census done? Did I miss the pollsters visitting our nations and auditting the justice systems? Where did this tidbit come for us to remark upon? In truth, the only thing I find remarkable about that statement is that I was unaware the nations of the WA were so awash with inept legal systems that miscarriages of justice were considered common.

Further believing that the more rigorous examination of evidence seen in a fair trial will lead to fewer innocent people being unfairly punished.

Alright, another little tangent, shorter than the first; define innocent. How many people are truly innocent?

Hereby mandates that all WA member nations guarantee a fair trial to anyone facing prosecution in their territory, in accordance with the following requirements:

Let the fun begin.

Article 1 § That the accused be seen as innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, thus placing the onus of proof on the prosecuting authority.

Our legal enforcement officers have been specially chosen and trained to be fully aware of all laws in our nation, and to be perfectly impartial, without bias or discrimination. To doubt that they have somehow arrested the wrong person is hardly reasonable. That takes care of that pesky "innocence" issue.

Article 2 § That the defendant be given the right to present his case or to be represented by a person of his choosing.

We will welcome the defendant's wish to present their case or have their case presented for them. . . to an empty room. Possibly with some rats.

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.

The arresting officer can easily double as the judge. His fellow officers can easily form an impartial jury. They are, after all, charged with having society's best interests at heart, so who better to decide if their colleague has done his job well?

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court.

So we don't question them. There really isn't any need to ask them anything if they do not wish. We give them an opportunity to state their side of things. Refusal to do so will be considered contempt of court. Any indication that they might be falsifying events through testimony will be reason to charge them with impeding an ongoing investigation.

Article 5 § That information and testimony may not be extracted under duress or using any form of physical or psychological torture.

Side Note: One could argue that being held for questioning is a cause of duress.

I believe, if I remember my bio-chem properly, that such things as Sodium Pentathol, which brings about a very relaxed and truthful state of mind, actually are accompanied with feelings of euphoria, and are pretty far removed from torture of any kind.

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.

We shall grant them the opportunity to ask the witness any number of questions from a list provided by the judge presiding over the case (who was also the arresting officer remember). These questions will include, but not be limitted to such things as:

Do you like Pina Coladas?
Do you like getting caught out in the rain?
Is it warm in here?
Do you like this tie?
If a train leaves the capital at 500 mph, how long will it take to reach Flurthwel?
etc.

Article 7 § That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed.

And our judges will be more than happy to hear how appealing the defendant believes the sentence and verdict to be. The appeal will then be used to line the cage of the court budgie.

Article 8 § That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed.

As those jaywalking are endangering the lives of those on the road, the convicted jaywalker will be sentenced to the knowledge that their life will remain in perpetual peril until it ends. They will know that, at any time or place, without warning, their life could be ended in any fashion, by any individual, and that their executioner will be completely free of any legal liability once the deed is done.

Article 9 § That the proceedings of the trial conclude within a reasonable time period.

100 years or so sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Can you guess how I'll be voting on this one?

Unless His Nibs notices and changes it, I'm going to be voting FOR this. There are problems with it, but the biggies aren't an issue for Gobbannium, and we can certainly live with the result. The killer reason that tips me over from abstaining is this is actually written in good, clear English, and even if we repeal it later I'd like it up as an example of How To Make Your Proposal Intelligeable, Damn You.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Against

Specifrically for

Article 1 § That the accused be seen as innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, thus placing the onus of proof on the prosecuting authority.

and these:

Article 5 § That information and testimony may not be extracted under duress or using any form of physical or psychological torture.

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.


Given that cdfhildren are unusually susceptable to fear and manipukatiuon, we do not allow those charged with crimes against minors to question them directly, and in many cases the minor does not have to testify in 'open' court.

My nation is totally against the idea that a criminal defendant can appeal the verdict and the sentance just because he/she doesn't like the outcome. In my opinion, in order to appeal, there has to be an error of law, otherwise, why the hell do we have a jury? The only way the defendant would ever be found guilty is by a higher court because I doubt a defendant will settle for a guilty verdict when he/she knows they can drag out the appeals process for God knows how many years. This is just one of several problems I see in the proposed legislation. I agree with others and I will vote AGAINST this legislation.

The Dominion of The Popotan's ambassador steps up, clearing his throat, which sounds more like a sharp whistle. He looks over the room with his red snake-like eyes, though the rest of him seems perfectly human.

"We of The Dominion of The Popotan have voted no on this proposal for the reason of clause one and clause one alone. We have advised others to do so as well. We believe innocence until proven guilty allows bigshot politicans and CEOs to get off the hook much more easily on legal technicalities since they can afford better lawyers, meanwhile the lowborn poor do not always have the option, at least as much.

We have noted with proper regulation such as the rest of the proposal has, a guilty until proven innocent verdict results in better justice for all, not just the rich and powerful."

With that, he gives a graceful bow to the present members and walks back to where he stood by the wall.

My country follows these principles already. If it is something petty, which there are standards for. For example, theft below 50 Rainbows (our national currency) is not a criminal offense unless done multiple times. If the victim chooses not to press charges, they do not have to. The only exception is in murder, in which case the family or the state must try the defendant. The jury is made up of 5-10 people, randomly selected who have no prior meeting with either party. Therefore, this proposal would not affect the Democratic Republic of Camdria, only re-instate said conditions.

Also, in response to the above comment. All lawyers must keep their price only up to 5000 Rainbows, allowing access to them for a much higher population.

Also, in response to the above comment. All lawyers must keep their price only up to 5000 Rainbows, allowing access to them for a much higher population.
"I assume you are refering to my comment," The Popotan's ambassador says, "If so, I congratulate your country, but sadly not every country practices your standards. It is for that reason we hold that clause 1 benefits those with power and influence more than those without."

So I hear a lot of dissention against the bill, most of which I agree with. These are clearly nations' rights that the WA shouldn't being trying to dictate. So why is the current vote 2621-807 in favor? Why aren't delegates turning out their region nations to vote this down?

You have a point. This is why I recently changed my vote to "against." The bill is a good idea, but it has many flaws. We should re-write it to make it fairer, and more proper.

Agree. There are some basic rights in the proposal that should probably go forward. But a lot of specifics that need to remain nations' rights. Hope everyone will not let this pass as is, vote it down for further debate and rewrite.

So I hear a lot of dissention against the bill, most of which I agree with. These are clearly nations' rights that the WA shouldn't being trying to dictate. So why is the current vote 2621-807 in favor? Why aren't delegates turning out their region nations to vote this down?

[OOC: This happens all the time; chances are, most people don't bother to read the debates in the forums... in this case, they were probably like "FAIR TRIAL IS GOOD -accept-" without reading through it]

Subistratica has voted against this proposal, and we shall advise the other WA members of our region to do the same.

Good day.
-Eros Tatriel

Golugan views the current proposal's counterpart in queue to be a superior alternative, one which would be deleted for duplication should the current proposal be passed. We vote against this proposal on account of the proposal being worded less clearly and being less comprehensive than its counterpart on queue, and our interest in seeing the counterpart passed.

Also, I will not see Golugani citizens using Article 2 of the current proposal to put their trial in a permanent lock be requiring an arbitrary decised individual speak on their behalf.

Glad to see the vote turn. Already went from 2621-807 to 2614-1031. Tide is turning. I've seen some great debate here and some alternative ideas that better suit a world governance while respecting nations' rights. Hope everyone continues to spread the message of what's at the heart of the debate and nations vote freely.

my government cannot support this resolution, as it steps far over the bounds set out by Section 1 of the overwhelmingly supported World Assembly Resolution #2.

I quote:


Considering that Resolution #2 was passed with a 75% majority just 24 hours ago, I do not believe there has been a major shift of opinion regarding it's validity.

This resolution should not be supported by any nation who believes in consistent international law.

This resolution falls well in bounds of WA Res 2. If your concerns lie in the issue of national sovereignty, then your concerns are unfounded. The wording of Resolution 2 refers to intervention by other nation states, not world bodies.

This resolution simply sets simple yet general standards for a fair trial, as otherwise nation states could easily find loopholes.

Hebrewishtan's only concern with the resolution is there is no legal definition of "torture" as well as a few other words.

Hebrewishtan urges the international community to address these issues and create clear definitions of important aspects that have and will be addressed such as torture, terrorism, and other words of concern.

Jeuna is a country where civil law is the legal system, and it would be silly to force it to have a jury of peers when that's never been the case. Further, there is no all-encompassing right to silence, as defendants can be compelled by the judge to answer questions during the trial.

Those two items are my bone of contention.

EDIT: @Grove: I'm under the impression that some members just. . . don't read. Some really odd proposals have been passed before.

@Velvendo: I agree totally, but the wording as of now just states that the defendant should have the right to appeal.

Essentially, this resolution amounts to cultural imperialism. It is clear that the proposers of this legislation have based this proposal on their own legal system and can not see that other systems based on different cultural traditions can be equally fair.

Whilst the justice system of Wilfredshire does fulfil all the requirements of the proposal, we are not so arrogant as to assume that our system is the only valid one. We vote no.

Arthur O'Boogie,
Delegate of the Day,
Kingdom of Wilfredshire.

i must say i am impressed greatly by the contribution from the mighty isle of kivisto in leading the way forward in finding a way for sane sensible legal systems (based on jackbooted secret police agents tracking down barcoded miscreants using the overwhelming power of the state) to adapt to this turgid and stifling legislation

in response we in axmanland are setting up a comity to find ways of "adapting" this legislation to our current laws and are sending a case of fine double distilled ousquith (an axmanlandian liqueur brewed from fermented poppies) to kivisto in praise of its leaders wisdom

Essentially, this resolution amounts to cultural imperialism. It is clear that the proposers of this legislation have based this proposal on their own legal system and can not see that other systems based on different cultural traditions can be equally fair.

Whilst the justice system of Wilfredshire does fulfil all the requirements of the proposal, we are not so arrogant as to assume that our system is the only valid one. We vote no.

Arthur O'Boogie,
Delegate of the Day,
Kingdom of Wilfredshire.

Costello Music, the newly instated delegate for the region A Socialist Paradise, disagrees with the statement by the Honourable Mr. O'Boogie. This resolution does not show intolerable bias to any known legal system- at no point does this resolution provide an actual guideline for how any trial must be conducted, merely rights (none of which are beyond the threshold of reason) any individual is entitled to during the trial- a jury, a judge of knowledge, representation, innocent until proven guilty, etc. If it did infringe upon cultures or sovreignity, it would be dismissed under the condition of a previously passed resolution.
However, Costello Music is voting against this resolution. Why? This resolution is not enforcable, and it is not comprehensive. Many articles within the resolution are merely general statements of empty hope that do not enforce anything.

Costello Music supports the proposal, "Fair Criminal Trial," a much more comprehensive and enforcable resolution (should it get to vote), and one that it would be an absolute blight on the World Assembly's as yet untainted record should it be dismissed for duplication reasons.

Costello Music supports the rights of the individual in trial. This is why Costello Music wants to see them protected, not just observed, as in this resolution.

Henrietta Fratelli
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Costello Music
Regional Delegate to the World Assembly
A Socialist Paradise

Although in its entirety a good legislation, Al Mowa7edine have voted against it due to some amendments that we feel need to be done to it. Below we state the articles and our amendments to them.

"Noting that convictions are often unsafe due to the absence of any legal requirements for a trial under international law"

We would use sometimes to replace often in this section. It is more accurate and doesn't do injustice to governments as the current form does.

"Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial."

We disagree of the jury system and the results we have seen in countries using them are dissatisfying to say the least. The American society for example is filled with walking criminals due to the combination of jury and "beyond all reasonable doubt" which is practically undoable.
Instead, we beleive a judge following the law to the extent is what is needed. To ensure maximum fairness, 3-levels of courts can be available for any convicted person to appeal and re-appeal to.

"Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court."

We disagree with this article in its entirety. If a suspect chooses to remain silent it is actually for one of two reasons. To prevent himself from being incriminated even further -whether relevant or irrelevant to the current case- or to protect someone else from getting incriminated. Either way, this is obstruction of justice and should not be permitted. The freedom given to the suspect is in speach, not in silence.

That said, Al Mowa7edine would strongly support this legislation should the above articles be amended.

Costello Music, the newly instated delegate for the region A Socialist Paradise, disagrees with the statement by the Honourable Mr. O'Boogie. This resolution does not show intolerable bias to any known legal system- at no point does this resolution provide an actual guideline for how any trial must be conducted, merely rights (none of which are beyond the threshold of reason) any individual is entitled to during the trial- a jury, a judge of knowledge, representation, innocent until proven guilty, etc. If it did infringe upon cultures or sovreignity, it would be dismissed under the condition of a previously passed resolution.

We have the honour of congratulating the great nation of Costello Music on their considered decision to vote against the current proposal.

We would, however, respectfully join the Honourable Mr Arthur O'Boogie, Delegate of the Day for the Kingdom of Wilfredshire, in his learned comments on the uninformed, chauvinistiv nature of the current proposal. The proposal would mandate a right to trial by jury, such as is recognised in one important legal tradition, but by no manner of means in all. Other legal traditions provide for trial before one or more judges. We can see no unfairness in that, and would accordingly refrain from interfering.
We would also note that the system of trial before professional judges has been regarded as having its advantages over the jury system. As lawyers from jurisdictions recognising a right of choice between trial by jury and trial by judge only (such as may exist in civil cases, or in cases of minor criminality) have a habit of observing, juries believe anything. A seasoned judge may not. We therefore see merit in the system of trial before professional judges, and would not prevent the sovereign member States of the World Assembly from adopting such a system.
We make these points notwithstanding the fact that Our Kingdom is a firm believer in the virtues of trial by jury, and operates such a system in its own legal system.

We would further repeat one of Our previous criticisms against the current resolution: The resolution mandates that the jury be at least five strong. We consider that too low a number. In a jury of twelve or similar or more, any prejudice or other unwanted quality on the part of one juror tends to be outbalanced by the other eleven members of the jury. The same does not work with the same likelihood in a jury of only five.

Given by Our Royal Hand, this thirteenth Day of April, of the Year Two Thousand and Eight

Shahdov II.
By the Grace of God King of Merapi
Duke of Alma
Lord High Admiral
Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports of the Krakatoa

Although in its entirety a good legislation, Al Mowa7edine have voted against it due to some amendments that we feel need to be done to it. Below we state the articles and our amendments to them.

"Noting that convictions are often unsafe due to the absence of any legal requirements for a trial under international law"

We would use sometimes to replace often in this section. It is more accurate and doesn't do injustice to governments as the current form does.

"Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial."

We disagree of the jury system and the results we have seen in countries using them are dissatisfying to say the least. The American society for example is filled with walking criminals due to the combination of jury and "beyond all reasonable doubt" which is practically undoable.
Instead, we beleive a judge following the law to the extent is what is needed. To ensure maximum fairness, 3-levels of courts can be available for any convicted person to appeal and re-appeal to.

"Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court."

We disagree with this article in its entirety. If a suspect chooses to remain silent it is actually for one of two reasons. To prevent himself from being incriminated even further -whether relevant or irrelevant to the current case- or to protect someone else from getting incriminated. Either way, this is obstruction of justice and should not be permitted. The freedom given to the suspect is in speach, not in silence.

That said, Al Mowa7edine would strongly support this legislation should the above articles be amended.

We agree with this position. Including article 3 in this proposal is a clear mistake. What's needed from the World Assembly are clear laws and guidelines for each nation to comply with, not direct fiddling with the judicial system of sovereign states.

I'll bet that half the people who voted "yes" just saw the title and didn't bother to read it! Fight this bill!

My government has instructed me to read the following statement on behalf of the Confederacy of Wencee.

"While we applaud the core desires of this resolution, we feel that it in effect; gives the World Assembly far more reaching powers then it should have. And While we ourselves deplore the lack of rights and freedoms others face. We must vote against this Resolution."

Article 7 § That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed.

Appeals are long, expensive, and arduous. To spend the time, money, and effort in order to hear a convicted criminal bemoan his punishment may be suitable for some nations, but Terracitius renounces the notion that it be included on a World Assembly bill for all nations to follow.

What is more, Article 8 should in fact remove the necessity for Article 7. The very notion that the right to an appeal be necessary creates the assumption of failure right from the beginning.

Article 9 § That the proceedings of the trial conclude within a reasonable time period.

"Reasonable time period" is a phrase so ambiguous and relative that it hardly serves its implied purpose, which is to schedule, hold, and complete the entire trial while everybody still remembers what exactly the defendant did.

Terracitius has no other problems with the otherwise strong proposal.

The United Socialist States of Terracitius
Regional Delegate to the World Assembly
Founder of the SROE
Democratic Socialists

I'll bet that half the people who voted "yes" just saw the title and didn't bother to read it! Fight this bill!

It's probably closer to 75%.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I would say 66% looked at the title and didn't read the bill.
9% looked at the title, glanced at the bill and didn't find anything wrong.

Seriously, at first glance this is like baseball, motherhood and apple pie. What's not to love about apple pie? With cinnamon! And vanillia ice cream.
(Actually I prefer forest pelican pies with strawberry ice cream!)

The government of the States of Stephenson agrees with the spirit of the resolution but cannot does not agree with the requirement that we change our laws to conform with the World Assembly's version of justice. This treads all over national sovereignty in a manner that oversteps the Assembly's authority. This is not a trade agreement or a proposal for mutual cooperation but a mandate that directly interferes with national laws. Not all member states agree to the language and with that lack of definition comes the potential for abuse. We cannot support this usurpation of national rights and the abuse of power by the World Assembly. Our ambassador will not be voting in favor of the proposal.

The President of the States of Stephenson

I agree with pretty much all of the Articles of the proposal except the following:

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned

The reason being (that if this article refers to questioning before trial... it does not belong in this proposal... it's an earmark) is that when a witness is called for trial, they are supposed to testify, and not testifying (or refusing to) should be considered a crime. In some cases, it is worse than lying on the stand. At least when a witness lies, opposing counsel may cross examine the witness to bring the truth to the surface. If a person sits on the witness stand, though, and refuses to say anything... that is not fair to the defendant.

Elected Dictator Addum Spath II
~~~~Dominion of Onglay~~~~

Appeals are long, expensive, and arduous.

"Reasonable time period" is a phrase so ambiguous and relative that it hardly serves its implied purpose, which is to schedule, hold, and complete the entire trial while everybody still remembers what exactly the defendant did.

It is interesting to note that my government objects to clause 3, because it sets what seems like an arbitrary number, 5 jurors, that is too specific, and your government does not like clause 7 because it is too vague.

I'd like to politely suggest that appeals are long, expensive, and arduous, as you've pointed out, but for this reason, phrases like "reasonable time period" are flexible enough to allow the intent, having a free trial, take a priority over the details.

I'd like to ask the representative from Terracitius and other nations, if they would rather see this particular resolution be more or less specific. It seems to me that some of us are voting against this resolution because we'd like it to be more general (that is my government's current position), and that other governments are looking at this from the other point of view.

Let me stress there is no right or wrong answer. I look forward to the thoughts of everybody.

Howie T. Katzman

Voting is currently as follows:

FOR: 3,644
AGAINST: 2,479

I think this resolution has a chance of turning around...

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice
[Newly elected Patent of the Subistratica and WA Ambassador]

We agree with most of the law, but Article 4 needs to be modified or removed. This law is surely an essential point in Human Rights, and it needs to be perfect. We feel forced to vote No until the text has been improved.

Official spokesman of the Democratic States of Sinur.

I think there are a few holes in this proposal... As Kalmar and Lotharingia said earlier, petty criminal cases should not necessarily be tried by a jury: magistrates are sufficient in the majority of cases.

The general idea is fairly respectable but I cannot support this one with the problems that are in it.

Gallantaria will vote against this resolution. Beside it's violation of national sovereignity, Gallantaria will never allow anyone in Gallantaria to be judged by anyone else but judges.

While the government of Goobernicus applauds the proposed resolution supporting justice we cannot condone it as it is overzealous in its reach. While the Republic strongly disagrees with Articles 3 and 4, we believe the whole proposal to be overzealous and an affront to every member nation's sovereignty.

The Voice of the Nomadic Tribes of Tidist disagrees with this:

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.


This is an affront to the noble traditions of my people, and thus our vote has been cast against this meaningless drivel, unworthy of the paper it has been inscribed upon.

I'm voting against because of the jury thing, yeah.

Usually I have a lot more to say but my speechwriters all decided to get high on cough syrup, and anyway other people have already explained it for me, so this will have to do. Thanks.

Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the WA.

So it looks as though regardless of this discussion and the many weaknesses of this bill it will pass and many countries including my own will need to completly redo their legal system, regardless of wether their legal system was working before or not. this naturally annoys me greatly. it is not the role of the WA to legislate internal matters of the member states. I may be resigning from the WA due to its continuing disruption of my internal affairs.

that is all
Huorn

This resolution is vague, poorly worded and presumptive. Voting AGAINST.

The people of the Frozen Wasteland have absolutely no interest in having a bunch of surface dwelling, air wasting, water drinking, space using, sanctimonious, useless WA judges coming into our domes and telling us how to run our justice system. Next thing you know these morons will be telling us that kicking criminals out the airlock with just a life jacket is inhumane!

We vote no and promise to "surface" the first WA judge ignorant enough to airlock into one of our domes.

The Chief,

Chief Technologist of the Frozen Wasteland.

Along with most in this thread I rejected this proposal because it infringes upon many of the rights established in Resolution #2.

Although I agree that the Right to a Fair Trial is a good thing, I do not agree with preserving the foundations of past Resolutions; for this is how any form of a strong Assembly should be run.

in response we in axmanland are setting up a comity to find ways of "adapting" this legislation to our current laws and are sending a case of fine double distilled ousquith (an axmanlandian liqueur brewed from fermented poppies) to kivisto in praise of its leaders wisdom

We would like to graciously accept this fine gift from the delegation from axmanland. For the sake of full disclosure and clarity, we should probably point out that our style and habit of legal adaption is not original to us. We took our inspiration from the Creative Solutions Agency (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/creative_solutions_agency.html) as run by the fine people of Omigodtheykilledkenny.

Roshavia will vote "no" on any form of resolution that requires specific conditions be met in order to try criminals. Since our great nation has roughly a 0.02% crime rate, any rare infractions of the law are overseen by our government directly, and in most cases the guilty are simply exiled. We have no crime, we have no need for a prison system, and we believe that any "fair trial" resolutions force us to assemble a large, unnecessary judicial system in order to "properly" follow protocol and procedure, and such an assembly will see extremely minimal use.

As such, Roshavia votes no, and will forever vote no, on nonsensical resolutions (such as this one) that attempt to pick up the slack for those governments that do not understand how to handle crime correctly.

If a country is experiencing crime, perhaps it is that country (and not the world) that needs to change its ways in order to curb said crime.

It is a pity that an otherwise fine resolution is spoiled by mandating a jury trial. This is our reason to vote AGAINST, and urge all other members to do the same.

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court.

The people of Terra AK believe that everyone has the right to remain silent, but the silence leaves a room to be filled with speculation therefore it is crucial that the defendant answers every question.


Article 8 § That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed.

So if a criminal rapes a young girl he deservers what? to be raped by someone?
This article is not clear, the "proportional" can mean a lot of things.

Article 9 § That the proceedings of the trial conclude within a reasonable time period.

Trials must be concluded in theyre own time, not worrying about deadlines or whatever.

I'm voting against

this resaloution that is being debated is a good idea for the governments that dont give threre citzens a fair trial:)

My Nation, the Democratic Republic of Good Airs voted AGAINST this resolution because of 2 good reasons:

-Our legal system is pretty much different from the one that Article 3 establishes.
-The redaction of Article 4 is confuse: Everybody has the right to remain silent? Even witnesses? Or just the 'criminal'?

My nation and the ones composing my region think that if this resolution is approved, a proposal or a repeal should be made.

PS. Sorry for my English

I appologize for repeating what so many others have said...

My vote is subject to change, pending the decision of the people of my region, but I am vehemently AGAINST this resolution. While any nation that follows this resolution should certainly be commended for their commitment to upholding the basic rights all people share, it is not the place of the world community to decide how a nation should run its Judiciary.

Such is the dominion of each nation's people and its constitution (or similar piece of law); mandating that all nations absolutely must follow this system of government, with no provision for alternatives or consideration of the traditions and cultural behind a nation's laws, however "backward" other nations may view them, is a violation of a state's sovereignty and inherent right to govern its people without outside influence.

That's all I have to say about that.

This Act would have murders and rapists running free on the streets due to inane technicalities and also allowing appeals would just waste taxpayers money. sure one or two innocent people might be convicted but the police are not paid their huge salaries to be incompetent, they are paid to arrest the right people.

Since the great Commonwealth of Fenmouth uses a parliamentary rather than adversarial trial system, it would greatly like a further resolution such that the definition of jury may include a panel of judges.

Also, this resolution, as duly noted by others, does not address military tribunals or civil court proceedings.

Nonetheless, the statement is to Fenmouth's liking and we vote yes.

Article 8 § That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed.

So if a criminal rapes a young girl he deservers what? to be raped by someone?
This article is not clear, the "proportional" can mean a lot of things.Maybe. State sanctioned rape as punishment for rape is not much different than state sanctioned capital punishment for death.

Upon further review of the current Charter despite what other Ambassadors have stated, I have been asked to state that; in the view of our government

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Clearly makes this resolution stand directly against the Charter of the WA, and we demand to know how it even came to a vote.

Anarcho hippy land is satisfied with this current proposel,
however, being that the majority of our nation is cautious of "law" in the first place we may have to reconsider our membership if our freedoms are infringed upon. This includes the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to prosper.

thank you.

I agree with Wencee. Passing this act would directly interfere with how nations are ruled. It shouldn't have even come to vote.

Along with most in this thread I rejected this proposal because it infringes upon many of the rights established in Resolution #2.

Although I agree that the Right to a Fair Trial is a good thing, I do not agree with preserving the foundations of past Resolutions; for this is how any form of a strong Assembly should be run.

Upon further review of the current Charter despite what other Ambassadors have stated, I have been asked to state that; in the view of our government
Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


Clearly makes this resolution stand directly against the Charter of the WA, and we demand to know how it even came to a vote.

Both of you need to listen up, this proposal does NOT contradict Right and Duties of WA States. Yes Article 2 does state that, "Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." However, the second part of that clause, "subject to the immunities recognized by international law," means that if the UN says, "you will do this," the by the gnomes you will do it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

As pointed out by many honorable members of the World Assembly, most noteworthy being the noble Head Ambassador from the wondrous nation of Bergelland and the wise emissary from the City States of Mikitivity, there are a number of flaws within this resolution. The resolution, if passed, would allow for corruption to spread into our court systems and allow murderers and thieves roam loose in our countries. The glorious Empire of Rynotia advocates that all nations oppose this resolution.

Lia Shen
Ambassador
The Empire of Rynotia

Well, I see that trial by combat is out. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

I am glad that such a proposal has been brought forward, but unfortunately it seems that many states have different definitions of what in fact is fair. The justice system of Sanctus Aequitas does not rely on juries. A single judge is all we need as the judge can be tried himself if it is felt he hasn't been impartial.

S'Aequitas votes NO

Lord Araneus, 2nd Earl of Arach
Ambassador to the World Assembly

The clause "Hereby mandates that all WA member nations guarantee a fair trial to anyone facing prosecution in their territory, in accordance with the following requirements..." is problematic for our country. It is unacceptable and morally reprehensible to suggest that our nation must treat non-citizens of GlobalMG with the same rights afforded citizens. Does that not encourage outside fringe groups to focus on our nations because they haven't a fear of reprisal. A fair trial would limit GlobalMG's ability to respond to terrorist threats, tying the hands of our military. Our nation cannot accept this resolution that makes no distinction between citizens and non-naturalized persons. Furthermore, does this not complicate matters of international relations? Would this resolution require actions deemed illegal from other nations come under the jurisdiction of the offended nation? The resolutions language lacks specificity and clarity. GlobalMG will not support this resolution in current form, though we support the underlying objective.

Both of you need to listen up, this proposal does NOT contradict Right and Duties of WA States. Yes Article 2 does state that, "Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law." However, the second part of that clause, "subject to the immunities recognized by international law," means that if the UN says, "you will do this," the by the gnomes you will do it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Stringent and reprehensible legislation such as this will do nothing but drive member nations from the World Assembly. As has been pointed out by many nations, this legislation directly impacts the jurisdiction of the World Assembly members and infringes on the rights and freedoms of those nations.

Allowing this proposal into law will open the door for future abuses and excessive legislation by the World Assembly, driving member nations into either revoking their membership or feeling the noose of a supreme world government tightening around their necks. This is the second proposal under the new World Assembly, and sets a very bad tone for future legislation.

Aardweasels votes no on this legislation.

With all due respect to Bob Flibble, Our government disagrees. To say we have Jurisdiction, and then to say we don't - We find that quite contradictory. We have our own laws which are very fair and civil. And do not require nor deem it needed for the WA to overstep its bounds and decide nations Judaical systems for them.


The Confederacy of Wencee , Urges all nations to oppose this resolution.

Upon further review of the current Charter despite what other Ambassadors have stated, I have been asked to state that; in the view of our government Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Clearly makes this resolution stand directly against the Charter of the WA, and we demand to know how it even came to a vote.

We have a current Charter? I wrote the thing, and I didn't know that.

As Flibbleites stated, this in no way violates Article 2 of Rights and Duties. Everybody always seems to stop reading after the parts where you get what you want, right before the parts where you have to pay to get those parts.

How did it come to a vote? It got over 105 Approvals. Magic!

The criticisms being leveled at this resolution, while understandable, are unfounded.

This resolution simply provides a least common denominator for all states in their judicial proceedings. It does not overstep the boundaries provided by the previous two resolutions, in fact, Hebrewishtan feels it could be more detailed.

For those concerned over national sovereignty, fear not. This resolution does not violate your sovereignty, unless your country's position is that sovereignty is a right, and not a privilege. Hebrewishtan fully believes that sovereignty is a privilege, and if a government is clearly and consistently violating the basic fundamental rights of its people, it no longer deserves the protection of sovereignty.

This proposal is absolutely disgraceful. I will never support a foreign body which tries to determine the inner judicial workings of my nation. You people are attempting to force these idiotic and more importantly inefficient systems of 'values' and 'equality' but that is not how my nation is run. We do what is necessary to make sure that no one needs to be punished but should we need to it is done quickly, quietly and efficiently. This leads to one of the lowest crime rates and highest approval ratings of any nation. If this proposal is passed I will leave the WA, it is not in my interests. Thank you

Jackspurt

Head of and Ambassador for The Incorporated States of Jackspurt

My Nation will not withdraw if it passes, but will work to repeal it even if it takes months, and even if we fail.

As for how it got here. You spoke for approvals, I speak of ignorance; more then half the people who vote yes simply read the resolutions name and voted yes, I would stake anything on that.

You speak of Sovereignty as a privilege? Then by all means you go attack every nation you disagree with. What a foolish thing proclaim my nations Sovereignty a privilege. This body should not have the right to choose a judicial system for a sovereign nation.

This body should not have the right to choose a judicial system for a sovereign nation
Do not worry, for this body doesn't have the right to dictate judicial systems for nations within the WA, as stated in Section 1, Article 1 of Resolution #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", which says:
Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

This delegation argues that the Article 2 of the same resolution deal with a state's possessions and people, and Article 3 of the same only concerns intrusion by other international bodies into a state's affairs, except those matters deemed to be related to the organization and constitution of a state's government; only Article 1 holds sway over such matters, and because of the absence of any open-ended clause such as in Articles 2 and 3, said right is ABSOLUTE.

I shall now point out to our slower friends how the current resolution at vote violates the sovereignty of nations established within Article 1 of "Rights and Duties of WA States".

Article 3 of the proposed "The Right to a Fair Trial" directly violates Article 1 of Resolution #2, and is not allowed under any other Article of said resolution. Every government includes an executive, legislative, and judicial branch; how these branches are constructed varies from state to state, from innumerable tiny bureaus that dictateand enforce individual acts, to centralized entities with dominion over all.

Because Article 3 of "The Right to a Fair Trial" explicitly defines how part of a government's judiciary is to be organized, it infringes upon a state's right to organize itself however it damn well pleases as established in Article 1 of Resolution #2 and unrefuted anywhere else in this World Assembly's current resolutions.

Therefore, because of it's violation of past precedents set by WA resolutions, more specifically Resolution #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", this delegation concludes that there is one, and only one, logical logical course of action to be taken: the denial of this act thorugh an overwhelming majority of votes against.

Before I retire from my soapbox, I would simply like to note to the World Assembly my personal opinion that, if Article 3 of the current resolution at vote were to be stricken from the act, myself and several nations would gladly be for this proposal.

Good day, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly.

~ Lord Schuyler Roosevelt van Ztar en Oritix
Delegate for the Land of Dragonia

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.

This proposed-Resolution would not only fundamentally, and detrimentally, affect traditional legal institution, but undermine fair judicial practice.

Rotovia guarantees all defendants charged with a criminal offence the right to choose between a jury of peers (Trial by Jury of Peers (Commons)) or a trial before an impartial jury of respected barristers (Trial by Jury of Learned Peers). This allows defendants who are faced with public opposition to still receive the right to the presumption of innocence.

Furthermore, by mandating a trial by jury for all prosecutions governments will be lumped with a punitive cost, and substantial backlog, as they will be forced to provide juries for misdemeanors and other minor infractions.

This proposal is an unworkable assault upon civil liberties, and is strongly opposed by Rotovia.

[signed]
Sir Robert Holst
United Nations Regional Delegate
Rotovian Ambassador to United Nations

This delegation argues that the Article 2 of the same resolution deal with a state's possessions and people, and Article 3 of the same only concerns intrusion by other international bodies into a state's affairs, except those matters deemed to be related to the organization and constitution of a state's government; only Article 1 holds sway over such matters, and because of the absence of any open-ended clause such as in Articles 2 and 3, said right is ABSOLUTE.This delegation invites your delegation to read that passage you quoted again:

Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.The World Assembly is not a "NationState"; it is an international organization.

Now cut this shit out.

This delegation argues that the Article 2 of the same resolution deal with a state's possessions and people, and Article 3 of the same only concerns intrusion by other international bodies into a state's affairs, except those matters deemed to be related to the organization and constitution of a state's government; only Article 1 holds sway over such matters, and because of the absence of any open-ended clause such as in Articles 2 and 3, said right is ABSOLUTE.[/SIZE][/I]

For four years people have been reading Article 1 and ignoring Article 11. Both of these are unchanged from "Rights and Duties of UN States".
Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

You can't pick and choose which parts of "Rights and Duties" apply. The answer is "all of them".

The Commonwealth of Polukinthulatestussia votes "Undecided" . Everyone has a right to a fair trial. But this resolution is definetly not the way to do it.

Out of the many things wrong with this legislation, one thing really grinds my gears. The issue of appeals is not addressed properly. The legislation states that a criminal defendant may appeal the jury's decision and the sentance. The problem is that it never states what constitutes an appeal. According to this legislation, a defendant can appeal the senatnce or the decision no matter what, but that means defendants would always appeal and go to a higher court. There needs to be limitations that consitutes an appeal, like an error of law, but this is not explained in the legislation. Since this would utterly destroy the criminal justice system, since this would jam pack our court of appeals, and since this legislation does not address these problems that are critical to preserving justice, the nation of Velvendo WILL VOTE AGAINST this legislation.

This resolution has many flaws as stated by many in this post, but most people simply read "The Right to a Fair TRIAL" and vote YES without reading the contents.

Thats y this resolution will pass

This resolution has many flaws as stated by many in this post, but most people simply read "The Right to a Fair TRIAL" and vote YES without reading the contents.

Thats y this resolution will pass

Yes, our delegation agrees with this assessment. Good work with the title.

Well, I see that trial by combat is out. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. And a good thing this is indeed. Trial by combat should only be used in the case of civil lawsuits, not in the case of criminial lawsuits. Please think of the civil servants!

[OOC: I don't want to be a downer, but the FOR votes literally jumped up a couple hundred or so within the past 2 hours... I'm thinking this thing is going to pass whether we want it to or not]

it seems so.. or maybe someone stuffed the box with double accounts.. conspiracy!!(or maybe it was just tons of people reading the Title going OMG THIS SHOULD PASSZORZ) Who knows. But ya this will pass. And get ready for the next one: Maybe the WA should set up a department of Redundancy department; as the saying goes for the next resolution.

Whilst well meaning, I've got a few problems with the current WA resolution "The right to a Fair Trial" that has made me cast my vote against.

The main problems are:

Article 1, the right to be considered innocent unless proven guilty is generally a good principal but it doesn't work so well where the defendant has to prove they took certain actions that might have prevented the outcome they are being prosecuted for. An example of this might be where an employer is prosecuted under health and safety legislation. In such a case the onus is on the employer to prove they took all reasonable actions to prevent a particular situation. The difference is a little subtle but important.

Article 3, right to trial by jury would create an enormous legal bureaucracy if every single crime was prosecuted before a jury. It's excessive for minor crimes that carry small penalties.

Article 6, giving the defendant the right to question any witness can be problematic in certain types of cases if the defendant includes the accused. I'm mainly thinking of rape cases where allowing a defendant to question his accuser on the stand could be obscene and grotesque.

Call me picky.

The commission of underground ninjas that secretly control our entire nation rules finds it fair to try criminals before we :mp5: them. But keep in mind that we may may strike and :sniper: at any time, any person necessary or dangerous to our nation.

So would a "jury" tossing the defendant in a pond to see if he floats constitute a "fair trial"?

This legislation does not define what a "jury" is or is not. How about a self selecting gang from the local bar?

Nor does this legislation address what that "fair trial" would be. Is it an advesarial trial format or a judicially driven investigation?

As for dictating this to individual nation states, my people and I have this to say

:upyours:

*sighs* Proposals really shouldn't be given names. Too easy for any half-witted oaf to write up a shoddy piece of work such as this, then throw on an emotion-invoking title to sway the idjit vote. After all, what freedom-loving government is going to vote against "The Right to a Fair Trial?" But that's neither here nor there, I realize.

Moving on, I hope to cooperate with other members to see to it that this resolution is repealed, and as swiftly as possible.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise to add our voice to the chorus of opposition to this well-intentioned but seriously flawed proposal. Our nation finds it an unacceptable intrusion into the conduct of the Law among our people.

Our arguments against Article 3 of the proposal mirror those already made by the previous esteemed representatives at this podium. Like many other NationStates, the concept of "trial by jury" is foreign to our people. The Law of the Cute One is a complex body, and its interpretation is a delicate matter requiring much wisdom. Under our former regime, cases were tried by specially trained otaku from the Conclave of Wisdom. Under the word of our Prophet today, cases are tried by clan Elders. Requiring a minium of five persons to decide a case would place an unacceptable burden upon our Elders.

Of more serious concern to us, however, is the restrictions Article 8 places upon matters of sentence. According to Kawaiian religious legal theory, a person found guilty of a crime must acknowledge their guilt and voluntarily submit to the prescribed penance so that the stain of sin is removed from our land. The right to appeal both verdict and prescribed penance is honored. However, if the appeal is rejected and the person continues in their refusal to acknowledge their guilt and accept penance, then it is the sad duty of the religious authorities to impose the only permitted punitive sentence: removal of the guarantees of protection the Church provides to its members and the aliens they have invited in friendship.

A strict interpretation of Article 8 would prevent our religious authorities from passing that punitive sentence, and would allow unrepentant sinners to defile our land in defiance of our Law. This we cannot abide.

I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with the delegate from Amur Panthera Tigris. Furthermore, I feel the proposal from The Narnian Council is far superior to this one. As such, I've voted against this proposal, and recommend that everyone else do likewise.

Let us avoid the problems of many NSUN proposals. Don't vote for the bad, incomplete ones, only to force it to be repealed a week later.

The problem is that most member nations do not get a say in which proposals come to a vote. We don't necessarily know that there will be a better proposal on the way. This could be all that we get, and so while a proposal may be flawed, something is better than nothing, and so it passes, despite flaws.

Many repeals are justified by the "well, we will make a better one, just wait," line, but often, the resolution is repealed and then nothing ends up replacing it. This is why we are wary of, and generally vote against repeals, as well as occasionally voting for a flawed proposal.

In what ways is this Narnian Council proposal better? We are sure that people will complain about that one as well.

The problem is that most member nations do not get a say in which proposals come to a vote. We don't necessarily know that there will be a better proposal on the way. This could be all that we get, and so while a proposal may be flawed, something is better than nothing, and so it passes, despite flaws. I will admit that most of the time you are correct in that we don't know that a better version will come. However, in this case we know that a better version will come because it's already been submitted and has garnered enough approvals to come up for a vote. Irregardless of that fact, lack of knowledge of the future is no reason to support substandard proposals.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

"That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed"

Who decides what is proportional? What the government views as proportional may not be the same as everyone else. I find this statement to vague to be included.

The Fledgeling Nation of The Free Lands of Vinador (http://www.nationstates.net/99312/page=display_nation), founded on the principles that education, open communication, and the highest personal freedoms will create a society of enlightened, self-aware, and community-oriented citizens, urge all to vote for this fine resolution.

Observing that there is currently no guarantee of justice for those accused of criminal acts.

The people of Vinador find the notion of any sort of guarantee suspect. Nothing is guaranteed, but we applaud the sentiments here nonetheless.

Noting that convictions are often unsafe due to the absence of any legal requirements for a trial under international law

While the people of Vinador commend those who have argued against the validity of the terminology used herein, most notably the word "often" which is, at worst, arbitrary and subjective, the Free State of Vinador finds that any convictions made in the absence of sufficient legal requirements are too many and are, therefore, often enough to require WA legislation.

Remarking that miscarriages of justice are common.

Again, while the usage of the word common is, at best, arbitrary and subjective, the people of Vinador believe that any miscarriage of justice is too common.

Believing that it should be everyone’s right to be protected from malicious and unfair prosecution by law.

Agreed.

Further believing that the more rigorous examination of evidence seen in a fair trial will lead to fewer innocent people being unfairly punished.

Also agreed.

Article 1 § That the accused be seen as innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, thus placing the onus of proof on the prosecuting authority.

The Free People of Vinador would like to admonish those represantatives who have objected to this Resolution on the basis of the term innocent, and its undefined meaning used here.

The meaning can clearly be deduced from the context in which it has been applied here, to mean innocent of the crime in question.

Any nation unable to either deduce the meaning of the term innocent, or to create legislation that clarifies it, might consider more spending on education in their sovereign nations.

Article 2 § That the defendant be given the right to present his case or to be represented by a person of his choosing.

Again, arguments against this clause have been frivolous and an unnecessary waste of the WA's time and effort. Any perceived lack of clarity in Article 2 of this Resolution should be further clarified on a national level.

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.

Once more, The Free State of Vinador have no objections to this Article, and find any objections to it to be both frivolous attempts to undermine a worthy Resolution.

In Vinador, crime is handled at the commune level, wherein the democratically elected commune elder investigates the matter by inviting the accused and offended parties, as well as all witnesses to smoke marijuana with him and discuss the matter at length. Attendance is compulsory for those listed above, but any other commune members may attend the session, and their deliberations are accounted for before a final decision on the matter is made by the commune elder. It would be a very small amendment to require five commune members to attend in addition to the accused, the offended, and the witnesses.

It would be a very small amendment to require a "jury" of five citizens to hear a criminal case in conjunction with a king in nations where the king has the traditional duty of administering and overseeing law. It should similarly be a very small amendment to require a "jury" of five ninjas be present in a nation where ninjas adjudicate law; five police officers be present in a nation where police officers adjudicate law; five leprechauns be present in a nation where leprechauns adjudicate law, etc.

Any nation unable to accord this very small provision into their judicial system is, to the eyes of the citizenry of The Free State of Vinador, narrow-minded and backward thinking.

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court.

Article 5 § That information and testimony may not be extracted under duress or using any form of physical or psychological torture.

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.

Article 7 § That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed.

Article 8 § That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed.

Article 9 § That the proceedings of the trial conclude within a reasonable time period.

The Free People of Vinador find no objection to clauses 4-9, and again admonish those who have found such objections for their lack of vision, imagination, and creativity in finding a way to weave them into the fabric of their legal systems.

With that said, The Free People of Vinador intends to vote in favor of this Resolution. We will, however, wait until April 16th in the hopes that our application to join the World Assembly has been approved by that date, before casting our vote.

I Say Nay! For If Giving Fair Trial, People who would hurt the government would Succeed in their goal because Policing is Very Little Do to so much conflict in my Country.

'Article 3' is the reason I voted against this proposal.

Perhaps the proposer was going for simple majority rather than ironing out the proposal.

While we in Promethesia hold the right to a fair trial sacrosanct among the rights of our citizens, we also find that there are many paths up the same mountain here, so to speak. This proposal contains some unfortunate flaws which render it, in our minds, sub-par to become a resolution binding on all nations in the World Assembly. Our vote is against in the hopes that we can vote in favor of the far superior proposal waiting in the wings.

Carlton Brooks
Interim Secretary of State
The Commonwealth of Promethesia

just one thing there are several issue's with choices like take them off to be shot or have them thrown in jail ...... are we all going to be thrown out of the WA for choosing the wrong issue response

just one thing there are several issue's with choices like take them off to be shot or have them thrown in jail ...... are we all going to be thrown out of the WA for choosing the wrong issue response

No.

http://home.austin.rr.com/johnnytexas/nationstates/texas.jpg
Texas Department of World Assembly Affairs
Howdy once again from your friends in the great region of Texas! This is to inform the members of this esteemed body that our Delegate, NewTexas, has cast his 59 votes AGAINST this resolution, in accordance with the wishes of the region. Nonetheless we congratulate the sponsors of this legislation on their certain success today.

Thank you for your time.No TV and No Beer
Texas Secretary of World Assembly Affairs

No.


but wont that cause a certain amount of discontinuity i mean a WA law saying you need a fair trial and your issue's indicating that you practice summery execution?

My country has posted a reapeal to this resolution.

I am so annoyed that this one passed... It was all those people who read the title but failed to fully understand the proposition itself.:(

Edit: (Plus due, in small part, to those who understood it and agreed with it. But I don't think there were many of those.)

but wont that cause a certain amount of discontinuity i mean a WA law saying you need a fair trial and your issue's indicating that you practice summery execution?

As far as the game is concerned, the entire text of the resolution is nothing. The only thing it looks at is the category and strength and make the appropriate changes to your nation's stats when the resolution passes.

Furthermore, in order to prevent nations from choosing policies that run contradictory to WA resolutions, the admins would have to figure out some way to block certain choices from appearing for certain nations, and I'm sure they have neither the time nor the inclination to do so (assuming it's even actually possible). Especially when you consider that that would have to be done for every resolution that gets passed (and probably manually), which means that someone would have to through every issue and make the needed changes possibly on a weekly basis.

As far as the game is concerned, the entire text of the resolution is nothing. The only thing it looks at is the category and strength and make the appropriate changes to your nation's stats when the resolution passes.

Furthermore, in order to prevent nations from choosing policies that run contradictory to WA resolutions, the admins would have to figure out some way to block certain choices from appearing for certain nations, and I'm sure they have neither the time nor the inclination to do so (assuming it's even actually possible). Especially when you consider that that would have to be done for every resolution that gets passed (and probably manually), which means that someone would have to through every issue and make the needed changes possibly on a weekly basis.

They don't have the time, but it would actually be fun if they could make a one sentence silly summary to append to each of our national descriptions after the adoption of each resolution. It would probably reinforce the point that these things are monkeying around with our game stats (granted, for older nations only baby steps are being taken by the resolutions).

As for interacting WA resolutions with issues, the way I'd do it is to tie into what I was working on last year with NSWiki (yes, I know ... down for now). I was linking a few issues to UN resolutions. Issues and resolutions could have keywords, and a script could at least link the two and remind WA members when the UN has made a statement. Nations should always have full control via issues, as that is a clear way to reverse course or choose to not comply with a WA resolution. But it might still be neat to append a notice "WA resolutions: XXX, XXX, and XXX also deal with this issue". More players might pay closer attention to things. :)

I am so annoyed that this one passed... It was all those people who read the title but failed to fully understand the proposition itself.:(

Edit: (Plus due, in small part, to those who understood it and agreed with it. But I don't think there were many of those.)

Bah, in Mikitivity we have a saying, "Das Wasser untergehtes die Brucke", which roughly translates to the water went under the bridge. The resolution, which my government also voted against, was like a small flood. It will be forgotten by the next storm.

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota is dissappointed that this resolution has passed, and will throw it's full support behind the repeal effort.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the WA

Well, I'd like to thank those that were sympathetic of my cause nonetheless. As a result of the passing of this legislation, my proposal, even though it wielded over 160 approvals, has been deleted.

A repeal effort may be likely to occur in the not-too-distant future.

________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Well, I'd like to thank those that were sympathetic of my cause nonetheless. As a result of the passing of this legislation, my proposal, even though it wielded over 160 approvals, has been deleted.

A repeal effort may be likely to occur in the not-too-distant future.

________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

My country has already reapealed to it. 27 people supporting so far.

Well, I'd like to thank those that were sympathetic of my cause nonetheless. As a result of the passing of this legislation, my proposal, even though it wielded over 160 approvals, has been deleted.

[OOC: I was wondering what would happen to it, especially since it had already reached quorum and was scheduled to go to vote.]

[OOC: Also, has something like this ever happened before <where two very similar resolutions were proposed and they both reached quorum>?]

There were two abortion proposals in queue at the same time. Only they weren't so much "similar" as they were staggeringly different -- one protecting abortion rights and the other protecting nations' rights not to protect them. ALC got to vote and passed first.

Also Repeal "Definition of Marriage", where the TG campaign for the 2nd proposal got the 1st one to vote.