NationStates Jolt Archive

I've had this kicking around for a while. It feels like time to bring it out to play now.

The World Assembly,

WORRIED that dealing with both pre-trial and at-trial rights in a single resolution leaves too little room for either,

CONCERNED that witnesses may refuse cross-examination at their whim,

AWARE that the right to face one's accusers is an essential part of a free trial,

CONCERNED that trials must be fully open, and may in no part take place in privacy,

VERY CONCERNED that jury deliberations are part of a trial, and that public deliberation will put undue pressures on jurists,

ALARMED that the defence counsel must be supplied with any documentation relevant to the case, no matter how confidential,

APPALLED that client/patient privilege, amongst other confidential arrangements, is thus wiped out at a stroke,

ALARMED that files related to national security can also be revealed and discussed in detail in open court,

OUTRAGED at the security hole that every single member nation of the World Assembly is now required to have,

Hereby repeals resolution 13, "Fair Criminal Trial".

Discuss.

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench, at the urging of the Imperial Diet and with the confidence of the entire people of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench wishes to offer its complete support for this repeal. Our nation is particularly anxious to undo the harm done to it by the current fair trial provisions which were poorly written and which we view as naked cultural imperialism.

We have every confidence that this organisation can formulate good guidelines for the conduct of fair trial if the current flawed statute is done away with.

We offer whatever help the incomparable Ambassador Coch needs in getting this repeal passed.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Our leader supports the repeal, as the current trial system made it unable to convict some of important war criminals in Voltaggia.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/ci5rod/bermp.jpg

Might we suggest that a reference to how the fair criminal trial resolution actually represents a qualitative reduction in standards of justice for some member states and that it makes no allowance for systems which may in fact be superior to it ?


Yours e.t.c. ,

Quorum reached!

Could some kindly mod sticky and retitle this thread when it become appropriate?

O.O.C. Oh lord of mercy ! I'm braking out the good china for this one. Congrats on Quorum!

Subistratica had previously voted against a similar resolution, and it would appear that this one was voted in during our absence from the WA.

As such, I have given it my support and will gladly vote for it.

I rise to congratulate my colleague from Gobbannium on reaching quorum and I look forward to casting my vote for this repeal.

OOC: First ever post on this forum.

IC:

The Holy Empire of Stevid, it's EMpire and other bodies under the ruling body and juristication of this government hereby votes FOR the repelling of the issue in question.
We are equally disturbed by the fact the general public has a say in the trial (apart from that of the jury) but also equally disturbed that the trials have to be open with no option of privacy.

We decalre this is a breech of the human and civil rights to privacy.

We fully support the action to repel the former resolution in question and we hasten to add we voted AGAINST it. We vote FOR this because of the strain it has put on our own government to take necessary measure to patch up the national security loop hole you so mentioned in your opening quorum with masses of red tape that have futher slowed the process of government.

We hope this bill passes and the normality of government can return to all countries in the Assembly.

I say off with its head!

No, not the leaders of the nation, I mean the resolution.

A replacement should be able to respect the participant's right to privacy and confidentiality if requested to prevent intimidation. Otherwise, an alternative should be the right of a citizen of a member nation to be tried according to their local laws or whatever is most liberal to them.

A replacement should be able to respect the participant's right to privacy and confidentiality if requested to prevent intimidation. Otherwise, an alternative should be the right of a citizen of a member nation to be tried according to their local laws or whatever is most liberal to them.

So, does the replacement manage that then? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374)

So, does the replacement manage that then? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374)

Yes, I quite like that one.

The Holy Empire of Cult Imperialis is voting YES on this repeal.

To hand the power of judge, jury and executioner back into the hands of the Commissariat is indeed a wise one, granting us the power to give legal officials, and those knowledgable in the matters concerning law the ability to make decisions concerning our criminals.

A toast to the Gobbannaen WA Mission! Truley aware of what it takes to run a country.

The Emperor protects

Commissar-General Steven Bryant
Segmentum Diplomat
Commissariat, Political Division

I am voting FOR this repeal.

While this resolution served its purpose, the replacement is a much more sound piece of legislature. Therefore, the nation of Oiseaui lends its support to both this repeal and the soon to follow replacement resolution.

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/5043/oiseauisignaturexu7.png

As the Delegate from the United Socialist States of Abal, I firmly believe that it is each and every nations right to decide how they treat their criminals.

If you make it very unpleasant to commit a crime, then you will have less of it as a rule that people do not wish to suffer. If you force us to become nice to said Criminals, then it will only give them incentive to commit the crime seeing as they wont be beaten.

Therefore, we propose that every nation vote FOR this Repeal and then AGAINST its replacement.

The Parliament of Prietsley College, upon hearing of plans to abolish the fair trials act, entered into discussions as to how the national vote should be cast at the WA conference up coming. After great consideration of the issue, several formal inquiries into the impact of the act upon national legal process and several over-seas studies to the same effect; a vote was cast.


Members in attendance of the Parliament: 500
Members in abistinance: 0
Members Voting for the repeal of the 'fair trials act': 249
Members Voting against the repeal of the 'fair trials act': 251

In accordance with vote the office of the High Commissioner of Prietsley College to the World Association has been instructed that the vote of our nation is to be against the repeal.

The Home office released the following statement to national press:

'With due consideration we can not find a reason for the repeal or replacement of the currently exsisting Fair Trials act. The claim that it has bogged down legal communities in 'red tape' seems to be untrue for that of our swift justice system and those that were studied in our lengthy inquiry. As such we will keep our full support behind the fair trials act.'

Lord Rahl bids that this issue have the full support of The Crimson Storm. Some politically sensitive information has been getting to the public in these "open trials."

-Eamon Teeling, Ambassador of The Crimson Storm and Steward to the Lord Richard Rahl

If you make it very unpleasant to commit a crime, then you will have less of it as a rule that people do not wish to suffer. If you force us to become nice to said Criminals, then it will only give them incentive to commit the crime seeing as they wont be beaten.
I don't really want to start a debate on the replacement here, but you do realise that it doesn't force you to become nice to said criminals, don't you? It says not a dicky bird about sentencing; like other "Fair Trial" resolutions past and present, it just tries to make it that bit more likely that when you get to sentencing, the person that you're sentencing really is a criminal.

The Home office released the following statement to national press:

'With due consideration we can not find a reason for the repeal or replacement of the currently exsisting Fair Trials act. The claim that it has bogged down legal communities in 'red tape' seems to be untrue for that of our swift justice system and those that were studied in our lengthy inquiry. As such we will keep our full support behind the fair trials act.'
The repeal never claims that, and besides Gobbannium rather likes red tape.

I take it then that the Home Office wouldn't mind if I send a couple of inept spies to steal classified documents, let them get caught, and then read out those classified documents in open court? The current Fair Trial resolution doesn't let you stop me doing that. Now imagine that's not a hypothetical threat from a nation that's got no interest in doing anything of the sort, but actually being done by some internal dissident or (whisper it softly) journallist in your own nation.

A drafted responce was leaked to your office by your own inept spies:

'In Priestley College all information is free and unclassified'

My boss ordered m to come in here and say that we voted for. Bye now.

Angela Karin
Ambassador's Aide

The Empire of Stickaeopolis emplores this body to oppose this legislation. Although we as a nation agree that a citizen's privacy is an integral part of their civil rights, we feel that accusations of a crime need to be open to the public to satisfy freedom of speech/information policies. As such, we are opposing this bill and urge all other WA members to do the same.

Scotchpinestan wholeheartedly OPPOSES this repeal.



[INDENT]The World Assembly,

WORRIED that dealing with both pre-trial and at-trial rights in a single resolution leaves too little room for either,



Then why does the proposed replacement deal with both? Should we oppose that too, for the same reason?


CONCERNED that witnesses may refuse cross-examination at their whim,


This is a minor concern at best. Witnesses who do that almost always do so at their own peril. If a witness doesn't want the jury to believe him/her, who are we to stop that?


AWARE that the right to face one's accusers is an essential part of a free trial,


While this isn't stated explicitly in the resolution, if someone wanted to force this issue, that could be done easily in most cases using clause 3 of "Pre-Trial Rights" and clause 6 of "The Hearing".


CONCERNED that trials must be fully open, and may in no part take place in privacy,


The accused can waive that right. And it absolutely should be a right, so as to ensure that a nation's citizens have confidence in their judicial system.


VERY CONCERNED that jury deliberations are part of a trial, and that public deliberation will put undue pressures on jurists,


The right to trial by jury also is fundamental (and waiveable). It is impossible to guarantee that a case decided by one person will be "fair and impartial", as is required by clause 3 of "The Hearing".


ALARMED that the defence counsel must be supplied with any documentation relevant to the case, no matter how confidential,

APPALLED that client/patient privilege, amongst other confidential arrangements, is thus wiped out at a stroke,

ALARMED that files related to national security can also be revealed and discussed in detail in open court,


You're undoubtedly inferring this from clause 6 of "The Hearing", which is written rather vaguely. I suspect (though I could be wrong) that this vagueness was intentional, so as to allow individual nations to address issues like the ones you have mentioned while still remaining within the confines of the resolution.


OUTRAGED at the security hole that every single member nation of the World Assembly is now required to have,


I see no such security hole, at least not one that nations can't correct themselves. Nor do I see a reason to repeal this resolution.

The holy Empire of Hubdh openly declares it's support for the repeal of the act. We feel that it infringes upon our governments way to proceed with security matters and internal investigations.

*bows*

The repeal seems a little overdue but nevertheless it will be the people who decide its fate. Once again, the margin of victory, for whatever side, will not be great. It seems we are divided on the issue.

I beg you to vote against because if you were a criminal wouldn't you want a fair trial or would you like to be defended by the crappiest lawyers around?? If a country doesn't have a fair judicial system then maybe that country doesn't deserve to be called a democracy. If your child took something from a store when they were really young wouldn't you want them to get a fair trial???
VOTE AGAINST THE REPEAL!!!!!!!!

Not all the nations here are democracies, and besides, the purpose of this repeal is to pass a better resolution in place of the original.

*bows*

The repeal seems a little overdue but nevertheless it will be the people who decide its fate. Once again, the margin of victory, for whatever side, will not be great. It seems we are divided on the issue.



By this statement we presume that Ambassador for The Narnian Council is accepting that the resolution their delegation wrote was fundamentally defective and unjust. We are shocked therefore that they did not see fit to do the right thing and withdraw it before it ever came to vote.

We are shocked at the insouciance the Ambassador displays at having materially and qualitatively reduced levels of justice, not to mention national security in member states of this organisation and their cavalier attitude towards having wasted this organisation's time with having to repeal the legislative dogs breakfast they were happy to foist upon it.



Yours e.t.c. ,

That's a political freedom. Denying a criminal rights is like denying minorities rights. Why and how can you take freedom from a criminal. If they're psychotic, they'll commit the crime even more than before!

I am against it 101%, (the next 9% doesn't exist.)

Erm...what?!

After extreme debate in the Senatorial chamber in Poiuytrewq, Kenavt, the Senate came up with a decision approved by the Foreign Affairs Department and the Prime Minister, largely because the debate process was taking too long and donut break was coming.

The Prime Minister spent his aide Robert Ochiv to specially debate this selected possible resolution. His comments:

WORRIED that dealing with both pre-trial and at-trial rights in a single resolution leaves too little room for either,

"Not neccessarily - is there a restriction to how long resolutions can be?"

CONCERNED that witnesses may refuse cross-examination at their whim,

"One of the only good points in this resolution, but is not good enough to pass it."

AWARE that the right to face one's accusers is an essential part of a free trial,

"OK... thanks for the FYI."

CONCERNED that trials must be fully open, and may in no part take place in privacy,

"We see the following text in Resolution 13:

'The accused has the right to a public hearing.'

Does this not satisfy that?"

VERY CONCERNED that jury deliberations are part of a trial, and that public deliberation will put undue pressures on jurists,

"An interesting point, but one somewhat at ends with the previous statement, unless we are interpreting it wrong."

ALARMED that the defence counsel must be supplied with any documentation relevant to the case, no matter how confidential,

"Another excellent point - but does that not fall under 'The accused has the right to a public hearing.'? I suppose it depends on your interpretation."

APPALLED that client/patient privilege, amongst other confidential arrangements, is thus wiped out at a stroke,

"I do not understand what you have to say here."

ALARMED that files related to national security can also be revealed and discussed in detail in open court,

"Another good reason to vote FOR this proposal, surprisingly."

FINAL VERDICT


The Confederacy of Kenavt votes AGAINST this prospective World Assembly proposal.

Esperantujo 2 and our regional delegate Chazzistan have both voted against this resolution. The argument that Gobbannaen and others have put forward appear to rest on two issues: "privacy" and "national security". Privacy is a good rather than an ungood, but it is only a bourgeois one. Justice and freedom from wrongful punishment are more important. It is important to allow independent witnesses to come forward at any time with new information and to petition for a retrial. To that end there should be no secret proceedings or documents.
The argument relating to national security is a ludicrous one. Apart from gross events such as war, there is no such thing. What these people really mean is the "right" of oligarchs to conspire against the people. Esperantujo 2 will make no secret deals with anyone.
Those who say they are voting for this resolution, because they support another resolution, which has not appeared even in draft form. and whose content they are not revealing, are just being dishonest.
As to the argument for each nation to determine its own laws, citizens of Esperantujo 2 sometimes go abroad for congresses, student exchanges, trade negotiations and so on, and we wish to protect them from trumped up charges. We further have the wider interests of humanity in mind.
If the ambassador from Gobbannaen values privacy, my beautiful assistant, Roza Fishkaptisto, is volunteering to meet with him or her for private discussions on the points at issue, if not more.
Vladimiro Kuiristo, Ambassador

A drafted responce was leaked to your office by your own inept spies:

'In Priestley College all information is free and unclassified'
That's all very ethical and exploitable, but it does make you pretty unique.

The Empire of Stickaeopolis emplores this body to oppose this legislation. Although we as a nation agree that a citizen's privacy is an integral part of their civil rights, we feel that accusations of a crime need to be open to the public to satisfy freedom of speech/information policies. As such, we are opposing this bill and urge all other WA members to do the same.
Gobbannium has much the same attitude, except that there are clear cases where complete and absolute openness is a bad idea. I've cited a couple of examples in the repeal text, and you don't give me any reason to doubt them.

Scotchpinestan wholeheartedly OPPOSES this repeal.
I feel vindicated already.

Then why does the proposed replacement deal with both? Should we oppose that too, for the same reason?
:: pokes replacement with a sharpened stick ::
Are you seriously claiming that "start the trial as soon as practical" belongs in the same category as "habeus corpus"?

This is a minor concern at best. Witnesses who do that almost always do so at their own peril. If a witness doesn't want the jury to believe him/her, who are we to stop that?
Witch trials, anyone?

While this isn't stated explicitly in the resolution, if someone wanted to force this issue, that could be done easily in most cases using clause 3 of "Pre-Trial Rights" and clause 6 of "The Hearing".
How? You can get information, but you can't face your accusors if, say, they decide that being questioned by you or your counsel is too traumatic for them. Which, incidentally, is true for many rape victims.

The accused can waive that right. And it absolutely should be a right, so as to ensure that a nation's citizens have confidence in their judicial system.
The accused can waive their right to a trial altogether. How many do you imagine will?

The right to trial by jury also is fundamental (and waiveable). It is impossible to guarantee that a case decided by one person will be "fair and impartial", as is required by clause 3 of "The Hearing".
You miss the point. If a nation uses jury trial (which they sensibly aren't required to do), the jury's deliberations are part of the trial. Hence they must be public.

You're undoubtedly inferring this from clause 6 of "The Hearing", which is written rather vaguely. I suspect (though I could be wrong) that this vagueness was intentional, so as to allow individual nations to address issues like the ones you have mentioned while still remaining within the confines of the resolution.
The only remotely vague thing about that clause is the word "appropriate". I look forward to your argument that the documents in question aren't "appropriate".

I see no such security hole, at least not one that nations can't correct themselves. Nor do I see a reason to repeal this resolution.
Try putting the telescope to the eye that doesn't have the eye-patch over it.

That's a political freedom. Denying a criminal rights is like denying minorities rights. Why and how can you take freedom from a criminal. If they're psychotic, they'll commit the crime even more than before!

I am against it 101%, (the next 9% doesn't exist.)
Um, did you read the text at all?

"Not neccessarily - is there a restriction to how long resolutions can be?"
Yes. About 3500 characters. That's not a lot of space if you're trying to be careful.

"We see the following text in Resolution 13:

'The accused has the right to a public hearing.'

Does this not satisfy that?"
Exactly the problem. His Nibs was saying that this is a bad thing, and goes on to construct a few examples showing why. Openness in general is a good thing; absolute openness, with no exceptions, isn't.

"Another excellent point - but does that not fall under 'The accused has the right to a public hearing.'? I suppose it depends on your interpretation."
No, it's more strictly part of clause 6.

"I do not understand what you have to say here."
Following on from the previous point, suppose that the prosecution or defense can make a case that your medical records are relevant to the case. Congratulations, your medical history is now a public document. I hope there's nothing embarrassing in it.

"Another good reason to vote FOR this proposal, surprisingly."
That's nice for you, but you might want to take a peek at my earlier point about inept spies.

Esperantujo 2 and our regional delegate Chazzistan have both voted against this resolution. The argument that Gobbannaen and others have put forward appear to rest on two issues: "privacy" and "national security". Privacy is a good rather than an ungood, but it is only a bourgeois one. Justice and freedom from wrongful punishment are more important. It is important to allow independent witnesses to come forward at any time with new information and to petition for a retrial. To that end there should be no secret proceedings or documents.
You slightly mistake my argument. There is a balance to be struck between privacy and openness. The resolution doesn't strike it, instead going for total openness.

The argument relating to national security is a ludicrous one. Apart from gross events such as war, there is no such thing. What these people really mean is the "right" of oligarchs to conspire against the people. Esperantujo 2 will make no secret deals with anyone.
Really? So you don't mind telling everyone where all your missile silos are and what the launch codes are today? Or the names and pay-scales of all you spies in Somewhereorotherstan?

Those who say they are voting for this resolution, because they support another resolution, which has not appeared even in draft form. and whose content they are not revealing, are just being dishonest.
You haven't read this discussion, have you? Or the forum in general? Come back when you have and we can have a sensible discussion. Until then, you're wrong.

If the ambassador from Gobbannaen values privacy, my beautiful assistant, Roza Fishkaptisto, is volunteering to meet with him or her for private discussions on the points at issue, if not more.
The head of the Mission to the World Assembly from the Principalities of Gobbannium isn't strictly speaking an ambassador, and feels a bit strange referring to herself in the third person. I don't think there's a lot of point in meeting with Ms Fishkaptisto until she's done the background reading. On the other hand, if the ambassador's cute...

This resolution is sound Psitrias fully supports

The Serene Republic of WallaWallaWallaby opposes this resolution. We're so serene we don't even have to justify our stance, because we are secure in our own wisdom.

Serenely,

Kapok McFinsterene
Potentate of World Serenity

The parliament of the kingdom, after spending their days before taking off for the holidays, took on this repeal. Many of the members agree that by letting the public weigh into the jury deliberations leaves less power to the judges and prosecutors.

Therefore, on behalf of His Majesty King Michael I, by the Grace of God and the kingdom, I duly APPROVE this repeal.

Doña Grace Consuelo de Aramade-Cortez
Representative to the WA, The United Kingdom of Santos Rivera and San Guillermo

I beg you to vote against because if you were a criminal wouldn't you want a fair trial or would you like to be defended by the crappiest lawyers around?? If a country doesn't have a fair judicial system then maybe that country doesn't deserve to be called a democracy. If your child took something from a store when they were really young wouldn't you want them to get a fair trial???
VOTE AGAINST THE REPEAL!!!!!!!!

I don't think anyone here ever said they were a democracy ambassador. We people of The Crimson Storm are ruled by the will of our Lord Rahl and no one else.

-Eamon Teeling, Ambassador of The Crimson Storm and Steward to Lord Richard Rahl

Yes. About 3500 characters. That's not a lot of space if you're trying to be careful.

There actually is a limit?

Now I see your point, though I still think the resolution is sound.

Exactly the problem. His Nibs was saying that this is a bad thing, and goes on to construct a few examples showing why. Openness in general is a good thing; absolute openness, with no exceptions, isn't.

That's perfectly fine and dandy, I oobviously was not interpreting the resolution correctly.

No, it's more strictly part of clause 6.

I think I got my quotes mixed up.


Following on from the previous point, suppose that the prosecution or defense can make a case that your medical records are relevant to the case. Congratulations, your medical history is now a public document. I hope there's nothing embarrassing in it.

Ahh.

That's nice for you, but you might want to take a peek at my earlier point about inept spies.

Exactly - it reinforces my belief in the point and my belief in the following point, that has been slowly realized:

You slightly mistake my argument. There is a balance to be struck between privacy and openness. The resolution doesn't strike it, instead going for total openness.

This quote was not directed to me, but it is, I think, what may change my mind. I did not see the loophole, after all.

The head of the Mission to the World Assembly from the Principalities of Gobbannium isn't strictly speaking an ambassador, and feels a bit strange referring to herself in the third person. I don't think there's a lot of point in meeting with Ms Fishkaptisto until she's done the background reading. On the other hand, if the ambassador's cute...

Allright, have fun with that.



My opinion has slowly changed to in favor - but before I change my vote, one thing holds me back: A new resolution. The problem, which I am sure has plagued every repeal in WA history, is thus: Can we guarantee that these flaws, as well as the good parts (most of it) of the old resolution, can be combined together? What if we miss one? Then we have to start all over again. Could it be a cycle of never-ending things?

Has everyone forgotten what they're debating?

You guys are advertising for your home page when you forget that the very thing you're here to do is to state your opinion!

Here's mine-

Criminal's deserve a fair trial- Especially if Psychotic it's important that we realize that voting for this resolution is voting for disbandment of political freedoms.

:mad::mad:This resolution is sound Psitrias fully supportsWhat's a matter w/ you?
Don't you see voting for this appeal is voting against political freedoms?
Don't even dignify me with a response because I'm not up to hear one after seeing how careless this resolution is to you BUT
It affects everyone so think about that.

My opinion has slowly changed to in favor - but before I change my vote, one thing holds me back: A new resolution. The problem, which I am sure has plagued every repeal in WA history, is thus: Can we guarantee that these flaws, as well as the good parts (most of it) of the old resolution, can be combined together? What if we miss one? Then we have to start all over again. Could it be a cycle of never-ending things?
Gobbannium's version of a new resolution is still available for comment and fine tuning (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374), and indeed is due a little work as a result of recent debate. We can never guarantee to get these things absolutely right, we can just debate, challenge, defend and update until we are reasonably sure. While we're confident enough of what we've got to have a tentative timetable for its submission, it's always possible that the renewed debate will throw up showstoppers.

Has everyone forgotten what they're debating?

::checks papers:: Whether to repeal "Fair Criminal Trial" so that we can replace it with something better, yes?

You guys are advertising for your home page when you forget that the very thing you're here to do is to state your opinion!
If you're only here to state your opinion, you're not doing anyone any good, yourself included. If you're here to debate, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Criminal's deserve a fair trial- Especially if Psychotic
No disagreement here, other than I think "even if psychotic" makes the point slightly better.

it's important that we realize that voting for this resolution is voting for disbandment of political freedoms.
It's also important to realise that you can't amend WA resolutions. Therefore when you think a current resolution is a bit crap, like I think of "Fair Criminal Trial", you have to repeal it and replace it with something wholly new. Oh, and it's human rights, not political rights, to be strictly accurate.

Has everyone forgotten what they're debating?

You guys are advertising for your home page when you forget that the very thing you're here to do is to state your opinion!


The opinion of the Most Serene Republic of WallaWallaWallaby is that repealing this resolution before the implementation of an improved resolution guaranteeing fair criminal trial is unwise and would lead to a definite decrease in the serenity of the World.

Therefore the Most Serene Republic of WallaWallaWallaby does not support this resolution.

Serenely,

Kapok McFinsterene
Potentate of World Serenity

The opinion of the Most Serene Republic of WallaWallaWallaby is that repealing this resolution before the implementation of an improved resolution guaranteeing fair criminal trial is unwise and would lead to a definite decrease in the serenity of the World.

Therefore the Most Serene Republic of WallaWallaWallaby does not support this resolution.

Serenely,

Kapok McFinsterene
Potentate of World Serenity
The old resolution must be repealed before the replacement can be submitted.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

The Council of the Republic of Praetura have gone over the current issue. Here are their comments:

WORRIED that dealing with both pre-trial and at-trial rights in a single resolution leaves too little room for either,

"Repealing a passed issue that concerns BOTH pre-trial and at-trial rights without adequetly explaining what our options are for a replacement is unacceptable. If the resolution prior contained both sets of rights, then this can as well."

CONCERNED that witnesses may refuse cross-examination at their whim,

The Council has recognized this as a flaw and concur with your concern. They have yet to release a formal statement on an appropriate solution.

AWARE that the right to face one's accusers is an essential part of a free trial,

"That is irrelevent and should be stricken from the record."

CONCERNED that trials must be fully open, and may in no part take place in privacy,

The Council demands a reason as to why you display concern over the understandable unwillingness for an individual to lay his life before his friends and neighbors.

The Council also asks why one does not consider high-profile cases such as celebrities, as well as matters of national security.

"Will you put your nation's safety into jeopardy because your repeal DEMANDED public trials?"

VERY CONCERNED that jury deliberations are part of a trial, and that public deliberation will put undue pressures on jurists,

"One cannot have the deliberation be part of the trial AND have no outside pressures. Furthermore, with the knowledge that diliberations may last hours on end (even up to days), one cannot take the time of government officials such as the District Attorneys, Public Defenders, and judges when , not only their involvement inexistent, but illegal!"

ALARMED that the defence counsel must be supplied with any documentation relevant to the case, no matter how confidential,

"We cannot relate the alarm. The right of 'discovery' is mandatory. How would one call a resolution a 'fair trial' when the defense is prohibited to know the evidence of which the state has against the accused!"

APPALLED that client/patient privilege, amongst other confidential arrangements, is thus wiped out at a stroke,

"The Council believes that the client/patient priviledge is important although it is NOT a right the state grants to the accused but a right between legal counsel and client."

ALARMED that files related to national security can also be revealed and discussed in detail in open court,

"The Council believes that you contradict yourself...

You wrote:

CONCERNED that trials must be fully open, and may in no part take place in privacy,

[end]

This point must be elaborated on, if I am mistaken?

OUTRAGED at the security hole that every single member nation of the World Assembly is now required to have,

"Indeed...a security hole that will only broaden if your current draft if this repeal is passed."

VERDICT

The Council of the Republic of Praetura votes AGAINST the Repeal of Resolution #13 and PLEADS with the World Assembly to reconsider the repeal until a more concrete plan is laid out.

totally agree

totally agree
The Council for James Bluntus Votes in favor of the Legislation.

:confused:We decalre this is a breech of the human and civil rights to privacy.

You have my vote. We can't have wittnesses withdrawing cause they don't want to testify against the accused. We will have more criminals on the streets than in cells My country is a democratic country where people have their say but this is just taking it to far. I will vote for this legislation.

Gobbannium's version of a new resolution is still available for comment and fine tuning (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374), and indeed is due a little work as a result of recent debate. We can never guarantee to get these things absolutely right, we can just debate, challenge, defend and update until we are reasonably sure. While we're confident enough of what we've got to have a tentative timetable for its submission, it's always possible that the renewed debate will throw up showstoppers.

The hazards of the World Assembly, is it not? The proceedings must process until all is correct. All the evil must be purged, as a clergyman may say. I have read over your new, drafted fixing of the Fair Criminal Trial, which looks like it is to be repealed (congradulations on that) and I have yet to form an opinion. It seems incomplete, for some reason.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to remark about this, but has anybody ever seen any actual legislation where the first word of each sentence is a ridiculous, all-caps phrase like OUTRAGED, as though that somehow validates the quality of the resolution? I mean, come on. This is a legal document, not a speech at a civil rights protest.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to remark about this, but has anybody ever seen any actual legislation where the first word of each sentence is a ridiculous, all-caps phrase like OUTRAGED, as though that somehow validates the quality of the resolution? I mean, come on. This is a legal document, not a speech at a civil rights protest.


Write a repeal yourself, honoured Ambassador, making sure it complies with w.a. law on how to do so. Look back over the legislative record of this organisation, prove to us that you could write anything even half as good as its most poorly framed statute and then bother to give your ill-informed opinion of this repeal's worth.

Yours e.t.c. ,

On behalf of our region, the Altan Steppes has voted for this repeal. We look forward to seeing the replacement come up for vote.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I'm sure I'm not the first person to remark about this, but has anybody ever seen any actual legislation where the first word of each sentence is a ridiculous, all-caps phrase like OUTRAGED, as though that somehow validates the quality of the resolution? I mean, come on. This is a legal document, not a speech at a civil rights protest.
It's a fairly common practice in the writing of laws, treaties, contracts, municipal ordinances, proclamations and other legal documents. So yes, I'm pretty sure others have seen actual legislation where the first word of each clause is in all caps.

I believe that instead of repealing this piece of legislation we should ammend it.

You cannot amend resolutions. Only repeal and replace them.

This body of ambassadors has proven itself foolish and overreaching to have repealed this resolution. The notion of a fair trial is not a homogeneous one, and shouldn't be. Shame on those with the chronic ability to ignore reality and read only what they want to read. Shame further that we allow ourselves to be swayed by the side that first takes the lead.

Who repealed that? This is it this is the last straw the World Assembly has gone too far I resign.

This body of ambassadors has proven itself foolish and overreaching to have repealed this resolution. The notion of a fair trial is not a homogeneous one, and shouldn't be. Shame on those with the chronic ability to ignore reality and read only what they want to read. Shame further that we allow ourselves to be swayed by the side that first takes the lead.

Are we to assume, then, that you've read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374), and do not consider it an acceptable replacement? If so, why not?

Who repealed that? This is it this is the last straw the World Assembly has gone too far I resign.

Um...the nation that submitted the repeal is the one that "repealed that". Their name is right at the top of the repeal and everything. If you really do resign, we claim any office supplies and furniture left in your office.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It passes! That's the second hit for the Gobbannaen WA Mission!

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the honoured and esteemed delegation of Gobbannaen WA Mission on their excellent success.

His Divine Majesty the Emperor also wishes to convey his sincerest felicitations to the Gobbanaen WA Mission.


May the the Horde of the Gobbanaen ride swift across the plane and ever to their banner for all time.


Yours sincerely, Tamerlane, Khan of Samarkand and Bhukhara, Grand Chancellor of the Empire and Chamberlain of the Imperial Household of Urgench

Our congratulations to the Gobbannaen WA Mission on the passage of the proposal!

Richard York
WA Ambassador

If the nay sayers have a problem with this, they must support criminals. You have to support this repeal and support the proposel. It's like letting accused law breakers go free without a trial. I only joined yesterday and I am going to use my vote as a vote to show where my country stand as a democratic country. The Commonwealth of James Bluntus stand firm on this issue and we are going to support the legislation

If the nay sayers have a problem with this, they must support criminals. You have to support this repeal and support the proposel. It's like letting accused law breakers go free without a trial. I only joined yesterday and I am going to use my vote as a vote to show where my country stand as a democratic country. The Commonwealth of James Bluntus stand firm on this issue and we are going to support the legislation

Bluntus~

The Republic of Praetura does not support crime. We do however support that they do have a right to be treated fairly. If you do not have a fair trial, then anyone and anyone could be just thrown into jail with no chance to adequately defend themself. That means that without a fair trial, you yourself, the leader of the Commonwealth of James Bluntus, could be falsely imprisoned. That is the purpose of trial. It is not just to mock them publicly.

Wow. I'd like to thank everyone who helped me knock this repeal into shape, even the ones ::stares narrowly at the unwholesome Senator Sulla:: who were trying to persuade me to be as tactless as I really wanted to be. Special thanks to Yelda for some very persuasive telegramming. Getting pleasant comments from Gatesville was... slightly disconcerting, actually. Finally, thank you to everyone who voted the repeal through.

Gobbannium will begin the process of setting up a full-scale embassy here at the WA again soon, and retiring this mission now that it's no longer needed. While I'll personally regret not being my own boss, I still know how to get His Nibs to do what I want.

A few last comments to the last comments:

The hazards of the World Assembly, is it not? The proceedings must process until all is correct. All the evil must be purged, as a clergyman may say. I have read over your new, drafted fixing of the Fair Criminal Trial, which looks like it is to be repealed (congradulations on that) and I have yet to form an opinion. It seems incomplete, for some reason.
Probably because it doesn't try to cover everything. Justice systems are huge things, and the proceedings of a criminal trial are just one part of it. Matters of arrest and detention, pre-trial rights, civil trials, sentencing, appeals and so on aren't addressed at all, deliberately. In addition, there's a lot of flexibility in the how trials can be run and still be fair. Lots of nations do things in different ways, but if they all produce fair results then there's no good reason for us to force one to be used rather than another.

That said, if you think that there's anything missing from the proposal that should be there, please do say so. I may not agree, but I'll certainly think it through.

This body of ambassadors has proven itself foolish and overreaching to have repealed this resolution. The notion of a fair trial is not a homogeneous one, and shouldn't be. Shame on those with the chronic ability to ignore reality and read only what they want to read. Shame further that we allow ourselves to be swayed by the side that first takes the lead.
Uh, Benjy, are you feeling well? You sounded like you were pontificating without having read the repeal, Fair Criminal Trial itself, or the replacement.

Uh, Benjy, are you feeling well? You sounded like you were pontificating without having read the repeal, Fair Criminal Trial itself, or the replacement.

Repeal to replace has a shaky history to begin with, and yes, I've read both the original, the repeal, and the replacement. This was a case of repeal-itis, nothing more. But I'm too used to it to do anything more than this, so please, have at it. Let's go for complete homogeneity across the WA.

Are we to assume, then, that you've read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374), and do not consider it an acceptable replacement? If so, why not?

Vague. Imperial. Demanding. Unreasonable. Expensive (which dovetails back to "vague").

Seriously, though, it's passed, and further debate is beyond moot.

Although the Council opposed the repeal, the Council of Praetura extends it congratulations to Gobbannium in it's success.

Repeal to replace has a shaky history to begin with
No it doesn't. The two repeals the WA passed prior to this led immediately to replacement legislation. In the UN, similar efforts worked for topics including: slavery and forced labour, bioweapons (twice), maritime law, forestry, copyrights, and fossil fuel reduction.

I can't think of any examples of repeals that genuinely promised a replacement that wasn't then delivered.
Vague...Demanding
If it's so vague, can't you just ignore its demands?

Anyway, our congratulations to the Gobbanneans on passage of their repeal.

Vague. Imperial. Demanding. Unreasonable. Expensive (which dovetails back to "vague").

It isn't too late to make more detailed comments, you know.

--
Permanent Undersecretary Cerys Coch.
Has anyone seen the Brasso?

With the Fair Criminal Trial resolution gone for good, can we assume Gobbannium's reapplication (http://z6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=1746) to the World Assembly will be forthcoming?

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

With the Fair Criminal Trial resolution gone for good, can we assume Gobbannium's reapplication (http://z6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=1746) to the World Assembly will be forthcoming?

It's in the post. I think the High Prince might be planning a feel-good announcement for Christmas Day.

--
Permanent Undersecretary Cerys Coch, Mistress of Duster-Fu

And it passed rightfully so:):hail:

No it doesn't. The two repeals the WA passed prior to this led immediately to replacement legislation. In the UN, similar efforts worked for topics including: slavery and forced labour, bioweapons (twice), maritime law, forestry, copyrights, and fossil fuel reduction.

I can't think of any examples of repeals that genuinely promised a replacement that wasn't then delivered.

If it's so vague, can't you just ignore its demands?

Anyway, our congratulations to the Gobbanneans on passage of their repeal.

Oh, trust me.

The Intangible Ministry of Creative Compliance is already on task.

I can't think of any examples of a repeal/replace effort that failed to produce a replacement.