NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE:I AM AWARE THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN PASSED BEFORE BUT HAS BEEN REPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS A WEAK LAW BACAUSE OF GLOBAL CULTRAL REASONS THIS IS MY PROPOSAL TO WHY IT SHOULD BE MADE A RESOLUTION AGAIN WHY WE BEING THE ASSEMBALED GOVERNMENTAL LEADERS OF THE WORLD SHOULD PASS THE RIGHTS TO/OF A FAIR TRIAL AND THE DESCRIPTION THEREOF
THE FACT:THat we must understand what a "FAIR" TRIAL is
PROPOSAL PART 1:That each and every person being out on trial has the international right to be jured by 12 peers of random choosing,that they are to be seen as innocent until proven guilty,and that they have the right to know exactly what they are being accused of and by whom their being accused.
PROPOSAL PART 2:That each trial must consist of a non-bias judge understanding the principles of justice and judgement,that each person on trial has the right to an attnorney even if they cant afford one,and that the jury can only pronounce the person guilty if they know if 100 percent without a reasonable doubt in their minds that their is enough evidence pointing that the accused person did that which they are said to have done
DESCRIPTION OF:what an "UNFAIR" TRIAL is
.Anything resulting in the assumption by the judge or jury that the person is guilty because of their race,nationallity,religion,etc.
.That a judge would give someone found guilty an unreasonable punishment for their crime.
.That any peron be denied his or her rights listed above and the right to choose to testify for them selfs.
.That any person be under double jepordy.
FUTHER MORE:as we the members of the world assemblyare to be reasonable to everyone else we must consider that we are to pass this proposal once more and that it should not be repealed without a fact givenunderstandable counter proposal i look to you fellow delegates to look at what would be right for the citezens 'round the world,
THANK YOU
United Triage

I DO NOT THINK YOUR PROPOSAL CONTAINS ENOUGH CAPITALISATION SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT it.

why not what do you mean

im new at this so help me tell me what is wrong in it

I'm sorry, I was being silly. I apologise.

I'm not sure requiring a trial by jury is a sensible way to go. Consider, for example, a fraud case. These are often years long and immensely complicated. They are not well suited to being judged by lay amateurs. Furthermore, you say someone should not be judged on race or religion; but a jury is far more susceptible to such bias than is a professional whose career depends on their impartiality.

So, the first thing I think you should do is provide a justification for requiring trial by jury in all cases.

Indeed many trials would be gravely compromised in the commission of justice were they to rely on the prudence of juries.

Trials of war criminals are a good example of this.


We would suggest that the authors of this draft consider carefully who they wish to secure fair trial to and under what circumstances.


Yours,

well yes having a jury is a risk but its a nesssecary one id much rather be judged by 12 people of differant views than a judge who might take over the trial and find me guilty just to do so its worked in the courts of america i dont see why it wouldnt work and if yet you still have worries bring to me a defined work on what a jury must have and do and the juristictions of one and i would say we have a fair trial to any one even war criminals because thats would be vialating their rights to be seen as someone whom may not have commited those warcrimes they are said to have done

Punctuation would aid comprehension of your statements, honoured Ambassador, and reference to the mythical "Real World" will not lend them any particular weight here.


Yours,

Nigel glanced over at Max the translator. Who's face was twisted in such a manor that Nigel knew he wasn't the only one who didn't understand what the ambassador from United Triage was saying.

We believe that the concept of a fair trial is something that is better left up to the individual nations to decide.

We agree in principle that the right to a FAIR trial is of the utmost importance, yet, whether that happens to be by jury is another matter.

I voted against the previous "Fair Trial" resolution because, well, it wasn't fair. Mandating how a nation should conduct judicial matters is extremely difficult, as many cultures have different protocol for such matters.

I would not support any proposal pertaining to how trials should be conducted.

I would have to agree with this sentiment, I could not myself support nor find support from my government for any resolution that dictated how exactly we conducted our judicial proceedings.

very well all tho i do think we should have some form of law saying what cant be done in trials do you think its fair to let an innocent man be chatged the death penelty because hes acuused of killing a man and the judge says he did it because of some unfair reason mabey my proposal isnt the answer but we must do something about the unfair judical courts in the world assembly should we not?

Nigel stood up.... "Is there a severe outbreak of judicial prejudice somewhere that I wasn't aware of. The ambassador from United Triage should take care before he paints with such a wide brush."

fine then from right now i withdraw this as a possible proposal of mine altho i do think we should take in effect this some day

We are not suggesting that you abandon the proposal we are suggesting your realize there are hundreds of different delegates here all of which approach their judicial systems in different ways. A jury trial is not automatically fair, nor is a judicial proceeding automatically unfair.

When you start with that premise then you may have a better chance of gaining more acceptance for your concepts.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP WA Ambassador

OOC: All jokes aside, proper punctuation, capitalization, and non txtspeak will go along way as well.

We apologise for not having responded earlier; we regret to say that our eyes were defeated by the sheer density of the text.

(OOC: this is actually a serious point. I read this at 2am, and I quite literally couldn't read it. More line breaks between paragraphs would have helped a lot, as would not putting your introduction in all capitals.)

We are at present polishing the draft of a replacement "Fair Trials" proposal which we hope will address the issues that the United Triagian delegation considers important, but that is no reason to ignore an alternative viewpoint. Thus, apologising once more for our tardiness, let us turn to the details.

NOTE:I AM AWARE THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN PASSED BEFORE BUT HAS BEEN REPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS A WEAK LAW BACAUSE OF GLOBAL CULTRAL REASONS
As the author of the repeal, we can state with some authority that cultural imperialism was not a great fault in the most recent Fair Trials legislation; indeed it was a considerable improvement on its predecessor in this regard.

THE FACT:THat we must understand what a "FAIR" TRIAL is
While we are unsure that this statement deserves the sobriquet of "fact", it is in truth a most excellent start to the process of proposal writing, and we wish that others were so perspicacious.

PROPOSAL PART 1:That each and every person being out on trial has the international right to be jured by 12 peers of random choosing,
We must concur with others that jury trial is not always the best or fairest choice. The example of complex fraud trials has been brought up earlier; at the opposite end of the spectrum, consider the ceremonial clearing of the "drunk tank" that is carried out in many nations by a single magistrate. A jury will clearly not add any fairness to this situation, since there is little to add, but it would dramatically reduce the efficiency of the process. Bear in mind that this proposal as it stands is seeking to cover all trials, not merely criminal court cases!

In addition, the wording is more than a little ambiguous; does "12 peers" mean twelve people of similar socio-economic background to the person on trial, twelve peers of the realm where aristocracies are permitted to exist, or something else we have not thought of?

that they are to be seen as innocent until proven guilty,
While this is a principle we personally adhere to, we have seen effective and fair judicial systems that presume the opposite. As long as the trial process itself is fair, we aren't convinced that this principle is necessary for fair trials.

and that they have the right to know exactly what they are being accused of and by whom their being accused.
On a matter of grammatical nit-picking, it should be "they're" or more preferably "they are" rather than "their". Other than that we are in general agreement, though we note that the matter of the accusor is slightly fraught. In many cases it is the state that is the formal accusor, which leads us to suspect that this right would need careful thought before its inclusion.

PROPOSAL PART 2:That each trial must consist of a non-bias judge understanding the principles of justice and judgement,
"Unbiased" rather than "non-bias", but aside from that we would argue that the judge should know the law as it pertains to the case as well. A more serious point is that this mandates a single judge, when it is not uncommon to find a panel of judges presiding.

that each person on trial has the right to an attnorney even if they cant afford one,
"Attorney" and "can't"; at this point we confess that we stopped paying attention to spelling and grammar, though there are further problems in those regards.

We understand the meaning even if we use different words ourselves for legal representatives. However, this is simply insufficient. How are representatives to be put in place when the accused cannot afford one? As this is phrased, the state can comply fully by simply saying "You are entitled to an attorney, good luck finding one who will represent you for free." Couching law in terms of "rights" is littered with pitfalls such as this.

and that the jury can only pronounce the person guilty if they know if 100 percent without a reasonable doubt in their minds that their is enough evidence pointing that the accused person did that which they are said to have done
There are cases for which this is appropriate and necessary, such as murder trials, and cases for which it is entirely inappropriate, such as speeding fines. Mandating it for all trials would seem unhelpful at best.

DESCRIPTION OF:what an "UNFAIR" TRIAL is
Given that you do nothing subsequently with regard to "unfair trials", this section does not help in the slightest. It is however instructive to see how the rest of the proposal does or does not avoid triggering this definition.

* Anything resulting in the assumption by the judge or jury that the person is guilty because of their race,nationallity,religion,etc.
The judge is required to be unbiased, and the jury is required to be entirely certain based on evidence that the accused commited the crime. The proposal passes this test, although we have issues with the way in which it does.

* That a judge would give someone found guilty an unreasonable punishment for their crime.
This is not covered at all. We are of the opinion that fairness of sentencing belongs in a different proposal in any case, since it is a large subject all its own.

* That any peron be denied his or her rights listed above and the right to choose to testify for them selfs.
The right to testify for themselves has not been given, so the proposal fails this test. We are somewhat of the opinion that this test should be failed, since we have some slight doubts that the right to testify is a reasonable one.

* That any person be under double jepordy.
The term being undefined, the resolution may or may not pass it. If this is intended to refer to not trying a person for the same crime twice without strong extenuating circumstances, then the matter is unaddressed and the proposal consequently fails the test.

FUTHER MORE:as we the members of the world assemblyare to be reasonable to everyone else
This has not been required in the resolution, and would be laughed at were anyone to attempt it.

[...] we must consider that we are to pass this proposal once more and that it should not be repealed without a fact givenunderstandable counter proposal i look to you fellow delegates to look at what would be right for the citezens 'round the world,
THANK YOU
We confess that this final sentence-portion defeated us entirely. We would ask what the honoured ambassador intended it to mean, since in reality it is gibberish. We suspect that it is attempting to place conditions on any repeal of itself, which would be illegal.

ok i admit it i was typing fast and didnt notice the mis spellings and i see the failures this was just a practice proposal for me i am ver political and i try to give every answer to questions that i myself would have on a topic that i write about thats why i put some of the things in there and i like to go into full detail about most things thank you all for your help i appreciate it very much

and i will try to sway from the txt talk i was in a hurry to get it out there before i forgot every thing i had on the top of my head

I am currently "writting out" a new proposal on a diferant topic,but before I get to far I would like to know is their any resolution that I may have over looked that baneds slavery and if not would it be right to make one according to the legal terms.

WORLD ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #23, Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, this act comprehensively banned slavery within w.a. member states some time ago, honoured Ambassador.

Perhaps in future your delegation should read through the list of passed resolutions.


Yours,

I did read the past resolutions I probably didnt notice it or something thank you for telling me.