NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

DESIROUS that the due process of law not be side-stepped by detention without trial,

CONCERNED that individuals can be harrassed by repeated accusations that have been disproven in law,

AWARE of the need to balance the needs of legal systems with the rights of the individual,

MANDATES the following:

1) That no person may be detained by a public or private security force unless they are charged with a criminal offence or formally suspected of a criminal offence.

2) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for more than forty eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence. Time during which judicial authorities are not active (such as weekends or public holidays) to a maximum of ninety six hours shall not be counted to this period; in other words, a person may be held for up to 144 hours provided that the judicial authorities are available for no more than 48 of those hours.

3) That a person so charged must be informed of the formal charge immediately.

4) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial.

5) Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted under national law to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.

6) Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued when there exists new evidence that the issuing authority deems might have an effect on the verdict. For this purpose, evidence previously excluded by virtue of technical irregularities which have been corrected may be considered 'new.'
This is our first attempt at an essential companion law to those ensuring Fair Trials, and we would like to invite comment and corrigenda from any interested parties. We are particularly concerned that this only makes nuisance detention more tedious on the perpetrators; sadly we can think of no simple way of fixing the obvious loophole without distinctly undesirable consequences for genuine but badly timed action.

If you can get this to quorum in less than 15 tries, I'll buy you an Ennish shandy in the Stranger's Bar.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

IC: In the Bar, Violet is surprised to come on Neville having a telephonic temper tantrum:

" ...we have a contract! I've got it here in front of me now! It says, '... to supply in perpetutity any or all alcoholic beverages whatsoever and howsoever produced, in whole or in part by the following nations' ... and then there's a list of nations, and one of the nations is, guess what, ENN! ... no, I don't care that Enn has ceased to exist. that's your problem ... whaddya mean, 'not legally enforceable'? Let me tell you, Sunny Jim, there's more than one way to enforce a contract!"

Discovering he has a witness, the BarLord turns, somewhat shamefaced.

"Well, you know how stubborn the Gobbannians are," he mumbles. "We have to be prepared."

Secretary of Crime & Punishment, and the current international Instrument of Unibotian Diplomacy, Commander Walter "Dookie" Zhildigo rode into the assembly on an impressive stallion - with his usual armaments stripped at the door for security with the exception of his sabre which was left due to ceremonial & cultural reasons.

The tardy, slow talking commander scratched his white beard as he stepped off his horse beside his desk.

"On that note, let it be heard that Unibot shall resoundly declareth their new instrument of timekeeping to be the Hour. Such an invention shall be significantly different than the Gobbannium Hour or the Stash Kroh Hour or any another mode de time that is indeed fractal and subjective to our international borders. In fact our hour shall be so different, that for one to describe how long it will take to bake a cake - he would be required to state "only a 2.4 millionth of an Hour"."

OOC: If that's an RPd pointer to a loophole, it won't wash under the "reasonable nation" convention: ie, a reasonable nation would not require an author to include a definition of "hour" in a proposal because the use of the term is sufficiently widespread in NS for it to be understood without -- despite the probability that some (by implication, unreasonable?) nations don't count time in hours. If it passed, you'd still have to comply by observing the specified time period (described in the proposal in hours) in your particular nation's temporal units.

(Don't take this as a modly objection to RPing points. My RPd post, however, was pointless. *slap*)

I believe the procedures for "full legal authorisation for a retrial" should be specifically addressed. As it stands the language regarding this provision seems to be overly vague and easily vulnerable to legal manipulation.

OOC: If that's an RPd pointer to a loophole, it won't wash under the "reasonable nation" convention: ie, a reasonable nation would not require an author to include a definition of "hour" in a proposal because the use of the term is sufficiently widespread in NS for it to be understood without -- despite the probability that some (by implication, unreasonable?) nations don't count time in hours. If it passed, you'd still have to comply by observing the specified time period (described in the proposal in hours) in your particular nation's temporal units.

(Don't take this as a modly objection to RPing points. My RPd post, however, was pointless. *slap*)
OOC: Bears Armed divides the day into 8 'watches' from sunrise to sunset, and another 8 from sunset to sunrise.

Days are better than hours. Hours go into huge numbers and it is easy to lose count with such a system unless you have a calculator.

Anyone remember when Ceorana actually did define an hour, in terms of the decay of a strontium isotope? :D

I'm sorry it's early and the coffee machine in my office is broken. Is number 3 a blanket double jeopardy clause for all crimes?

EDIT: NEVERMIND the coffee machine got fixed... I understand now. :D

OOC: If that's an RPd pointer to a loophole, it won't wash under the "reasonable nation" convention: ie, a reasonable nation would not require an author to include a definition of "hour" in a proposal because the use of the term is sufficiently widespread in NS for it to be understood without -- despite the probability that some (by implication, unreasonable?) nations don't count time in hours. If it passed, you'd still have to comply by observing the specified time period (described in the proposal in hours) in your particular nation's temporal units.


OOC: My point was that a nation may have altered what an hour is in their nation - which is odd, and unprobable.

I suppose it is alright.... I suppose...., its just in most cases (I think, Gobbannium even pointed out to me) its better to stray away from technical specifics like such.

Anyone remember when Ceorana actually did define an hour, in terms of the decay of a strontium isotope? :DYes, although I've fogotten what the proposal concerned was actually about: maximum working time per week, or minimum wage, or something of the kind?

What is the problem with basing it on something like. "Accepted Regional Daytime Cycles" or something... you know, better phrased.

Yes, although I've fogotten what the proposal concerned was actually about: maximum working time per week, or minimum wage, or something of the kind?No: it was about patents. The patent was going to expire after 25 of these babies! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394690&postcount=41)

Anyway, ahem, about this proposal. Would a possibility for clause 1 be saying a redetainment/rearrest can only be made if an evidentiary burden equal or greater to that presented for the first arrest is met?

Where in clause one does it reference rearrests?

At any rate, double jeopardy be bad. We will oppose this measure should it come to vote.

Besides, isn't the 48-hour time limit rather arbitrary?

I can observe that the number of hours a suspect can be held varies quite significantly. What I think would be appropriate would be a compromise from a consensus between us as it has been done when we debated on abortion, and the fact that the suspect should not be subject to torture or such.

My opinion is 14 days at the maximum.

I believe the procedures for "full legal authorisation for a retrial" should be specifically addressed. As it stands the language regarding this provision seems to be overly vague and easily vulnerable to legal manipulation.
The honoured ambassador is quite correct, and the omission is entirely our fault. It was our intention to specify that a retrial also required new evidence that the authorisers consider might have an effect on the verdict. This should include evidence previously excluded for technical irregularities, provided those irregularities will not again cause its exclusion.

Anyway, ahem, about this proposal. Would a possibility for clause 1 be saying a redetainment/rearrest can only be made if an evidentiary burden equal or greater to that presented for the first arrest is met?
Not for clause 1, we think. That only references detainment, for which there is no evidentiary burden. (OOC: and which was the huge gaping flaw in the "Suss" laws of my youth. Ah, happy memory :)) Perhaps we could work in something concerning new reasons to suspect the individual, but such is a very subjective evaluation and we are not entirely happy proceeding in such a direction.

At any rate, double jeopardy be bad. We will oppose this measure should it come to vote.
We must, naturally, demur. Double jeopardy unqualified can be a stumbling block to justice, but even then such problems tend to indicate an ossifying legal system which has quite other problems to deal with. Properly qualified -- and again we must apologise for our carelessness in failing to include such text --, double jeapardy will not change the legal outcome, and will prevent nuisance arrests.

Consider that the rule as will be redrafted allows retrial only when there is new evidence, or when correctable irregularities have been corrected allowing old evidence to be submitted for consideration. Without these conditions, the evidence presented to a retrial will be exactly the same as the evidence presented to the original trial. It is quite against the tenets of natural law to expect a different adjudication under those circumstances, and such a retrial therefore becomes nothing more than a waste of time and money.

Besides, isn't the 48-hour time limit rather arbitrary?
Somewhat, yes. We considered 24 hours, but felt that to be rather low. Recall, however, that this is the time a person may be detained before being charged, and that the time a person may be held after being formally charged has no unreasonable restrictions placed on it.

My opinion is 14 days at the maximum.
Our opinion is that such a term is wildly excessive, and is precisely the sort of thing we wish to prevent.

There are so many loopholes in this that renders it ineffective.

I can't detain someone for more than 48 hours without a formal charge? Ok, I'll detain them 48 hours, release them, detain them another 48 hours, etc.

I can't retry people who we know committed the crime but pulled some legal shit out of their asses? I pin their name on Divinen's Most Wanted and the citizens have him dead in 24 hours.

I can also formally charge someone and then just hold them indefinitely, years, decades, till they die of old age and never get to see a courtroom.

I can also authorize anyone who I feel by a simple change to the legal system to declare a retrial.

This resolution is utterly useless and should be kept off the floor.

There are so many loopholes in this that renders it ineffective.

I can't detain someone for more than 48 hours without a formal charge? Ok, I'll detain them 48 hours, release them, detain them another 48 hours, etc.
Precisely the loophole we invited comment upon. Has the honoured ambassador any suggestions?

I can't retry people who we know committed the crime but pulled some legal shit out of their asses? I pin their name on Divinen's Most Wanted and the citizens have him dead in 24 hours.
If the honoured ambassador's respect for justice is so low, we cannot help him.

I can also formally charge someone and then just hold them indefinitely, years, decades, till they die of old age and never get to see a courtroom.
Except that the legislation concerning fair trials cuts in the moment a formal charge is brought, so actually no, you can't do that.

I can also authorize anyone who I feel by a simple change to the legal system to declare a retrial.
We invite the honoured ambassador to pay attention to the debate thus far.

I oppose this on principle. I see it as an effort to reduce a nation's ability to protect themselves. If there is fear of rebellion, invasion, etc., drastic action needs to be taken to defend your nation. Sometimes detention needs to last more than 48 hours to ensure the safety of the nation. There are no exceptions for war, rebellion, invasion, etc., etc. Until exceptions are added the Empire of Mussolioni will not support this.

The honoured ambassador is quite correct, and the omission is entirely our fault. It was our intention to specify that a retrial also required new evidence that the authorisers consider might have an effect on the verdict. This should include evidence previously excluded for technical irregularities, provided those irregularities will not again cause its exclusion.


Although I am not certain that a perfect solution exists, I have encountered cases wherein a reviewing judge will dismiss a prisoner's plea for habeas corpus out of prejudice against the incarcerated. The arguments against granting the request are often laughable.

Will there be a provision providing for a review commission or board that will oversee the authorisers' decisions?

HRH Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane

I oppose this on principle. I see it as an effort to reduce a nation's ability to protect themselves. If there is fear of rebellion, invasion, etc., drastic action needs to be taken to defend your nation. Sometimes detention needs to last more than 48 hours to ensure the safety of the nation. There are no exceptions for war, rebellion, invasion, etc., etc. Until exceptions are added the Empire of Mussolioni will not support this.

I'm unclear as to why you might need longer that 48 hours to formally charge someone suspected of harming the safety of your nation.

I oppose this on principle. I see it as an effort to reduce a nation's ability to protect themselves. If there is fear of rebellion, invasion, etc., drastic action needs to be taken to defend your nation. Sometimes detention needs to last more than 48 hours to ensure the safety of the nation. There are no exceptions for war, rebellion, invasion, etc., etc. Until exceptions are added the Empire of Mussolioni will not support this.

The solution is simple. You charge them with something. If you fear rebellion, then wouldn't your government consider that suspicion of treason? We certainly do and it is a chargeable offense in the Republic. It allows us to hold an individual indefinitely. They've been charged and they are under investigation at that point while being held in custody. Certainly doesn't reduce our ability to protect ourselves.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

I'm unclear as to why you might need longer that 48 hours to formally charge someone suspected of harming the safety of your nation.

In certain circumstances, it might not be practical to gather the appropriate information in a 48 hour time span. Again, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the Empire needs to be certain of what it's dealing with. If we detain someone for 48 hours and aren't able to find credible evidence that an individual did anything wrong, that person would be let go. But if we discover certain details -- such as a relationship with one known to be hostile to our Empire -- in that 48 hours, we might require more time to gather more information, even if it's just a day. That extra time could be extremely beneficial not only to the government of Mussolioni, but the people of Mussolioni. This, I stress again, would occur only in times of rebellion, invasion, and war -- times where the public safety is the first and foremost. This is not something the Empire would engage in during times of peace.

Would 18 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14047849&postcount=20) come into play as a Civilian internee? Thus rendering Habius Corpus un-needed?

True in part, but it was in terms of wartime.

True in part, but it was in terms of wartime.

I only bring up 18 because the delegate mentioned War. I do realize the slippery slope I'm discussing however.

In certain circumstances, it might not be practical to gather the appropriate information in a 48 hour time span. Again, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the Empire needs to be certain of what it's dealing with. If we detain someone for 48 hours and aren't able to find credible evidence that an individual did anything wrong, that person would be let go. But if we discover certain details -- such as a relationship with one known to be hostile to our Empire -- in that 48 hours, we might require more time to gather more information, even if it's just a day. That extra time could be extremely beneficial not only to the government of Mussolioni, but the people of Mussolioni. This, I stress again, would occur only in times of rebellion, invasion, and war -- times where the public safety is the first and foremost. This is not something the Empire would engage in during times of peace.

There is a very fine line to walk between security, principles and liberty. Once you've reached the precipice of undercutting principles and/or liberty due to the concerns of national security, a tremendous amount of political capital, will and restraint must be utilized in order to refrain from falling off of the cliff and entering a state of dictatorship and oppression. If this is the preferred state of government and rule in your nation (I have not checked), then this reply will have no meaning for you. If, on the other hand, you have chosen another path, then I urge you at least to consider this response.

HRH Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane

In certain circumstances, it might not be practical to gather the appropriate information in a 48 hour time span.
Again, we stress that this is the amount of time for which an individual may be detained without formal charge. If your nation's investigatory services do not start gathering information before detain suspects, then we submit that they are in grave need of a slap around the face with a wet fish.

Further, we observe that in the specific cases of rebellion and invasion that the honoured ambassador raises, prolonged detention without charge is undoubted the wrong answer. For rebellion, holding a person for a serious length of time will tend to convince observers both inside and outside a nation that the rebels have the right of it. After all, if the government had proof of misdeeds, would they not bring charges? The net effect is to both exacerbate the rebellion and curry international disfavour, which in no wise makes the nation's situation better.

In case of invasion, we assume that the honoured ambassador is concerned with spies since dealing with Prisoners of War is a subject already well-covered in international law. Similarly to rebellion, holding a suspected spy indefinitely as the ambassador seems to wish is a display of paranoia which serves only to convince that the nation is failing, and failing drastically.

We have updated the original post in line with some of the conclusions of debate thus far. In particular, we have expanded on the valid reasons for retrial.

There remains the issue of indefinite re-detention. We are considering dealing with it thus:

Once a person is re-detained, a hearing will commence within 48 hours. At that hearing, the detaining party must demonstrate that new evidence has come to light since the person was released from previous detention that increases the level of suspicion against him or her. If the presiding authority is not convinced, the person must be released and may not be re-detained on suspicion of that offence until and unless they are charged with it. The presiding authority will deliver a verdict within 24 hours of the commencement of the hearing.

This obviously doesn't deal with re-detention on suspicion of different offences, and we are loth to expand the ban on re-detention to a blanket ban for obvious reasons. As every, all suggestions are welcome.