NationStates Jolt Archive

As per established Parliamentary rules of procedure, this thread is for the NS General MPs to debate and vote on the issue given in post #2 below.

A parallel thread for discussion by non MPs can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9134405#post9134405).

The voting options in this thread include options for MPs and non-MPs, and the voting is public. (You can see how your MPs voted).

I think this fair trial should include the right of indigent accused to the same quality attorney, expert witnesses, scientific tests and so on as the prosecution gets.

Parliament is requested to debate and vote on the following:


ACT ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

Original proposal outline
That all suspects of any misdeed or crime be recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trial, and the right to appeal against the verdict of the court.


Full text

The NationStates General Parliament,

Committed to the furthering of human rights and dignity,

Affirming the necessity to establish legal authority and backing for fundamental rights,

Hereby resolves the following:

1. Any and all suspects of any misdeed or crime are recognised as duly possessing the right to a fair trial

1 a. A “suspect” is defined for the purpose of this act as any person whose guilt is not yet lawfully established, but is facing charges. A suspect will be deemed innocent until proven guilty. If and when a suspect’s guilt is proven, said suspect will not forfeit the right to be recognised as innocent at a later date should new evidence, or new interpretations of existing evidence, come to light.

1 b. This act applies to any person suspected of misdeed or crime, whatever the gravity of said misdeed or crime.

1 c. A fair trial is defined for the purpose of this act as a trial which aims at establishing the truth regarding the innocence or guilt of a suspect, objectively and open-mindedly, without prejudice or preconception of any sort. As per clause 1 a of this present act, a suspect will be deemed innocent until objectively proven guilty. A fair trial will enable the suspect, and his or her legal representatives, full and entire right to address the court to present any facts, evidence or other that may serve to indicate said suspect’s innocence, or which may help establish mitigating circumstances to the suspect’s hypothetical guilt.

1 d. The present act is open to amendments to provide further and more complete definitions to facilitate its enactment in the spirit of furthering human rights.

2. Any and all suspects of any misdeed or crime are recognised as duly possessing the right to appeal against the verdict of the court.

2 a. The re-trial following said appeal will be carried out in the spirit established in part 1 of this present act.

I think this fair trial should include the right of indigent accused to the same quality attorney, expert witnesses, scientific tests and so on as the prosecution gets.

Since procedure requested me to submit a full text, that's what I've done, but the point of this debate is indeed, amongst other things, to bring in potential amendments.

So, thank you for your suggestion, and I quite agree, of course.

Does this proposal take a stance on military tribunals?

As it stands, I'd vote yea. However, I think governments should have the power to establish tribunals if the standard court system can't function as long as those tribunals allow for fair trials. Therefore, I won't vote until that's been cleared up.

Does this proposal take a stance on military tribunals?

As it stands, I'd vote yea. However, I think governments should have the power to establish tribunals if the standard court system can't function as long as those tribunals allow for fair trials. Therefore, I won't vote until that's been cleared up.

I think this point would need specifying more clearly. In any case, I agree there should be guarentees for a fair trial in any court, military included.

I think this point would need specifying more clearly. In any case, I agree there should be guarentees for a fair trial in any court, military included.
I'll offer it in the form of an amendment, then:

Understanding that in cases of extreme corruption or enemy infiltration, a judicial system may be compromised,

Recognizing the potential for abuse that exists in military courts,

This resolution affirms:

The right for any state to set up an alternate or military system of courts if the current system is failing on the condition that the procedures of the court be open to public scrutiny.

I'll offer it in the form of an amendment, then:

Understanding that in cases of extreme corruption or enemy infiltration, a judicial system may be compromised,

Recognizing the potential for abuse that exists in military courts,

This resolution affirms:

The right for any state to set up an alternate or military system of courts if the current system is failing on the condition that the procedures of the court be open to public scrutiny.

We'd need to define "public scrutiny", and affirm that such trials must also meet clear guarentees of fairness.

We'd need to define "public scrutiny", and affirm that such trials must also meet clear guarentees of fairness.
The rules that the trials will follow will be published. I'm torn as to whether it should mandate that the proceedings be entirely transparent. On the one hand, that should help with fairness. On the otherhand, that opens the door for corruption.

Public scrutiny should guarantee fairness.

We need some rules on disclosure. A trial can only be fair if all evidence is available to both the prosecution and the defence.

We also need to decide what is and is not to be admissable evidence as a general rule. What are the conditions under which a 'confession' that is later retracted admissable? What about hearsay evidence? How do we treat the evidence of juveniles?

Who is to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused person and how is this person or persons to be selected?

What kind of court system do we have in the first place?
A jury of other citizens or just a judge or group of judges?

Otherwise, I'm happy as it stands now, just the part about reserving the right to establish a parallel system (one that is presumably more willing to act as the Government demands) worries me.
What constitutes "extreme corruption" or "enemy infiltration"? What enemy?

All good questions, and if you want to put forth amendments / additions to the proposal, I'm sure we'd all be glad to debate them.

How detailled do we want this to be? Bearing in mind that we will need to achieve a consensus. Though that shouldn't be too hard on this particular issue...

Bump.

BUMP

Please remember that, as per Parliamentary rules, there is a time limit on this debate. It would reflect poorly on Parliament, I think, if we failed to pass this measure because we ran out of time.

Remove some of the flowery preamble to the act. It is not relevant, and makes it difficult to vote for something. We are not concerned here with human rights in general. We are concerned with just the right to a fair trial.

You're not very clear on what a fair trial is....what about an independent and impartial judiciary, timeous hearing, etc?

I'm going to vote for, because I want this issue to continue to be discussed.

What constitutes "extreme corruption" or "enemy infiltration"? What enemy?
Right after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian gang members developed enormous influence in the Russian court system. Right now, organized crime is damn near close to untouchable there. The court system cannot effectively prosecute organized crime.

Imagine in the modern United States if the recent spate of judge murders were directed at jury members, and only occurred in terrorism trials - at EVERY trial of a suspected terrorist - how well could the US court system try terrorists? Not very.

The US Constitution has a provision like this in Article 3, as the Congress can establish court systems when it wants to.

We need some rules on disclosure. A trial can only be fair if all evidence is available to both the prosecution and the defence.

We also need to decide what is and is not to be admissable evidence as a general rule. What are the conditions under which a 'confession' that is later retracted admissable? What about hearsay evidence? How do we treat the evidence of juveniles?

Who is to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused person and how is this person or persons to be selected?I agree with Alien Born, these issues need to be addressed, otherwise i would not be voting for it as it stands at the moment.

How are we deciding in courts as well? How many jurors? Do we always have juries? The role of the judge?

A question on a point of order... The Parliamentary procedural rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426484) state a full proposal should be submitted for debate. They do not, however, specify whether a proposal can be modified while it's being debated. If it can be, then that raises the problem that those who have voted to approve the initial text will find themselves having voted in advance for a text they might not approve of.

It's a tricky problem, and as I see it we have two possibilities. Either we do debate to establish a new, more detailed text through consensus (racing to achieve it in four or five days), with the above-mentioned problem that would lead to.

Or, the original text is voted on, maybe as a sort of template, then amendments and specifications can be submitted as new proposals to supplement it, and voted on individually - which, while impractical in some ways, would avoid the previous problem, and would avoid trying to reach a massive consensus in just a few days on many points, and the chaotic rush it implies.

If you do want to try and modify the text while it's being voted on, though, I strongly suggest you offer amendments as you would like to see them put in, so they can be discussed, rather than merely raise questions. We're on an extremely tight schedule, and it would at least allow us to gain time and achieve something.

This problem was addressed in the debate concerning the procedure. This led to a recommendation to leave voting as late as possible on any bill to allow the bill to evolve into its final form. Part of the purpose of the proposal phase is to negotiate a form of wording etc. that is likely to obtain approval.

However it was understood, by me at least, that the bill could be ammended as the debate progressed.

Perhaps we should make some changes in the procedure. Specifying that the poll should be added only after three days of debate or something similar, but this would create a problem with all MPs having time to vote.

In the case of this bill, we could take the bill as it stands and then move a secondary bill to debate the justice procedure, with the right to a fair trial already established (or not)

Probably not correct place to ask, but how do i become an MP?

Join a party, and be selected by that party. Links here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423271

Then win seats enough in the next general election

Perhaps we should make some changes in the procedure. Specifying that the poll should be added only after three days of debate or something similar, but this would create a problem with all MPs having time to vote.


It does need to be clarified... We could, for example, try that solution and lengthen debate times from seven to ten days. But the downside of that would be that Parliament would have time for fewer proposals.

Another problem would be, though, what kind of consensus on modification could be achieved in three days?

[/quote]
In the case of this bill, we could take the bill as it stands and then move a secondary bill to debate the justice procedure, with the right to a fair trial already established (or not)[/QUOTE]

*nods*

(sorry for spamming up your thread but I cant find an appropriate one)

When are the next elections scheduled for?

It does need to be clarified... We could, for example, try that solution and lengthen debate times from seven to ten days. But the downside of that would be that Parliament would have time for fewer proposals.

Another problem would be, though, what kind of consensus on modification could be achieved in three days?


In the case of this bill, we could take the bill as it stands and then move a secondary bill to debate the justice procedure, with the right to a fair trial already established (or not)

*nods*

We could start debate on a new proposal immediately that voting is started on the old one. I.E each bill has a proposal phase, a debate phase and a voting phase. With only one bill at any time in the debate phase (to concentrate attention). Just an idea.

I will now vote pro this on the basis that is is just a declaration of the right to a fair trial, and recommend in our forum that all our MPs do the same. (There is no declared whip here though in the NSCL, so they may choose not to.)

(sorry for spamming up your thread but I cant find an appropriate one)

When are the next elections scheduled for?

The link I gave above is to the appropriate thread.

Bump for votes.

Come on people. At least show some support for the principle of a fair trial.

I don't know why people aren't voting on this one. Maybe they're just lazy.

Midnight bump (well it is 00:17 here)

Just a reminder that the vote on this proposal will end tomorrow as the poll automatically closes.

It would reflect very poorly indeed on Parliament, I feel, if we failed to support the principle of a fair trial.

The following MPs have not yet voted. I'll send them a telegram:

FairyTInkArisen
Skinny87
Argesia
Leonstein
Knootoss
Moleland
Wegason
Uginin
Zethistania
Crimson Sith
Marmite Toast
Eutrusca
Melkor Unchained
Xaosis Redux
Objectivist Patriots

I gather quorum rules would make it so that this wouldn't get de facto approved after the voting period ends, even though the vote is currently unanimous.

The quorum rules only applied to teh election. A motion in the parliament should only require a simple majority of those that voted yea or nay.

It does reflect badly on people though that thy can not be bothered to vote.

In this case I shall be 'upbraiding' Wegason and Uginin who are in the same party as me.

The only MP with an excuse, although not an acceptable one, is Eutrusca as he has been forum banned for two weeks. The rest of you, shame on you.

The quorum rules only applied to teh election. A motion in the parliament should only require a simple majority of those that voted yea or nay.


Unfortunately, the rules do not specify that point. The principle so far has been that an absolute majority is required in order for a proposal to pass, which means that three more MPs absolutely need to vote 'Yea'. I would hate to see a proposal defeated that not only came from me, but has unanimously been approved by all who voted on it - but the rules can't be changed midway during a vote.

I've sent a telegram to the 15 MPs who have failed to vote so far. (I sent them before knowing that Eutrusca has been forum-banned). It does indeed reflect very poorly on Parliament. I would like to thank all those who have voted, though.

The only MP with an excuse, although not an acceptable one, is Eutrusca as he has been forum banned for two weeks. The rest of you, shame on you.
Tink has also been banned for the week

Parties with Forum banned MPs should nominate pro tem substitutes to act on their behalf. If you are an MP and get forum banned, please inform other party members of this by TG or through off site forums. It would also be helpful if you TGed myself or (I would ask Ariddia to confirm this) Ariddia so MP records can be updated.

Parties with Forum banned MPs should nominate pro tem substitutes to act on their behalf. If you are an MP and get forum banned, please inform other party members of this by TG or through off site forums. It would also be helpful if you TGed myself or (I would ask Ariddia to confirm this) Ariddia so MP records can be updated.

Confirmed.

Thank you. Vote people,vote.

:D Quorum and Passed :D

I apologize for my recent absence, but unfortunatly the situation was out of my hands. I moved a few days ago, and have had no internet access until today.

As for the proposal, I support the document in its current form, and do vote yea.

:D Quorum and Passed :D

Confirmed, all 'Yea' votes by MPs are indeed by Members of Parliament. And Eutrusca has sent me a telegram saying he approved of the proposal (he will re-confirm it when his forum ban is over).

Be it hereby recorded that the proposal Right to a Fair Trial has been duly adopted by Parliament, by 15 votes to nil (so far), with one abstaining vote.

I would like to thank all Members of Parliament who voted, and/or took part in the debate.

I'll submit the next proposal (#1a) to Parliament shortly.

I wasn't able to get on this forum for a few days, i voted yesterday. Anyway.. why did tink get forum banned? Why did eutresca get forum banned?

I am dearly sorry, but my Jolt didn't want to load. I tried a number of times, but it just didn't let me in.

Oh, and TInk asked me to vote in favour, too. So the final result is 18 in favour, 1 opposed, and 1 abstaining vote.

I apologize for my absence, but I have just undergone oral surgery. I've been unable to do anything because of pain and morphine and have only now been able to view this topic at all. Even though it's too late, I would have voted in favor of having a fair trial.

Hey, sorry I couldn't serve my constituents. My connection at home has been cut off for a while now.
My vote would've been yea.