[DEFEATED] No Penalty Without Law

[Bears Armed]

1. No individual may be arrested, detained, or prosecuted for an action which is not illegal according to a member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law;

Shouldn't that be more specifically "the relevant member nation's"? Otherwise you're arguably leaving repressive governments with the loophole that they could (and, bearing in mind what some of the other members are like, in some cases probably would...) arrest people for acts that were legal in their own country but were illegal in some other member nation instead...

[Sciongrad]

I get what you are saying, but my government is honestly corrupt, but it works good this way, people are happy and do what they're told. And you still haven't answered my question on if we have evidence that someone is going to commit a crime, do we have legal right to arrest them? Because technically, the citizen had never broken a law, yet...

(Image)

"Your Excellency, I have answered that question. If it is illegal to conspire to commit a crime, then you can arrest someone for doing so. But if plotting murder isn't illegal in MRWOFFLE, then you can't punish them, even if there is evidence suggesting that a crime will take place."

1. No individual may be arrested, detained, or prosecuted for an action which is not illegal according to a member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law;

Shouldn't that be more specifically "the relevant member nation's"? Otherwise you're arguably leaving repressive governments with the loophole that they could (and, bearing in mind what some of the other members are like, in some cases probably would...) arrest people for acts that were legal in their own country but were illegal in some other member nation instead...

"Yes, a good point. I'll make the adjustment in the next draft."

How does this proposal differ from the ban on ex post facto laws?

"GAR#79 specifically prohibits punishing someone and then making their action a crime. This proposal, on the other hand, prevents punishment for actions that are not illegal. There is some minor overlap because the principle of no ex post facto laws is a pillar of nulla poena sine lege, but the two are not the same."

[MRWOFFLE]

How does this proposal differ from the ban on ex post facto laws?

(Image)

You misspelled 'disapproves' in your graphic there.

Crap, well remaking the stamp anyways, thanks.

[Elke and Elba]

How does this proposal differ from the ban on ex post facto laws?

"GAR#79 specifically prohibits punishing someone and then making their action a crime. This proposal, on the other hand, prevents punishment for actions that are not illegal. There is some minor overlap because the principle of no ex post facto laws is a pillar of nulla poena sine lege, but the two are not the same."

We agree totally.

GAR#79 essentially prohibits backdating of laws, while this will cover criminalisation of something not covered in the laws.

I say this is essential and essentially complemental to GAR#79 too. We will look forward to voting FOR for this proposal.

[Starkmoor]

"GAR#79 specifically prohibits punishing someone and then making their action a crime. This proposal, on the other hand, prevents punishment for actions that are not illegal. There is some minor overlap because the principle of no ex post facto laws is a pillar of nulla poena sine lege, but the two are not the same."

We agree totally.

GAR#79 essentially prohibits backdating of laws, while this will cover criminalisation of something not covered in the laws.

I say this is essential and essentially complemental to GAR#79 too. We will look forward to voting FOR for this proposal.

Ah, OK. Thank you two for the clarification. I think we can support this.

How does this proposal differ from the ban on ex post facto laws?


You misspelled 'disapproves' in your graphic there.

Crap, well remaking the stamp anyways, thanks.

Glad to help.

[Chester Pearson]

So now this will negate The Federations ability to detain persons on National Security Letters?

Opposed.

[Sciongrad]

So now this will negate The Federations ability to detain persons on National Security Letters?

Opposed.

"Your excellency, I have - and I hope you take in the entire gravity of my statement here - absolutely no idea how that's relevant at all. I can't see how this would interfere with issuing any type of subpoena. You'll have to elaborate so that I may more effectively address your concerns."

[Sciongrad]

"Alright, having no degree and having been appointed to my position solely because I -" Ricardo elbowed his elderly superior and gave her a look that could cool a rabbit during mating season before she continued. "My point is, there are probably some more oversights lurking within the draft, so all comments are most welcome."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"A possible clarifying statement - it doesn't change anything, but it might help assuade some concerns - would be to reaffirm that the resolution doesn't provide any protection for ignorance: that is, that while nations are required to promulgate their laws, pleading ignorance is not a defence in itself.

"Does the rule of lenity have any bearing on Article 4, or is that going too far?"

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Sciongrad]

"A possible clarifying statement - it doesn't change anything, but it might help assuade some concerns - would be to reaffirm that the resolution doesn't provide any protection for ignorance: that is, that while nations are required to promulgate their laws, pleading ignorance is not a defence in itself.

"Yes, that probably wouldn't hurt. There was initially some confusion over whether or not that was an issue during the early drafting stages. I'll probably add something to that effect shortly."

"Does the rule of lenity have any bearing on Article 4, or is that going too far?"

"That's an interesting thought. I don't think article 4 would necessarily have any bearing on the rule of lenity, and both member nations individually and the World Assembly (hopefully) can still eventually legislate on the topic. Article 4 merely tries to limit ambiguity in general whereas the rule of lenity would involve how to address whatever ambiguity continues to exists. However, if you think otherwise, I'll gladly consider your concerns."

[Sciongrad]

"I'm in no rush, but unless one of my esteemed colleagues has any objection, I'll be submitting this soon."

[Applebania]

Joshua looks glad.

"I have no objections."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Well written, effective, and perfect for the category. Another well-written Sciongrad draft. Pleased to support, and looking forwards to its submission in the near future."

[Medwedian Democratic Federation]

"VETO! VETO! IT IS ANTICONSERVATIVE AND PREVENTS DICTATORSHIPS LIKE MEDWEDIA FROM BEING ABLE TO HAND OUT PUNISHMENTS TO IT'S RESIDENTS! VVVEEEETTTTOOOOOO!!!!"

[Applebania]

"VETO! VETO! IT IS ANTICONSERVATIVE AND PREVENTS DICTATORSHIPS LIKE MEDWEDIA FROM BEING ABLE TO HAND OUT PUNISHMENTS TO IT'S RESIDENTS! VVVEEEETTTTOOOOOO!!!!"

"This wouldn't ban you from punishing people horribly, this would ban you from doing it for no reason."

[Medwedian Democratic Federation]

"VETO! VETO! IT IS ANTICONSERVATIVE AND PREVENTS DICTATORSHIPS LIKE MEDWEDIA FROM BEING ABLE TO HAND OUT PUNISHMENTS TO IT'S RESIDENTS! VVVEEEETTTTOOOOOO!!!!"

"This wouldn't ban you from punishing people horribly, this would ban you from doing it for no reason."

"Humbug. A policeman in Medwedia has the full right to punish somebody if he thinks that they commited something immoral."

[Separatist Peoples]

"This wouldn't ban you from punishing people horribly, this would ban you from doing it for no reason."

"Humbug. A policeman in Medwedia has the full right to punish somebody if he thinks that they commited something immoral."

"Without going into specifics, I'd say that Medwedia is likely in violation of a wide number of resolutions. Maybe the Medwedian ambassador would like to peruse the Passed Resolutions list and reassess either their domestic policy or membership in the WA?"

[Defwa]

Also you don't have any sort of veto power.

[Valendia]

"We would like to express our wholehearted SUPPORT for this resolution and wish the delegate from Sciongrad the best of luck in seeing it come to fruition."

[Mousebumples]

Also you don't have any sort of veto power.

Maybe it was a (repetative) typo, and he meant to say "VOTE VOTE VOTE!" ?

[Sciongrad]

"Well written, effective, and perfect for the category. Another well-written Sciongrad draft. Pleased to support, and looking forwards to its submission in the near future."

"I am humbled by the kind words of our most esteemed colleague from the Confederate Dominion. I'm glad that Sciongrad can always count on your support."

Also you don't have any sort of veto power.

Maybe it was a (repetative) typo, and he meant to say "VOTE VOTE VOTE!" ?

I hope so.

[Sciongrad]

"I intend on submitting this shortly. I've added a clarifying clause, as suggested by his Excellency of the Dark Star Republic, as well, but any other criticism would be much appreciated."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I recommend asking for a check on the category before submitting if you haven't already; my argument that this belongs in FoD may not be agreed with the moderators.

I also wondered what this means for penalties other than detention, such as monetary fines or confiscation of property.

[Sciongrad]

I recommend asking for a check on the category before submitting if you haven't already; my argument that this belongs in FoD may not be agreed with the moderators.

That's a good idea. Precedent seems to indicate that Human Rights may be the right decision, but I'm wary of relying on legislative precedent.

I also wondered what this means for penalties other than detention, such as monetary fines or confiscation of property.

Very nice catch. I've added the phrase "punished, or otherwise placed under duress..." to the relevant clauses. That should do the trick.

[Wrapper]

3. No individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, punished, or otherwise placed under duress for an action that is not illegal according to international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

Okay, a couple of what-ifs. What if someone has been detained for questioning for a period of 24 hours or less? And, what if someone is being detained because they are a mental health risk to themselves or their family and have not yet done anything wrong?