Advertisement
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Aug 09, 2014 4:36 pm
by Chester Pearson » Sat Aug 09, 2014 4:53 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Clause 4 would cover protective custody and material witnesses, would it not? What about holding witnesses for questioning? Technically, restraining them at the scene or transporting and/or requiring them to appear at the station to be interviewed, would be forms of "detention," wouldn't they?
And finally, contrary to Ambassador Hale's concerns, if there's a law against public drunkenness, and the same law authorizes police/sheriffs to detain drunks until they're sober, that would be covered too, right?
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:13 pm
Chester Pearson wrote:the biggest sovereignist in the world
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:16 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And finally, contrary to Ambassador Hale's concerns, if there's a law against public drunkenness, and the same law authorizes police/sheriffs to detain drunks until they're sober, that would be covered too, right?
by Chester Pearson » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:18 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And finally, contrary to Ambassador Hale's concerns, if there's a law against public drunkenness, and the same law authorizes police/sheriffs to detain drunks until they're sober, that would be covered too, right?
OOC: Yes, this is a point I want to reiterate. I've said this on other forums, but I'll repeat it: this resolution has no impact on substantive due process (whether or not the content of the law is just or fair). You can still criminalize whatever you want and detain individuals for almost anything as long. All that is required is that member nations have relevant, publicly promulgated laws on the topic. In other words, if roaming around the streets in a drunken stupor, avoiding conscription, violating quarantine isolation orders, etc. are illegal, then you can still detain the individuals. This only prevents you from detaining individuals lawlessly.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:21 pm
Chester Pearson wrote:Sciongrad wrote:
OOC: Yes, this is a point I want to reiterate. I've said this on other forums, but I'll repeat it: this resolution has no impact on substantive due process (whether or not the content of the law is just or fair). You can still criminalize whatever you want and detain individuals for almost anything as long. All that is required is that member nations have relevant, publicly promulgated laws on the topic. In other words, if roaming around the streets in a drunken stupor, avoiding conscription, violating quarantine isolation orders, etc. are illegal, then you can still detain the individuals. This only prevents you from detaining individuals lawlessly.
The laws have to be on the books.... Do said laws have to be publicly accessible though, or can they be lets just say "secretive laws"?
6. Requires member nations to ensure that all established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;
by Jakuso » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:29 pm
Corunia and Mironor wrote:It just escapes me why any nation (except for fascist and Stalinist states) would vote against this. If someone hasn't committed a crime, they shouldn't be arrested. If you voted against this resolution, you are dropping down to the same level as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
by Defwa » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:36 pm
Jakuso wrote:Corunia and Mironor wrote:It just escapes me why any nation (except for fascist and Stalinist states) would vote against this. If someone hasn't committed a crime, they shouldn't be arrested. If you voted against this resolution, you are dropping down to the same level as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Ambassador, please read the proposal and ensure you fully understand it before voting/making a statement. This proposal wants to prevent criminals from being arrested for infringements of customary or common law as it is also known. That covers things like murder. So if this proposal passed then national governments with murder illegal under customary law will no longer be allowed to detain murder suspects unless they already have legislature of statute law declaring murder is illegal, which is rare. Also, they will have to release murder suspects from custody.
Common law is in the name of the common good and it would be foolish to pass this proposal. I'm still unsure as to how this proposal even got past the drafting stage.
by Jakuso » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:41 pm
Defwa wrote:Jakuso wrote:
Ambassador, please read the proposal and ensure you fully understand it before voting/making a statement. This proposal wants to prevent criminals from being arrested for infringements of customary or common law as it is also known. That covers things like murder. So if this proposal passed then national governments with murder illegal under customary law will no longer be allowed to detain murder suspects unless they already have legislature of statute law declaring murder is illegal, which is rare. Also, they will have to release murder suspects from custody.
Common law is in the name of the common good and it would be foolish to pass this proposal. I'm still unsure as to how this proposal even got past the drafting stage.
What is so hard about writing laws?
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:43 pm
Jakuso wrote:Corunia and Mironor wrote:It just escapes me why any nation (except for fascist and Stalinist states) would vote against this. If someone hasn't committed a crime, they shouldn't be arrested. If you voted against this resolution, you are dropping down to the same level as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Ambassador, please read the proposal and ensure you fully understand it before voting/making a statement. This proposal wants to prevent criminals from being arrested for infringements of customary or common law as it is also known. That covers things like murder. So if this proposal passed then national governments with murder illegal under customary law will no longer be allowed to detain murder suspects unless they already have legislature of statute law declaring murder is illegal, which is rare. Also, they will have to release murder suspects from custody.
Common law is in the name of the common good and it would be foolish to pass this proposal. I'm still unsure as to how this proposal even got past the drafting stage.
by Chester Pearson » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:44 pm
Jakuso wrote:Corunia and Mironor wrote:It just escapes me why any nation (except for fascist and Stalinist states) would vote against this. If someone hasn't committed a crime, they shouldn't be arrested. If you voted against this resolution, you are dropping down to the same level as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
This proposal wants to prevent criminals from being arrested for infringements of customary or common law as it is also known.
6. Requires member nations to ensure that all established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;
Jakuso wrote:
Ambassador, please read the proposal and ensure you fully understand it before voting/making a statement.
Jakuso wrote:unless they already have legislature of statute law declaring murder is illegal, which is rare. Also, they will have to release murder suspects from custody.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Jakuso » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:47 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And finally, contrary to Ambassador Hale's concerns, if there's a law against public drunkenness, and the same law authorizes police/sheriffs to detain drunks until they're sober, that would be covered too, right?
OOC: Yes, this is a point I want to reiterate. I've said this on other forums, but I'll repeat it: this resolution has no impact on substantive due process (whether or not the content of the law is just or fair). You can still criminalize whatever you want and detain individuals for almost anything as long. All that is required is that member nations have relevant, publicly promulgated laws on the topic. In other words, if roaming around the streets in a drunken stupor, avoiding conscription, violating quarantine isolation orders, etc. are illegal, then you can still detain the individuals. This only prevents you from detaining individuals lawlessly.
by Jakuso » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:49 pm
I really fail to understand exactly which language it is that you read....
Emphasis mine. If you don't know what common law is, then will you please for the last time stop embarrassing yourself? It is now becoming pathetic....
If this isn't the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle [redacted for reasons of decency] then I don't know what is? You are hardly in a position to be giving others advice on their comprehension of resolutions, so please stop?
:palm: The bullshit is becoming so thick in here, it is now overpowering.....
by Defwa » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:53 pm
Jakuso wrote:Chester Pearson wrote:
I read English.
Emphasis mine. If you don't know what common law is, then will you please for the last time stop embarrassing yourself? It is now becoming pathetic....
No.
The bullshit is becoming so thick in here, it is now overpowering.....
And it's mostly yours I'm afraid.
by Jakuso » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:55 pm
Defwa wrote:Jakuso wrote:
And it's mostly yours I'm afraid.
Wow look, another response that doesn't address any of the points specifically.
You know what would be wild and crazy and fun? Actually responding with related statements instead of pithy come backs.
by Chester Pearson » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:56 pm
Jakuso wrote:If this proposal was to control what can be punished under customary law then I suppose our opinion at the Yakusan Foreign Ministry would be quite different on this proposal.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Scow Creek » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:59 pm
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:03 pm
Scow Creek wrote:In our nation, ALL episodes of pollution are actionable under our Common Law Doctrine of Trespass-to-Society.
We dont need - or want - one law for spilling formaldehyde, one for spilling 2,4-D, one for spilling mercury, etc. ANY spill of ANY toxin is actionable f it has an effect on the environment, PERIOD. We Dont need written statute law...common law -and common sense - works fine here,thank you. Which is why your proposal is losing by wider than 2:1 right now....
by Chester Pearson » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:06 pm
Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I'm not saying this again, so read closely. This resolution does not require written statutes. Judicial precedent is a perfectly acceptable basis of criminal punishment under this resolution. The reason this is failing right now is not because 2/3 of the World Assembly has no reading comprehension skills but rather because Europeia has stacked against due to a possible flaw regarding detainment. In case you missed that, judicial precedent (or anything else with the force of law, for that matter), can be used as a basis of criminal punishment. Are we good?
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Defwa » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:21 pm
Chester Pearson wrote:Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I'm not saying this again, so read closely. This resolution does not require written statutes. Judicial precedent is a perfectly acceptable basis of criminal punishment under this resolution. The reason this is failing right now is not because 2/3 of the World Assembly has no reading comprehension skills but rather because Europeia has stacked against due to a possible flaw regarding detainment. In case you missed that, judicial precedent (or anything else with the force of law, for that matter), can be used as a basis of criminal punishment. Are we good?
Have you ever wondered what it feels like to smash your head off of a brick wall continuously? Well.... Now we all know.
I must say Scion, I was pretty confident, and hoping that this was going to pass in a landslide. It really is a shame that the lemming effect of ONE vote is killing this....
by Scow Creek » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:23 pm
Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I'm not saying this again, so read closely. This resolution does not require written statutes. Judicial precedent is a perfectly acceptable basis of criminal punishment under this resolution. The reason this is failing right now is not because 2/3 of the World Assembly have no reading comprehension skills but rather because Europeia has stacked against due to a possible flaw regarding detainment. In case you missed that, judicial precedent (or anything else with the force of law, for that matter), can be used as a basis of criminal punishment, including your Common Law Doctrine of Trespass-to-Society. Are we good?
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:27 pm
Defwa wrote:I doubt the lemming effect.
by Chester Pearson » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:28 pm
Scow Creek wrote:Furthermore, your approach TIES THE HANDS of the Judiciary to EXISTING precedent, and prohibits extensions and changes as society evolves.
The Dark Star Republic wrote:and the only resolution vote in months not to have gone in accordance with the initial vote stacking (Sustainable Forest Management) was the subject of a mass TG campaign.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:41 pm
Scow Creek wrote:No, we are not.
Furthermore, your approach TIES THE HANDS of the Judiciary to EXISTING precedent, and prohibits extensions and changes as society evolves.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement