[DEFEATED] No Penalty Without Law

[Defwa]

Defwa will be offering its support for this resolution.
We disagree with certain opposing interpretations and doubt their validity. We also believe that having a lawless society or being unhappy with the semantics and reporting of crime to be irrelevant complaints.

In order to eliminate accidental violation the law needs to be clearly defined and tempered with logic

[Mundiferrum]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.

Does this mean that Jakuso has literally no laws on, well, anything?
EDIT: I have a feeling the Yakus don't exactly understand what customary law is....

[Defwa]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.

Does this mean that Jakuso has literally no laws on, well, anything?

That is what he said, yes. And customary laws- like table manners, I guess? Make up a notable portion of the prison population.

[Mundiferrum]

Additionally, the resolution doesn't protect the rights of guilty criminals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the WA has a resolution going something like this: the guilt of criminals cannot be established without a trial based on legal, er, whajimacallit, that is bound by not merely customary law.

EDIT: Although a nation may essentially be lawless by not establishing any official criminal laws, those nations are still bound by codes, either in their sovereign's words, or some other authority, that pretty much set what is "legal" or "illegal", but such codes, I believe, never actually include customary laws....

[Chester Pearson]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.

And with that statement right there, The Federation is proud to cast its vote FOR.... (Don't read into it too much)

[Mundiferrum]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.

And with that statement right there, The a Federation is proud to cast its vote FOR.... (Don't read into it too much)

I would slap you in the back of the head if that gesture were not so damnably funny!

[District XIV]

This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country.

"So you're suggesting that a "law-breaker" should be prosecuted even if the law that said "law-breaker" was supposedly breaking didn't exist? I... I don't understand."

[Chester Pearson]

This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country.

How could murder be illegal, if a law did not exist to make it illegal?

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēgəl
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

[Scow Creek]

This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country.

How could murder be illegal, if a law did not exist to make it illegal?

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēgəl
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

Many people mistakenly believe that all Law emanates from a legislative body that "makes it so." This is called a Civil Law approach to law.

However, a good many people live in Common Law nations, where the law *evolves* based on changing social norms, changed fact patterns, and minute differences in cases.

For example, a nation may pass a law saying you MUST stop at a stop sign. In a civil law nation, that *is* the law, no exceptions.

In a Common Law nation, however, the attorney may argue that a person 'rolled' through a stop sign because they were racing to the hospital with someone having a critical asthma attack. The Judge may let him off the hook, *even though the law does not permit* an emergency exception.

Next time, someone may roll through a stop sign because their wife is in the front seat having labor pains. The Judge may decide to follow the "emergency" exception, *or* decide that these facts do not constitute an emergency.

In Common Law nations, the *MAJORITY* of legal precedents are common law (trespass is a good example), and NOT codified in statute.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

After considering the objection of the ambassador to Mousebumples, we have decided to vote against this resolution. The no detention clause is exceptionally disturbing. I can see many reasons for short term detention that would not require a criminal offense. Had the resolution mentioned "long term detention" we might have supported it.

[Defwa]

How could murder be illegal, if a law did not exist to make it illegal?

Many people mistakenly believe that all Law emanates from a legislative body that "makes it so." This is called a Civil Law approach to law.

However, a good many people live in Common Law nations, where the law *evolves* based on changing social norms, changed fact patterns, and minute differences in cases.

For example, a nation may pass a law saying you MUST stop at a stop sign. In a civil law nation, that *is* the law, no exceptions.

In a Common Law nation, however, the attorney may argue that a person 'rolled' through a stop sign because they were racing to the hospital with someone having a critical asthma attack. The Judge may let him off the hook, *even though the law does not permit* an emergency exception.

Next time, someone may roll through a stop sign because their wife is in the front seat having labor pains. The Judge may decide to follow the "emergency" exception, *or* decide that these facts do not constitute an emergency.

In Common Law nations, the *MAJORITY* of legal precedents are common law (trespass is a good example), and NOT codified in statute.

I didn't see anything in here mandating the strict and total enforcement of all laws regardless of circumstances. In fact, it specifically mentions using judicial precedent during enforcement.

(Image)

(Image)

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

After considering the objection of the ambassador to Mousebumples, we have decided to vote against this resolution. The no detention clause is exceptionally disturbing. I can see many reasons for short term detention that would not require a criminal offense. Had the resolution mentioned "long term detention" we might have supported it.

"Guidelines with the force of law"
Something doesn't have to be a criminal offense for someone to be detained for it. But the method and reason of their detainment needs to be consistent.

[Scow Creek]

I didn't see anything in here mandating the strict and total enforcement of all laws regardless of circumstances. In fact, it specifically mentions using judicial precedent during enforcement.

1) That makes the entire resolution incoherent. Either laws must be codified, or judicial precedence is permitted. You can not try to do both at once.

2) Judges only come into play once a case is under way. The Scow Creek Consttuton specifically gives the Kingdom's Attorney General the Right and Duty to bring a Common Law suit in Trespass-on-Society for Environmental Degradation that may have no statutory basis.

[Mousebumples]

Defwa, I'm sure that was the intention. However, the clause in question doesn't seem to read that way.

3. Stipulates that neither member nations, nor political subdivisions thereof, may arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish by law any individual unless they have committed a crime that is specifically illegal according to international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

The "guidelines with the force of law" bit seems to indicate what you're alluding to. However, the clause specifically says "unless they have a committed a crime that is specifically illegal," does it not?

[Jakuso]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.

Does this mean that Jakuso has literally no laws on, well, anything?
EDIT: I have a feeling the Yakus don't exactly understand what customary law is....

Ummmmm... No. Yakus doesn't need a law to make something like murder illegal. It is part of common law which is more or less the same thing as customary law. Murdering someone is morally and customarily wrong, so in the eyes of Yakusan law it is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Does this mean that Jakuso has literally no laws on, well, anything?

That is what he said, yes. And customary laws- like table manners, I guess? Make up a notable portion of the prison population.

There's a considerable difference between murder and table manner infringements.

This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country.

"So you're suggesting that a "law-breaker" should be prosecuted even if the law that said "law-breaker" was supposedly breaking didn't exist? I... I don't understand."

Like I said... You don't need a document to say that murder is illegal. It is illegal because it is against the common good. And the common good is in the name of common law.

[Point Breeze]

Nothing in the act restricts the discretion of Judges or other legal officials unless the citizen before them has committed a crime not specifically codified. In fact, clause 2 seems to be a statement in favor of precedent and common law.

The man with his pregnant wife running the stop sign could still be prosecuted or fined or what have you, as prosecuting those who run stop signs would have judicial precedent.

@Jakuso if the Yakusan courts have prosecuted a murderer before, then there would be judicial precedent, and Yakus would be in compliance if they were still arresting murderers even though there's no statute on the books.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I for one wish Sciongrad had posted a drafting thread and allowed comments on this proposal. It would have been great to have been able to comment over the last three months, but the fact he didn't shows just how immensely important it is to make use of the WA forum for drafting.

OOC: Isn't this the drafting thread? This has been here for, like, three months now, actually, only this had been in the second page. I don't really get what yer saying there.....

Your sarcasm detector needs rewiring.

[Ahntong]

No Penalty without Law?
I'd rather say: No Law Without Penalty!

[Jakuso]

This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country.

How could murder be illegal, if a law did not exist to make it illegal?

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēgəl
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

As I said before, and before that, common law is the basic customary regulation of society. It is customarily wrong to murder someone, therefore no legislation is actually required to say that it is illegal and a crime punishable by whatever form. And yes, as a seasoned ambassador and a political party leader, I know what "illegal" means... I went to Havard you know!

[Sciongrad]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.

"I don't think you know what customary law is."

Under no circumstance could our nation consider voting in favor of this resolution, nor will we abide by it if passed.

This resolution eradicates the Common Law heritage of our Nation, and would force all member nations who follow a Common Law approach into a statute-based, civil law society. It strikes at the very heart of our legal system, which has some of the most expansive civil liberties in the world, while at the same time, one of the strongest environmental records in the world - all due to our non-statute based common law heritage.

"This would not even remotely restrict common law systems. I have no idea how you reached that conclusion."

"Anyways, this will clearly be defeated, and the 'correction' will be simple so this will likely go to vote again within the next few weeks. However, I'm mildly frustrated that these flaws were not pointed out earlier. This thread has been open for months and I've said 'this will go to vote soon - any comments beforehand?' at least 132 times. But that's okay, there's nothing I can do now."

As I said before, and before that, common law is the basic customary regulation of society. It is customarily wrong to murder someone, therefore no legislation is actually required to say that it is illegal and a crime punishable by whatever form. And yes, as a seasoned ambassador and a political party leader, I know what "illegal" means... I went to Havard you know!

OOC: Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. You have demonstrated that you don't know what customary law is and that you don't know how it works in the context of nulla poena sine lege. Vote however you please, but don't derail the thread with a completely ridiculous argument.

That makes the entire resolution incoherent. Either laws must be codified, or judicial precedence is permitted. You can not try to do both at once.

"The resolution doesn't require member nations to practice both. It merely states that laws have to be based on at least one of them."

[Jakuso]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.

"I don't think you know what customary law is."

Under no circumstance could our nation consider voting in favor of this resolution, nor will we abide by it if passed.

This resolution eradicates the Common Law heritage of our Nation, and would force all member nations who follow a Common Law approach into a statute-based, civil law society. It strikes at the very heart of our legal system, which has some of the most expansive civil liberties in the world, while at the same time, one of the strongest environmental records in the world - all due to our non-statute based common law heritage.

"This would not even remotely restrict common law systems. I have no idea how you reached that conclusion."

"Anyways, this will clearly be defeated, and the 'correction' will be simple so this will likely go to vote again within the next few weeks. However, I'm mildly frustrated that these flaws were not pointed out earlier. This thread has been open for months and I've said 'this will go to vote soon - any comments beforehand?' at least 132 times. But that's okay, there's nothing I can do now."

As I said before, and before that, common law is the basic customary regulation of society. It is customarily wrong to murder someone, therefore no legislation is actually required to say that it is illegal and a crime punishable by whatever form. And yes, as a seasoned ambassador and a political party leader, I know what "illegal" means... I went to Havard you know!

OOC: Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself. You have demonstrated that you don't know what customary law is and that you don't know how it works in the context of nulla poena sine lege. Vote however you please, but don't derail the thread with a completely ridiculous argument.

IC: Well then Mr Ambassador for Sciongrad, I'm here in this chamber to debate, vote and argue on this proposal. If you're asking me to stop debating then I'll say why don't you try and stop me! I have as much right as you do to be here so please don't try to change that. The fact that you're saying I don't know what customary law is I think is insulting, especially as I do know what it is, hence why I'm standing here to debate this proposal.

[Annadelle]

"Although I support the general idea of this resolution, the concerns of the Ambassador of Mousebumples are definitely legitimate in our opinion. Thus, we will vote AGAINST this resolution but we would support a version the eliminates the technical issues that this one contains."
-Kristoffer Bjorkman, Annadelle Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Bananaistan]

We agree with the objections raised by the ambassador representing Mousebumbles and, regrettably, we must alter our vote to a no vote. Once again, we regret not having fully realised the implications of section 3 prior to submission.

Regarding the common law issue, we completely agree with the proposer's most recent contribution to the debate. A lot of ambassadors do not seem to fully understand exactly what a common law system is.

We hope that the proposer will continue with this and we offer our assistance in the continuing drafting phase if the proposal is defeated.

[Lalaki]

"The Community of Lalaki, with its strong belief in legal rights, has voted AYE on this resolution. We are satisfied with how the resolution is worded and defined."

~General Secretary Jo S. Ko

[Lalaki]

1. Defines "customary law" as a code of conduct that is seen as appropriate within a particular setting and is considered de facto law by relevant authorities but is not officially recognized through statute, judicial precedent, or other such guidelines with the force of law;

2. Declares that customary law shall not be considered a basis of criminal punishment when in conflict with international or statutory law, judicial precedent, or other such guidelines with the force of law;

"This is a very relevant portion of the resolution in regards to the current debate being held."

[Corunia and Mironor]

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.