[DEFEATED] No Penalty Without Law

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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?

[Chester Pearson]

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?

Touche. This coming for the biggest sovereignist in the world at that....

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

the biggest sovereignist in the world

Oo. I like that title much better than "adorably marvelous NatSov." Eat your heart out, mousey.

[Sciongrad]

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.

[Chester Pearson]

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.

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"?

[Sciongrad]

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;

"Not only must the law be on the books, but it also needs to be available for public knowledge."

[Jakuso]

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.

[Defwa]

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.

What is so hard about writing laws?

[Jakuso]

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?

Ambassador Landfree, picture this: this proposal gets voted in. Every single member state that has murder illegal under unwritten common law can no longer arrest murderers because then technically, murder wouldn't be recognised as illegal. National government have to spend time an money to write up, debate, vote/decide and enact the new laws which could take days. The proposal is trying to inhibit member states from arresting people for something we know is totally illegal. What's so bad about passing laws? It's too much effort/time/money AND it leaves loopholes in the law for criminals to escape uncharged. We're better off just leaving it as it is, so this proposal MUST be defeated in my opinion.

[Sciongrad]

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.

"Common law is not prohibited or even remotely restricted by this resolution at all. As a matter of fact, clause 3 specifically notes that judicial precedent is a valid basis of criminal punishment. You're conflating common law and customary law, which are not the same thing, which is what leads me to believe you don't really know what you're talking about. Anyone that was even remotely familiar with common law would be able to recognize that common law systems aren't affected by this resolution. And finally, I have no idea why you think it's rare for a country to prohibit murder through law, because it's not. Which further convinces me that you know as much about this topic as a turnip."

[Chester Pearson]

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.

I really fail to understand exactly which language it is that you read....

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;

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....

Ambassador, please read the proposal and ensure you fully understand it before voting/making a statement.

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?

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.

The bullshit is becoming so thick in here, it is now overpowering.....

[Jakuso]

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.

IC: Ambassador, why do we need to get rid of our common law? I'm sure that a lot of the examples you listed in your statement wouldn't be illegal under common law, not in Yakus anyway. You do not need and should not need a piece of paper to say that killing someone intentionally is a serious crime which should be punished. And this proposal is trying to get rid of that common law, common sense approach. 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.

[Sciongrad]

IC: Ambassador, why do we need to get rid of our common law?

"Why do you hate reading?"

[Jakuso]

I really fail to understand exactly which language it is that you read....

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....

I do. And no.

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?

No.

:palm: The bullshit is becoming so thick in here, it is now overpowering.....

And it's mostly yours I'm afraid.

[Defwa]

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.

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.

[Jakuso]

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.

But. I. Have.

Haven't you read what I've said before? I've made plenty of related statements.

[Chester Pearson]

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.

The biggest IntFed statement in the history of NationStates right here folks!!!

[Scow Creek]

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....

[Sciongrad]

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....

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?

[Chester Pearson]

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....

[Defwa]

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....

*Ambassador Landfree sneaks up behind Chester and starts rubbing his shoulders [a la bush/merkel]*
Be strong. He cant be here forever.

I doubt the lemming effect. I'm sure more than a few are voting against so they can maintain their fear based police states.

[Scow Creek]

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?

No, we are not. Your position is self-righteous and arrogant.

Furthermore, your approach TIES THE HANDS of the Judiciary to EXISTING precedent, and prohibits extensions and changes as society evolves.

If Europeia stacking against it has worked to defeat it, fine. But I can tell you that 3/4 of the XKI have voted against it as well, and for the same common-law based reasons as I've articulated.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I doubt the lemming effect.

Why? There is strong evidence for stacking working, 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. Given very few authors are going to be able to afford such a campaign (and have zero reason to trust in it anyway, given the mods' conduct during Repeal "Rights & Duties"), that can be safely seen as an exception.

[Chester Pearson]

Furthermore, your approach TIES THE HANDS of the Judiciary to EXISTING precedent, and prohibits extensions and changes as society evolves.

Did I miss the resolution that prohibits nations from passing NEW laws somehow? If I did, those gnomes are doing a really shitty job, I must say....

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.

Are you sure about that? The Both the CWP, and the CWA were being crushed out of the gate, yet managed to pass by a thin margin....

[Sciongrad]

No, we are not.

"You are demonstrably wrong. You clearly have no intention of debating in good faith if you refuse to accept a very basic fact."

Furthermore, your approach TIES THE HANDS of the Judiciary to EXISTING precedent, and prohibits extensions and changes as society evolves.

"Shockingly enough, it doesn't do that either."