NationStates

Wrapper wrote: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?

3. No individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

Hopefully the underlined portion assuages your concerns?

Sciongrad wrote:Hopefully the underlined portion assuages your concerns?

Well, it is kind of a little wordy/clunky now, but yes, something like this would certainly allay our concerns.

A moment while we ponder category....

Okay, from the Secretariat's lovely new booklet, General Assembly Resolutions for Dummies (OOC: AKA "the stickies"):

Human Rights - A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
...affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms....

The Furtherment of Democracy - A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
...affect Political Freedoms. "The Furtherment of Democracy" increases these freedoms while "Political Stability" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue. Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever. Imposing regulation on campaign finances is a mild form of reducing Political Freedoms.

At first look, an argument can be made for either category. If we take a look at the effect of this resolution, absent the concept of nulla poena sine lege, nations could either abridge the civil rights of a citizen or a class of citizens, or justify the incarceration of political prisoners. It doesn't seem to be limited to one category or the other.

If we look at past resolutions concerning judicial matters, GAR #62 For the Detained and Convicted and GAR #67 Habeas Corpus (both of which included the concept of nulla poena sine lege) were Human Rights, as were at least three resolutions on fair trials. Though most of these have been repealed, they were at one point legal interpretations of the categories in question. By this precedent, it seems that ensuring the rights of the accused do belong in Human Rights and not in Furtherment of Democracy.

Does this make sense? And, no, we won't be surprised if the answer is "NO".

3. No individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

Can they still be arrested or punished not "for an action" but simply because somebody in authority dislikes them?

Bears Armed wrote:

3. No individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

Can they still be arrested or punished not "for an action" but simply because somebody in authority dislikes them?

"Good point. How does this sound?"

3. No individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

I may end up splitting the clauses for the sake of clarity, but in terms of substance, this is where we're at currently."

"I'm preparing to submit this. Any final comments?"

What if a person does something legally, then that thing is made illegal afterwards; would we maintain the right to prosecute them?

The Flood wrote:What if a person does something legally, then that thing is made illegal afterwards; would we maintain the right to prosecute them?

Covered by the ban on Ex Post Facto Laws.

[quote="Starkmoor";p="20135228"]How does this proposal differ from the ban on ex post facto laws?

Ex Post Facto means you cannot travel back in time to try people for things they did which are now illegal.

No Penalty Without Law means that something must be illegal in order for you to be tried for it. See Also: Victimless Crimes

Lexicor wrote:See Also: Victimless Crimes

This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with victimless crimes.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Lexicor wrote:See Also: Victimless Crimes

This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with victimless crimes.

...crimeless victims, then?

"I like it, I would make one change however:

3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of others or themselves, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

I hardly see it as being unlawful to detain someone who may harm themselves, until they can be turned over to the proper authorities for proper medical evaluation. It would also legalize the 'drunk tank', where those who are at self-induced risk can 'clean up' before release"

Normlpeople wrote:"I like it, I would make one change however:

3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of others or themselves, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

I hardly see it as being unlawful to detain someone who may harm themselves, until they can be turned over to the proper authorities for proper medical evaluation. It would also legalize the 'drunk tank', where those who are at self-induced risk can 'clean up' before release"

"Done! I'll wait for the queue to settle down before submitting this, so I'll address any other concerns you, or others, may have."

"Final thoughts? Otherwise, this will be submitting within the next day or so."

Wrapper wrote:...it seems that ensuring the rights of the accused do belong in Human Rights and not in Furtherment of Democracy.

Just sayin'.

Sciongrad wrote:"Final thoughts? Otherwise, this will be submitting within the next day or so."

Yeah.... You have a category violation here. How is democracy improved by this? This is a human rights proposal, of mild strength at best.

Wrapper wrote:

Wrapper wrote:...it seems that ensuring the rights of the accused do belong in Human Rights and not in Furtherment of Democracy.

Just sayin'.

"Gah, yes. Category. It seems you're right - precedent would indicate that this belongs in the human rights category. I can definitely see the argument that this would fit in the furtherment of democracy category, but I don't really want to go through the lengthy process that a legality query would entail, so I'll try my luck with human rights."

Sciongrad wrote:

Wrapper wrote:Just sayin'.

"Gah, yes. Category. It seems you're right - precedent would indicate that this belongs in the human rights category. I can definitely see the argument that this would fit in the furtherment of democracy category, but I don't really want to go through the lengthy process that a legality query would entail, so I'll try my luck with human rights."

With that concession, The Federation can now offer it's support for this....

Sultan Abdullah Al-Hakam Shah regards this Bill as an outrageous abridgement of his sovereign right to do whatever he likes as long as he doesn't upset his Former Colonial Masters.

It might also affect his secret police's ability to extort bribes.

But his notoriously liberal younger brother may pocket the Royal Seal for an hour while the Sultan is drinking whisky and gambling, and support it in a vote.

Kedah wrote:Sultan Abdullah Al-Hakam Shah regards this Bill as an outrageous abridgement of his sovereign right to do whatever he likes as long as he doesn't upset his Former Colonial Masters.

It might also affect his secret police's ability to extort bribes.

But his notoriously liberal younger brother may pocket the Royal Seal for an hour while the Sultan is drinking whisky and gambling, and support it in a vote.

"Sir, well, assuming you're a 'sir', this bill will not harm the abilities of your government considering your nation currently abstains from membership in the World Assembly."

Sciongrad wrote:3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of themselves or others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

Is the involuntary commitment section here worded well enough to get around A Decriminalisation of Suicide?

A Decriminalisation of Suicide wrote:...the act of intentionally ending one’s own life, hereby defined as “suicide”, shall not be a criminal offense or breach of law in any member-nation;

1. Additionally, the act of attempting to commit suicide shall not be a criminal offense or breach of law in any member-nation;

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished 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 excepting instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of themselves or others, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;

Is the involuntary commitment section here worded well enough to get around A Decriminalisation of Suicide?

A Decriminalisation of Suicide wrote:...the act of intentionally ending one’s own life, hereby defined as “suicide”, shall not be a criminal offense or breach of law in any member-nation;

1. Additionally, the act of attempting to commit suicide shall not be a criminal offense or breach of law in any member-nation;

"Excellent point. I've made the following modification: 'Permitting the following exceptions to clause three: instances of involuntary commitment for individuals whose mental states pose a clear and present danger to the well being of themselves or others, subject to limitations recognized by extant General Assembly legislation, temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will be committed, or involuntary questioning, in accordance with relevant World Assembly guidelines on detention;'

Considering the definition of suicide provided by GAR#180 is the act of 'intentionally ending one's own life,' I think the clause now safely allows member nations to involuntarily commit those whose mental state cause them to pose an danger to themselves unintentionally.' Tell me what you think."

That seems to be more consistent with Resolution #180. My only other suggestion would, given you refer in the same clause to 'General Assembly legislation' and 'World Assembly guidelines', to condense those to a single reference on the supremacy of international law.

Obviously, this still has our support otherwise, and the category change seems appropriate.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:That seems to be more consistent with Resolution #180. My only other suggestion would, given you refer in the same clause to 'General Assembly legislation' and 'World Assembly guidelines', to condense those to a single reference on the supremacy of international law.

Obviously, this still has our support otherwise, and the category change seems appropriate.

"A very fair suggestion. I've made the change, and I plan on submitting this tomorrow."

"We've submitted. Delegates can now approve it."