NATION

PASSWORD

[RE-DRAFT] Consular Rights

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

[RE-DRAFT] Consular Rights

Postby Daynor » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:09 am

Greetings fellow ambassadors!

I rise today to propose a simple addition to the current international laws regarding fair trials. The current resolution on the matter, GA #37 Fairness in Criminal Trials has been on the books since four days before Daynor was founded. The resolution says this about the rights the accused has as to who he can choose to represent him or her:
INSISTS that the accused be permitted expert representation by a professional versed in the area of law concerned;

INSISTS that the accused and their representative be permitted to confer in private as regards the facts and presentation of the case, and that no part of such a conference may be revealed to any third party without the explicit permission of the accused;

FURTHER INSISTS that governmental or charitable mechanisms be set up to provide such representation to those accused otherwise unable to afford it;

REQUIRES that the accused be capable of understanding proceedings, through the provision by the court of translators and carers as necessary;
I agree with all of these requirements, but believe there is a whole other level that needs to be assured to those accused. The accused should not just be entitled to representation that understands the area of law in the nation the alleged crime occurred; the accused also deserves to be able to update their home nation (and possibly the accused's family as there would be nothing to require the host nation release any information of how the trial is going) and get advice from legal experts at the consulate. The same rights should be extended to those already convicted.

Consular Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Daynor

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the existence of diplomatic missions like consulates and embassies which serve as a representation from one nation
to another,

Understanding in many nations the laws may be confusing to understand for a common citizen from another culture and that a representative from the diplomatic mission of one's home nation may make the law more clear,

Realizing that nations may also accuse a citizen of a crime falsely and that governments way want to hear evidence from the citizen that he or she is being falsely accused so the government may protect its citizens abroad,

Knowing that those citizens of a nation convicted of a crime in another nation may also wish to speak to a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission to inform their government on conditions within the prison or to seek advice on appeals,

Hereby:

Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
The "home nation" as the nation the accused holds citizenship in.
The "host nation" as the nation that has accused or convicted the foreigner of a crime.
A "diplomatic mission" as an embassy, consulate, or other formal representation of the home nation.

Declares a person charged of a crime while in a member nation as a non-citizen has the right to meet with a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission within a host nation, should such a diplomatic mission exist,

Allows host nations to require these meetings to occur off of the actual grounds of the diplomatic mission, to prevent a situation where the accused refuses to leave the building the host nation is not allowed to access,

Encourages nations to staff diplomatic missions with legal experts in the host nation's laws to be able to advice their citizens accused of a crime within the host nation,

Further declares that foreigners convicted of crimes and imprisoned within member states have the right to meet with a representative of their home nation's diplomatic mission privately, within the prison, once per year, should such a diplomatic mission exist.


It is my belief this proposal provides a missing right that foreign defendants should be entitled to. I submit it for your consideration, and appreciate meaningful comments.

[OOC note: I am perusing this personally, and it does not represent The South Pacific in any way. However, please note that since I am a feeder delegate I have a lot to do elsewhere; it may take me a while to find a few hours to campaign for this if I were to submit it. But the first time that I will be able to do that, I will jump on it! :) ]

Humbly,
Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid
Last edited by Daynor on Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:38 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:55 am

Against. The fact is that a lawyer from another nation is unlikely to be aware of, or reckognized by, the legal system of another nation.


Each lawyer must have their law degree and passed any other ancillary education requirements to correctly represent the defendant and most nations have differing laws and protocols for their legal system.

User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Daynor » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:29 pm

Similar to if a person wishes to represent themselves even without a law degree they should be able to, all accused should have the right to be represented by anyone, even if under-qualified should they want to for any reason. National governments should have the ability to refuse their own natives the right to 'unqualified' defenders if they want to, but I would not want the citizens of Topid wandering into some foreign nation and being charged with a crime they did not commit, and forced to choose between a handful of defenders that are 'recognized' by the corrupt nation they found themselves in. Such defenders likely will not have foreign citizens' rights at heart.

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:37 pm

Daynor wrote:Similar to if a person wishes to represent themselves even without a law degree they should be able to, all accused should have the right to be represented by anyone, even if under-qualified should they want to for any reason. National governments should have the ability to refuse their own natives the right to 'unqualified' defenders if they want to, but I would not want the citizens of Topid wandering into some foreign nation and being charged with a crime they did not commit, and forced to choose between a handful of defenders that are 'recognized' by the corrupt nation they found themselves in. Such defenders likely will not have foreign citizens' rights at heart.

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid


If the nation is corrupt in the first place, what makes you think having the lawyer of your choice will make a difference?

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Mahaj
Senator
 
Posts: 4110
Founded: Dec 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:39 pm

Actually, I can support this.
Aal Izz Well: UDL
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations

User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:40 pm

I totally disagree. A person who has no knowledge of the laws and ordinances of a nations legal system has no business trying to defend a person.

It is often a criminal offence to provide legal counsel when not qualified to do so. Defendants need to have skilled and qualified counsel to protect their interests.

It's reprehensible to try and force unskilled legal advice on a person simply because they are foreign to the nation in which they are accused.

User avatar
Three Weasels
Diplomat
 
Posts: 696
Founded: Jan 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Three Weasels » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:47 pm

It has a good feel to it, it does, yea. One question.

Would this adequately serve to ensure that the defendant's representative is given access to libraries of legal documents of the nation, including updated copies of the law and the ability to review previous cases?
We're a splinter nation; we believe in Meadowism. We're sapient Mustela Itatsi, distant cousins of the Mustela Erminea and the Mustela Nivalis who shunned the ways of the Meadow for their belligerent beliefs.

We're cheese-powered. So, surrender your cheese. Or else. Yeah... or else. We'll... uh... we'll do something.

Oh and meadows are totally awesome. We love meadows.

User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Daynor » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:55 pm

Cerberion wrote:I totally disagree. A person who has no knowledge of the laws and ordinances of a nations legal system has no business trying to defend a person.

It is often a criminal offence to provide legal counsel when not qualified to do so. Defendants need to have skilled and qualified counsel to protect their interests.

It's reprehensible to try and force unskilled legal advice on a person simply because they are foreign to the nation in which they are accused.
It is not forcing unskilled legal advice on anyone. If an accused person is in a foreign nation and wants to use a defender from that nation that understands their laws completely they are still free to do so. In fact the above quoted resolution that is currently on the books requires that they be given that option. This simply ensures they have another option to choose from if they don't like the ones the nation that is accusing them of a crime offers them.

You are right, in most cases, a person within the nation would be far more effective at defending. But not all nations are friendly to outsiders or will represent outsiders in a fair way. And in cases where any representative from the 'host nation' is going to be biased against the accused simply because he or she is an outsider, or a foreigner from his or her specific nation, it is important for a defendant to have the right to pull in someone to represent him that won't hate him.

Separatist Peoples wrote:If the nation is corrupt in the first place, what makes you think having the lawyer of your choice will make a difference?
By choosing a defender from ones own nation rather than the corrupt one.

If a citizen from Topid, I will call her Jane, is traveling to NationX for vacation, and NationX has a notoriously corrupt legal system, or an extreme hatred toward outsiders, or even just an extreme hatred for Topidians for some historical reason, it may be in the best interest of Jane not to be forced to have a NationXian defender, but rather a fellow Topidian.

Mahaj wrote:Actually, I can support this.
I extend my thanks to the ambassador.
Three Weasels wrote:It has a good feel to it, it does, yea. One question.

Would this adequately serve to ensure that the defendant's representative is given access to libraries of legal documents of the nation, including updated copies of the law and the ability to review previous cases?
Ah, this is something I left out. There was a line I had written but omitted that would do so, I forgot to work it in when I took out the old bit. I'll add it, stand by.

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:04 pm

Daynor wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:If the nation is corrupt in the first place, what makes you think having the lawyer of your choice will make a difference?
By choosing a defender from ones own nation rather than the corrupt one.

If a citizen from Topid, I will call her Jane, is traveling to NationX for vacation, and NationX has a notoriously corrupt legal system, or an extreme hatred toward outsiders, or even just an extreme hatred for Topidians for some historical reason, it may be in the best interest of Jane not to be forced to have a NationXian defender, but rather a fellow Topidian.


But the system itself will probably still slant against the outsiders, regardless of the nationality of the lawyer. Especially in a corrupt system. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the idea at all, but it seems that, in the situation you are postulating, the defendant is destined to lose anyways.

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:05 pm

If a citizen from Topid, I will call her Jane, is traveling to NationX for vacation, and NationX has a notoriously corrupt legal system, or an extreme hatred toward outsiders, or even just an extreme hatred for Topidians for some historical reason, it may be in the best interest of Jane not to be forced to have a NationXian defender, but rather a fellow Topidian.


It's in the best interest of Jane to stay the heck out of such a cesspool.


So, I'll give this one more attempt based on my laws.
If Jane gets her Topidian lawyer over to defend her, and he makes a complete donkey's doodah out of the case, I'm free to prosecute that lawyer for being unqaulified to defend Jane, right?

I'm trying to protect Jane here.

Cerberion's legal system is ahem... convoluted ...and a law degree is one of the most difficult qualifications to obtain in my nation. Some people have quantum physics, my nation has quantum law with theoretical temporal legislation.

If Jane gets presented poorly, I want the right to prosecute the lawyer for failing her.

User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Daynor » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:13 pm

Cerberion wrote:It's in the best interest of Jane to stay the heck out of such a cesspool.

Family members. Business orders. Religious holy lands. There are many reasons that Jane may not be able to avoid shitty parts of the world.
Cerberion wrote:So, I'll give this one more attempt based on my laws.
If Jane gets her Topidian lawyer over to defend her, and he makes a complete donkey's doodah out of the case, I'm free to prosecute that lawyer for being unqaulified to defend Jane, right?
Absolutely not. If Jane wants to be represented by a dummy she can.
Cerberion wrote:I'm trying to protect Jane here.

You're trying to protect Jane from her own wishes, more specifically protecting Jane from protecting herself.
Cerberion wrote:Cerberion's legal system is ahem... convoluted ...and a law degree is one of the most difficult qualifications to obtain in my nation. Some people have quantum physics, my nation has quantum law with theoretical temporal legislation.

If Jane gets presented poorly, I want the right to prosecute the lawyer for failing her.

Then I'd better write in protection for those defendants.
Separatist Peoples wrote:But the system itself will probably still slant against the outsiders, regardless of the nationality of the lawyer. Especially in a corrupt system. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the idea at all, but it seems that, in the situation you are postulating, the defendant is destined to lose anyways.
Certainly, it doesn't bring us up to a perfectly fair trial. It takes a biased defender out of the equation but if the Judge is biased the defendant is still in a tough spot, for sure. Not much I can do about that though, this proposal helps as much as it can.

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid

User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:19 pm

Well, I can see I can't persuade you not to run with this, so I'll just have to try and persuade my home region to vote against it when it comes to the floor.

I think there's a level where we need to protect people from themselves. To import someone ignorant of laws in a nation borders on insanity.

User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Daynor » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:24 pm

I suppose I'll see you then, in that case. As I said it may be a long time...

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:32 pm

Daynor wrote:I suppose I'll see you then, in that case. As I said it may be a long time...

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid


Would this guarantee this right to foreigners in a nation that does not have a standard court system? For example, if there is a nation that settles disputes via armed battle, this wouldn't force the nation to alter its court structure to accommodate foreigners?

Not to say that this is a widespread issue, but I believe a clause stating that foreigners be given all the same legal rights as the native inhabitants would be a useful clause.

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Daynor » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:40 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:Would this guarantee this right to foreigners in a nation that does not have a standard court system? For example, if there is a nation that settles disputes via armed battle, this wouldn't force the nation to alter its court structure to accommodate foreigners?

Not to say that this is a widespread issue, but I believe a clause stating that foreigners be given all the same legal rights as the native inhabitants would be a useful clause.
There is existing law requiring fair criminal trials (see resolution mentioned in my first comments whose name and number slips my mind right now) so all World Assembly nations already have a court system, and should not rely on armed battles.

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:48 pm

Daynor wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Would this guarantee this right to foreigners in a nation that does not have a standard court system? For example, if there is a nation that settles disputes via armed battle, this wouldn't force the nation to alter its court structure to accommodate foreigners?

Not to say that this is a widespread issue, but I believe a clause stating that foreigners be given all the same legal rights as the native inhabitants would be a useful clause.
There is existing law requiring fair criminal trials (see resolution mentioned in my first comments whose name and number slips my mind right now) so all World Assembly nations already have a court system, and should not rely on armed battles.

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid


It was an example, but alright.

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Monikian WA Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 927
Founded: Nov 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Monikian WA Mission » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:39 am

A “foreign defendant” is any person who holds citizenship in another nation than the one he or she is accused of a crime within; even if the person also holds citizenship in the nation he or she is accused of a crime within,


"This definition would have serious problems in nations that allow dual citizenship. The fact of the matter is that if a person is a Citizen of both Nation A and Nation B, they are not "foreign" to either A or B, regardless of their status of foreignness in Nation C.

Asserts for these reasons the accused has the right to choose representation from their home nation or any other nation, and may not be limited to choices within the host nation or to a list of other nations which the accusers have approved,


"There are severe problems with this. For example Monkiah does not recognize attorneys from any other nation at all. Secondly, even if a nation did recognize attorneys from other nations, who is to say that those attorneys are competent to provide adequate council in a court of law? Each nation has its own judicial system, its own laws, its own ways of doing things. So then we run into the problem of is an attorney from the "home" state competent to provide legal council in the "host" state. By and large we would say no. The attorney in question should be versed in the laws of the state in which the crime was committed in order to adequately defend the accused.

Mandates that in the case where the home nation has an embassy, consulate, or other diplomatic mission with the host nation, the accused has the right to consult privately with an official from the diplomatic mission. Such a private meeting must not occur on grounds controlled by the diplomatic mission however, but in territory under the host nation’s control,


"So in other words they can talk to diplomats but can't go to their home nation's embassy for asylum? That poses a problem wherein the defendant commits a crime in the 'host' state that is not a crime in their home state. For example a Monikian smoking a cannabis cigarette openly in a state which has prohibited possession of or consumption of cannabis. This provision would actually place foreign citizens in jeopardy for minor crimes that can be smoothed over with a simple deportation.

Mandates further that if the home nation chooses, legal officials from the diplomatic mission may represent the foreign defendant if the foreign defendant requests it,


"Just because someone is a competent diplomat doesn't make them a competent attorney. The two roles are vastly different.

Declares that in cases where there are no diplomatic missions from the home nation within the host nation, or the home nation’s diplomatic mission refused to meet with the foreign defendant, the foreign defendant must be allowed to search for representation from his or her home nation or any outside nation,


"Again, begs the question of whether a foreign attorney would be competent to defend the accused.

"Over all this proposal makes the assumption that all member states have similar basic laws and similar judicial institutions. This is not the case with thousands of nations in the WA. Over all this issue could be addressed much easier by only mandating that should a foreigner be accused of a crime that the host state appoint council to the accused, and any translators if necessary.

"Over all, we must oppose at this time."
All posts should be assumed to be IC unless I am using an OOC indicator.

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

(An asterisk [*] {or exclamation point [!] at the beginning of a word} in Monikian Words indicates a clicking sound which is not easily translatable in the Latin alphabet)

some cool stuff

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4140
Founded: Antiquity
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Knootoss » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:10 am

What this resolution tries to do is nice, but what should really be promoted here is the right to consular assistance -- not the right to a foreign lawyer.

Image
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Ideological Bulwark #7 - RPed population preserves relative population sizes. Webgame population / 100 is used by default. If this doesn't work for you and it is relevant to our RP, please TG.

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:44 am

Knootoss wrote:What this resolution tries to do is nice, but what should really be promoted here is the right to consular assistance -- not the right to a foreign lawyer.


I actually agree with my square-faced colleague. A lawyer must be highly familiar with the laws of the nation in which he or she is practicing law, at least in the area of law being practiced. A Quelesian lawyer is unlikely to be able to competently represent someone in a criminal trial under Daynor law.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Daynor » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:11 am

Knootoss wrote:What this resolution tries to do is nice, but what should really be promoted here is the right to consular assistance -- not the right to a foreign lawyer.

That was how this originally started. But nations don't have consulates with every nation. In fact the general point is to protect the rights of people in a nation that hates their home nation (and is unlikely to have a consulate). I also considered requiring all nations to host consulates if the sending nation wanted one there, but decided this was less intrusive. I may revert to the old version (where it just ensures the right of people to meet with their consulate in nations where they are lucky enough to have one and laughs in the face of those SOL in nations where there is no consulate) before the lawyer bit was added, but it would be a generally weaker resolution as most of the teeth are taken out and the resolution is left with only one operative clause. I'd also likely only do that after the more purposeful proposal failed.


This statement wasn't easy to understand but I'll do my best to work at it:
Monikian WA Mission wrote:"This definition would have serious problems in nations that allow dual citizenship. The fact of the matter is that if a person is a Citizen of both Nation A and Nation B, they are not "foreign" to either A or B, regardless of their status of foreignness in Nation C.
I could easily be convinced to remove it. I added it last minute as a thought that a nation that hated Topidians could very easily create a law that all Topidians that enter NationX are citizens immediately (and thus they can deny them fair representation).

Monikian WA Mission wrote:"There are severe problems with this. For example Monkiah does not recognize attorneys from any other nation at all. Secondly, even if a nation did recognize attorneys from other nations, who is to say that those attorneys are competent to provide adequate council in a court of law? Each nation has its own judicial system, its own laws, its own ways of doing things. So then we run into the problem of is an attorney from the "home" state competent to provide legal council in the "host" state. By and large we would say no. The attorney in question should be versed in the laws of the state in which the crime was committed in order to adequately defend the accused.
Discussed to death in the thread above. If a person should choose an outsider lawyer, yes they are likely deciding to have someone less familiar with the laws representing them. But that is better than Topidians would represent some nations, I can assure you. Our nation has very little government, there are no 'public defenders' instead because we are mandated by WA law to provide free defense for those that cannot afford it, we pay private lawyers. The people here are ... less than polite ... and if you happen to come from a nation where the public has a high dislike for you will be hard pressed to find a defender that will do more than fill the chair next to you. That is why our government has long allowed people to pull in their own personal lawyers even if they do not understand our laws. Better to have a defender that will try to defend you even if he has very little experience in the current court than a defender who understands how to protect you, but believes you to be guilty because of your ethnicity and therefore is unwilling to help at all. And I'd appreciate the same kindness to my citizens we grant to other nations.

Monikian WA Mission wrote:"So in other words they can talk to diplomats but can't go to their home nation's embassy for asylum? That poses a problem wherein the defendant commits a crime in the 'host' state that is not a crime in their home state. For example a Monikian smoking a cannabis cigarette openly in a state which has prohibited possession of or consumption of cannabis. This provision would actually place foreign citizens in jeopardy for minor crimes that can be smoothed over with a simple deportation.
This part doesn't make sense to me.

If you walk down the street smoking pot in a nation where pot is illegal you're going to jail?'

The reason this clause is there, is because we have diplomatic immunity. If the accused is permitted meetings inside the consulate the host nation cannot force him to exit again. It would allow people in jail to request to go to their consulate and then never go back to jail.
Monikian WA Mission wrote:"Just because someone is a competent diplomat doesn't make them a competent attorney. The two roles are vastly different.
One of the basic rolls of a Consulate office is to have legal experts in the host nation's laws. Not all people at the consulate are diplomats.

Monikian WA Mission wrote:"Again, begs the question of whether a foreign attorney would be competent to defend the accused.
It would be a better defense than one where no one cross examines at all, because even your defender thinks you are guilty.

Monikian WA Mission wrote:"Over all this proposal makes the assumption that all member states have similar basic laws and similar judicial institutions.
No.
Monikian WA Mission wrote:This is not the case with thousands of nations in the WA.
We know.
Monikian WA Mission wrote:Over all this issue could be addressed much easier by only mandating that should a foreigner be accused of a crime that the host state appoint council to the accused, and any translators if necessary.
There are nations I have been engaged in war with, that would merely appoint defenders to sit next to my citizen, not actually defend them. Were this not already national law in my nation, the less than ... favourable ... view of outsiders would make your citizens completely incapable of being defended within my nation also.

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid
Last edited by Daynor on Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
FreeWillToAll
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby FreeWillToAll » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:18 am

Grants defenders that entered a nation at the request of a foreign defendant immunity from any charges based on how the defender tried the case, such as inefficiency,

A defender does not try the case, a judge tries the case.

P.S.
I <3 jury tampering or bribing the judge.

User avatar
Daynor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 736
Founded: Dec 25, 2008
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Daynor » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:44 am

FreeWillToAll wrote:A defender does not try the case, a judge tries the case.
OOC: *looks up*
Huh, I suppose I've never heard that phrase correctly, we always use it around here as 'argue the case'.

IC: I'll fix that.

FreeWillToAll wrote:P.S.
I <3 jury tampering or bribing the judge.
Not really addressed by this proposal but I am assuming by this you mean you support unjust justice systems and therefore oppose this?

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid

User avatar
FreeWillToAll
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby FreeWillToAll » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:50 am

FreeWillToAll wrote:P.S.
I <3 jury tampering or bribing the judge.
Not really addressed by this proposal but I am assuming by this you mean you support unjust justice systems and therefore oppose this?

World Assembly Ambassador Ted Fairless of Topid

No I'm saying that the clause I cited before can give immunity to the defender for doing this.
Last edited by FreeWillToAll on Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diogenes Epicurius
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Jul 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Diogenes Epicurius » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:29 am

I'm just going to throw out there that I approve. Clean work and it seems like you've pretty much thought of everything. I look forward to voting for this.

User avatar
Droskianishk
Envoy
 
Posts: 201
Founded: Dec 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Droskianishk » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:30 am

Cerberion has voiced our opposition well. The lawyer should be from -or at least have a tested and thorough knowledge- of the laws of the nation in which the charges are being brought, otherwise you are harming John/Jane Doe.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads