[Draft] Convention on Procedural Defenses

[Connopolis]

Before anyone makes the assumption that this contradicts, or duplicates Habeas Corpus; this proposal is a replacement draft for Quelesh's repeal. As we shared similar ideals on the topic, we came to the agreement that we would initiate a quick repeal and replace. If there are any factual inaccuracies, please, tell me immediately. In its current state, I am fairly sure it is in accordance with all prior international law (with the obvious exception of GAR#67), although, again, if I have missed something, or if I have added a duplicate clause, please, inform me so that I may modify the proposal. And without further ado:

Convention on Procedural Defenses

---

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

The General Assembly,

Alarmed by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals,

Considering the injustice of such a concept, and the possibility of perpetual, yet unjustified detention for certain individuals, as well as the possibility of unrelenting retrials against justly acquitted individuals, and the consequent potential for abuse,

Appalled that member-states may use such inequitable circumstances to their advantage,

Determined to end such practices in their entirety,

The World Assembly therefore resolves,

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without either formally charging or suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, four hours in any 30-day period or 24 hours in any 365-day period;

2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit defined in clause 2;

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime but who has not been convicted of that crime for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense;

6. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not detain or try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again;

7. Member states may vacate an individual's conviction of a crime (e.g. due to new exculpatory evidence that was not available during the original trial) and either release the individual or grant the individual a new trial for that crime. If the individual is again convicted of the crime, the new sentence shall not be more severe than the old sentence, and any conditions of the old sentence (such as length of time detained) that have been met shall count toward the completion of the new sentence;

8. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

9. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the individual's detention be deemed in contravention of either the member state's domestic law or international law (inclusive of this resolution), the member state must immediately release the individual;

10. Member states that dispense transactional immunity, defined as a legal immunity granted to a witness in which the witness cannot be prosecuted for offenses relating to their testimony, shall not retract the immunity post-testimony; furthermore, member states may not violate plea bargains given to individuals for their testimony under any circumstance, with exceptions made for perjury;

Co-Author: [nation=short]Quelesh[/nation]

The General Assembly,

Alarmed by the concept of criminally detaining individuals for indefinite periods of time without due process of law,

Considering the injustice of such a concept, and the possibility of perpetual, yet unjustified criminal detention for certain individuals,

Alternatively considering the possibility of unrelenting retrials against justly acquitted individuals, and the consequent potential of abuse,

Decrying instances in which a government retracts immunity granted to an individual during a trial, after extracting a legitimate testimony,

Appalled that member-states may use such inequitable circumstances to their advantage by punishing the justly acquitted through the aforementioned means,

The World Assembly therefore resolves:

1. Transactional immunity shall be defined as a legal immunity granted to a witness, in which they may not be prosecuted for offenses relating to their testimony.

2. Member-states that dispense transactional immunity to any given individual shall not retract the immunity post-testimony; furthermore, individuals given plea bargains for their testimonies may not have these plea bargains waived under any circumstance, with exceptions made to perjury.

3. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense.

4. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not detain or try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.

5. Member states may vacate an individual's conviction of a crime (e.g. due to new exculpatory evidence that was not available during the original trial) and either release the individual or grant the individual a new trial for that crime. If the individual is again convicted of the crime, the new sentence shall not be more severe than the old sentence, and any conditions of the old sentence (such as length of time detained) that have been met shall count toward the completion of the new sentence.

6. Member-states that dispense transactional immunity to any given individual shall not retract the immunity post-testimony; furthermore, individuals given plea bargains for their testimonies may not have these plea bargains waived under any circumstance, with exceptions made to perjury.

7. No individual may be imprisoned without either being legitimately charged with a criminal offense, or being suspected of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, four hours in any 30-day period, or 24 hours in any 365-day period.

8. No individual may be detained solely on the suspicion that they may have committed a criminal offense for more than thirty-six hours without being charged with such an offense. During periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not active, a maximum of ninety six hours shall not be counted towards the aforementioned thirty-six hour time-frame.

9. Multiple separate detentions on the suspicion of the same criminal charges shall culminatively count towards the time limit defined in clause eight.

10. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime but who has not been convicted of that crime for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law.

11. No individual legitimately convicted of a criminal offense shall be detained for a period longer than that of their lawful criminal sentence.

12. All individuals shall be dispensed the right to formally challenge the legality of their detention (inclusive of the legitimacy of their pre-trial procedures, trial, and post trial) before an impartial adjudicator; should any aspect of the individual's detention be deemed illegal, or in contravention of either their host member-state's domestic or international law (inclusive of this resolution), they shall be released immediately.

Co-Author: [nation=short]Quelesh[/nation]

Character Count: 4284

[Moronist Decisions]

There's quite a few problems with this particular draft:

2. All individuals shall be afforded the right of double jeopardy.

So a bad legal precedent stays as the precedent? The nation cannot appeal, not even on a point of law. While we don't allow that, we do allow what is referred to as the "case stated" referral, in which the Lion may appeal to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the legality following a criminal trial. In this case, the Court of Appeals ruling will be the legally binding ruling for future cases (precedent), but will not apply to this particular case. What would be your opinion on this?

within a practical frame of time between their detainment, and the beginning of trial; there shall be a frame of time no longer than the time required for both the prosecution and defense to effectively collect relevant, applicable evidence.

Only one day to prepare a trial? Lord. No.

Especially not if the case is complicated. And courts don't operate 24/7.

--

Promising, but in our opinion, flawed.

[Glenn]

1. Double jeopardy shall be defined as a procedural defense that prevents an individual from being tried more than once on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. Transactional immunity shall be defined as a legal immunity granted to a witness, in which they may not be prosecuted for offenses relating to their testimony.

I think this act will have a lot of potential once complete. There is one part after a cursory review that did raise a red flag. I understand the concept of transactional immunity, but the way you have it defined here, this could cause a witness to not receive a penalty for lying under oath.

[Black Marne]

While I agree with most of this proposal, Dr. Forshaw, I would like to point out a flaw in the first clause.

1. Double jeopardy shall be defined as a procedural defense that prevents an individual from being tried more than once on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. Transactional immunity shall be defined as a legal immunity granted to a witness, in which they may not be prosecuted for offenses relating to their testimony.

I would like to point out that that particular wording could be taken as such: Suppose an alleged murderer is acquitted at his trial. Then he decides to kill someone else. Under the proposal with this particular wording, he would not be tried on this offense due to "double jeopardy". Obviously not something any justice seeking person such as you or I would desire. If I may, I would suggest getting rid of the part I have bolded for you.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Ossitania]

The only flaws in Habeas Corpus are the double jeopardy clauses but this proposal is almost comical in its reduction of the powers of the detention of the legal system. A person charged with a crime may be held for no more than 24 hours in a week? Poppycock. Unless stipulations at least similar to, if not equal to or greater than, the original time periods of Habeas Corpus are included, we will find this proposal impossible to support and will, indeed, campaign most strongly against it.

Furthermore, in addition to the point raised by the honourable representative of Black Marne, clause five, though not referring specifically to any particular resolution, relies on prior law, which is not guaranteed to always exist. If the current fair trial legislation was repealed, then clause five would disintegrate. We also believe that the specific stipulation of the right to a trial is duplication and that the time limit stipulation is utter rubbish as it (1) only gives time to gather evidence but not analyse it and (2) doesn't account for the busy schedule of the average court. In truth, we would support the scrapping of clause five altogether.

We see no provision for a retrial based on new evidence. As your proposal currently stands, if you were acquitted of a crime, you could not be retried for that crime even if you confessed on national television and waved a bag of evidence and the murder weapon around in the air. In addition, the measures on transactional immunity do not prevent the state from reneging on any other deals made in exchange for testimony, only those that guarantee immunity. However, we do not think these need fixing - we think these each need a separate resolution. The current resolution on Habeas Corpus is flawed because it prevents double jeopardy. This is not a call to replace it with an omnibus proposal combining detention law, double jeopardy, deal-cutting, the right to a trial (which is already guaranteed) and the right of non-self-incrimination. Each of these issues deserves its own resolution. The fact that you probably could squeeze them all into one resolution doesn't mean you should; it causes both your preamble and your operative clauses to be rambly and directionless.

Ambassador, with the utmost respect, the resolution you are attempting to replace is very important. If you and Quelesh are going to repeal it, we need assurances that the replacement legislation is as good as if not better than the original. If you can't deliver that, then we can support neither the repeal nor the replacement.

[Connopolis]

So a bad legal precedent stays as the precedent? The nation cannot appeal, not even on a point of law. While we don't allow that, we do allow what is referred to as the "case stated" referral, in which the Lion may appeal to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the legality following a criminal trial. In this case, the Court of Appeals ruling will be the legally binding ruling for future cases (precedent), but will not apply to this particular case. What would be your opinion on this?

Personally, I am against retrying any individuals, under any circumstances; that being said, I do realize the extremity of this, and would find it unfair to force fellow member-states to embrace my views on the matter. As such, I have modified the clause accordingly.

Only one day to prepare a trial? Lord. No.

This clause has been removed, on the account that it may serve no purpose, should the legislation it was referring to be repealed.

Promising, but in our opinion, flawed.

We thank your Excellency for his invaluable input.

I think this act will have a lot of potential once complete. There is one part after a cursory review that did raise a red flag. I understand the concept of transactional immunity, but the way you have it defined here, this could cause a witness to not receive a penalty for lying under oath.

Addressed; exceptions have been made in the case of perjury. We thank you for your input, ambassador.

The only flaws in Habeas Corpus are the double jeopardy clauses but this proposal is almost comical in its reduction of the powers of the detention of the legal system. A person charged with a crime may be held for no more than 24 hours in a week? Poppycock. Unless stipulations at least similar to, if not equal to or greater than, the original time periods of Habeas Corpus are included, we will find this proposal impossible to support and will, indeed, campaign most strongly against it.

Addressed, Your Excellency. We believe the irrationality of our initial clause was caused by sleep deprivation; either way, moving on.

Furthermore, in addition to the point raised by the honourable representative of Black Marne, clause five, though not referring specifically to any particular resolution, relies on prior law, which is not guaranteed to always exist. If the current fair trial legislation was repealed, then clause five would disintegrate. We also believe that the specific stipulation of the right to a trial is duplication and that the time limit stipulation is utter rubbish as it (1) only gives time to gather evidence but not analyse it and (2) doesn't account for the busy schedule of the average court. In truth, we would support the scrapping of clause five altogether.

The clause has been removed, Your Excellency.

We see no provision for a retrial based on new evidence. As your proposal currently stands, if you were acquitted of a crime, you could not be retried for that crime even if you confessed on national television and waved a bag of evidence and the murder weapon around in the air.

Again, we have addressed this concern.

In addition, the measures on transactional immunity do not prevent the state from reneging on any other deals made in exchange for testimony, only those that guarantee immunity.

Forgive me for my monotony, but we have addressed this as well; albeit, thanks to your input.

However, we do not think these need fixing - we think these each need a separate resolution. The current resolution on Habeas Corpus is flawed because it prevents double jeopardy. This is not a call to replace it with an omnibus proposal combining detention law, double jeopardy, deal-cutting, the right to a trial (which is already guaranteed) and the right of non-self-incrimination.

This is were I must disagree. I can only hope that Your Excellency isn't suggesting several independent resolutions, all addressing the procedural rights you enumerated. That is absolutely ridiculous for two reasons: 1) We would end up with 4-5 resolutions, approximately two operative clauses long; and 2) why is this necessary when all of these rights fall under the same general order of rights? Why is it that a resolution cannot address more than one dissimilar issue, all of which fall under a common purpose? As such, all of the fundamental ideals within this resolution shall remain as such.

We thank all ambassador for their invaluable input, and, as you can see, we have used nearly all of it.

Yours in genuine thanks,

[Moronist Decisions]

I do think Black Marne, in this case, does have a point. It should not be "similar" charges - under this, as I read it, you can be charged only once per lifetime with murder. It probably should be "charges based on substantially the same set of facts" or some such (to prevent someone being charged first with murder, then re-tried for manslaughter, then re-tried for endangerment of life, etc.)

[Connopolis]

I do think Black Marne, in this case, does have a point. It should not be "similar" charges - under this, as I read it, you can be charged only once per lifetime with murder. It probably should be "charges based on substantially the same set of facts" or some such (to prevent someone being charged first with murder, then re-tried for manslaughter, then re-tried for endangerment of life, etc.)

Goodness gracious! I'm not sure how I missed His Excellency Weebam-Na's comment, but we shall immediately modify the clause.

Yours in thanks,

[Moronist Decisions]

4. No individual may be held against their will without either being legitimately charged with a criminal offense, or being suspected of a criminal offense for more than three hours in any one week - complete legal authorization for such detention is required. Such authorization shall reserve the right to extend the period of detention to, at most, twenty-eight hours in any given week.

5. No individual may be detained solely on the suspicion that they may have committed a criminal offense for more than thirty-six hours without being charged with such an offense. During periods of time in which judicial authorities are not active, a maximum of ninety six hours shall not be counted towards the aforementioned thirty-sex hour time-frame.

These clauses aren't really making sense to me.

- Does one require complete legal authorization to detain someone for the first three hours without charge? The wording seems like it can go both ways.
- For the second one, typically in our nation police can charge someone with a crime. Therefore, the second sentence might not be necessary; however, that said, either way I would find it hard to deal with the "thirty-sex" hour time frame. ;-)

[Quelesh]

First, I don't intend to submit a repeal of GAR67 until the replacement is ready.

Second, I'm not going to have internet access after today until the end of the weekend. When I get back, I'll work over this draft with a few revisions that hopefully will be acceptable.

Third, I definitely oppose the new exception in clause 2.

I do think Black Marne, in this case, does have a point. It should not be "similar" charges - under this, as I read it, you can be charged only once per lifetime with murder. It probably should be "charges based on substantially the same set of facts" or some such (to prevent someone being charged first with murder, then re-tried for manslaughter, then re-tried for endangerment of life, etc.)

Goodness gracious! I'm not sure how I missed His Excellency Weebam-Na's comment, but we shall immediately modify the clause.

Wait, Black Marne's ambassador is actually the "Rat Ragu with Powdered Deer Penis" guy?

[Ossitania]

This is were I must disagree. I can only hope that Your Excellency isn't suggesting several independent resolutions, all addressing the procedural rights you enumerated. That is absolutely ridiculous for two reasons: 1) We would end up with 4-5 resolutions, approximately two operative clauses long; and 2) why is this necessary when all of these rights fall under the same general order of rights? Why is it that a resolution cannot address more than one dissimilar issue, all of which fall under a common purpose? As such, all of the fundamental ideals within this resolution shall remain as such.

We thank all ambassador for their invaluable input, and, as you can see, we have used nearly all of it.

Yours in genuine thanks,

We thank the delegate for Connopolis for addressing our concerns and must admit, with some embarrassment that sleep deprivation also caused our own irrationality and, indeed, irritability at various points, on the final point in particular. We retract our objection to the omnibus proposal. However, we would like to see something in the preamble that logically leads to the clause on non-self-incrimination. Nitpicking, perhaps, but there should be a justification in the preamble for all measures enumerated in the operative clauses. As well as that, we would like to see clarification on the issue of the ambiguities raised by the honourable representative of Moronist Decisions.

Yours in ambiguous consciousness,

[Moronist Decisions]

I think that Quelesh does have a point. It will make this toothless (the open-ranged "practical exception"). I know what you were trying to address, and if you can't that is fine. Honestly, we're weird that way, and we can certainly argue that we're not really retrying the person, but obtaining a legal opinion from a higher court.

[Bears Armed]

It should be possible to lift transactional immunity if solid evidence is discovered that the person concerned played a significantly greater role in the offence[s] concerned than they admitted to when that deal was made.

[Glenn]

It should be possible to lift transactional immunity if solid evidence is discovered that the person concerned played a significantly greater role in the offence[s] concerned than they admitted to when that deal was made.

Yeah I agree. If for a murder trial a witness admits to murdering the person then it should be dealt with. But in the case of where someone is being tried for hiring the hitman, the hitman should be granted transactional immunity since it was the person who hired the hitman who had the greater role (without the person hiring the hitman, the crime never would have happened).

[Cerberion]

Convention on Procedural Defenses

---

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

The General Assembly,

Alarmed by the concept of criminally detaining individuals for indefinite periods of time without due process of law,

Isn't that somewhat nonsense? If a state establishes a lawful process for detaining individuals without trial for certain acts, there is immediately due process and the detention is not "criminal".

Also, in the current case, the state decides what is or isn't criminal. This needs to be made much more generic and far less accusatory. At this stage we only know that individuals get detained without trial for some things.

Considering the injustice of such a concept, and the possibility of perpetual, yet unjustified criminal detention for certain individuals,

Again, usage of the word criminal here is inappropriate, because the state defines what is or isn't criminal. You need to define what criminal detention is later on.

If a state puts in any legislation allowing this type of detention, then it is instantly lawful, not criminal.

Alternatively considering the possibility of unrelenting retrials against justly acquitted individuals, and the consequent potential of abuse,

Alternatively?

Decrying instances in which a government retracts immunity granted to an individual during a trial, after extracting a legitimate testimony,

Unless that individual reveals further criminal acts, which should then be lawfully persued because the immunity is granted for testifying about a specific crime.

Appalled that member-states may use such inequitable circumstances to their advantage by punishing the justly acquitted through the aforementioned means,

All of the above really needs to be made much more verbose in trying to define what acts are being commited that the WA is concerned about. Nothing above here is criminal, unless it already violates international law. As this will come in after the repeal, any practice which would have been covered under the repealed legislation becomes lawful internationally until the replacement goes in.

The World Assembly therefore resolves:

1. Double jeopardy shall be defined as a procedural defense that prevents an individual from being tried more than once on the same charges - or with charges that effectively incorporate offenses the individual has been vindicated of - following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. Transactional immunity shall be defined as a legal immunity granted to a witness, in which they may not be prosecuted for offenses relating to their testimony.

Strongly opposed. Here's the rationale:
Jimmy "The finger" McDudgit has turned states witness on a mafia family accused under racketeering laws.
During his testimony he then reveals he's murdered seventeen people for the family, which relates directly to the charges against the family. If the prosecution was aware that Jimmy was the major family enforcer they would not have let him turn states evidence.
Jimmy is now free and clear of seventeen acts of murder.

2. All individuals shall be afforded the right of double jeopardy; double jeopardy may be waived in instances in which legitimate, practical evidence suggests that the initial verdict was incorrect.

3. Member-states that dispense transactional immunity to any given individual shall not retract the immunity post-testimony; furthermore, individuals given plea bargains for their testimonies may not have these plea bargains waived under any circumstance, with exceptions made to perjury.
[

Same concerns continue.

4. No individual may be held against their will without either being legitimately charged with a criminal offense, or being suspected of a criminal offense for more than three hours in any one week - complete legal authorization for such detention is required. Such authorization shall reserve the right to extend the period of detention to, at most, twenty-eight hours in any given week.

That's rediculous. What if the individual is a danger to themselves or the populace because they have had a mental episode and the duty doctor has been delayed? They may not have commited a crime and then should be released?
24 hours I'll support. I know what you are trying to protect here but it fails to catch corner cases.

5. No individual may be detained solely on the suspicion that they may have committed a criminal offense for more than thirty-six hours without being charged with such an offense. During periods of time in which judicial authorities are not active, a maximum of ninety six hours shall not be counted towards the aforementioned thirty-sex hour time-frame.

That's reasonable.

6. Criminal/civil defendants may not be punished for refusing to testify in their own criminal case, and as such, the state may not ask trial adjudicators, the jury, or other such entities responsible for deciding the verdict, to draw an inference of guilt from the criminal/civil defendants' refusal to testify in their own defense.

That's reasonable.
I need a lot done to this to make it acceptable to me. The opening clauses should be factual and not imply criminality or unlawful practices by the state.
There needs to be provision for crimes revealed under testimony which relate to the charges but were not revealed to the prosecution before the individual took the stand. People should not get a clean slate because they turn states evidence, unless the state knows what they are going to admit to under oath.
Detention of greater than 3 hours for protective custody for individuals who may be a danger to themselves or the public.

[Glenn]

I agree with the above comments, most specifically about witnesses admitting to committing additional crimes (if a witness admitted to raping and slaughtering thousands of people on the stand during a hearing concerning a DUI, we cannot just ignore that) and about detention concerning mental health issues. Where I am from (in RL as well) this process is allowed up to 72 hours. A proper psychiatric or psychological examination takes time, and at the end of the 72 hours the client must have a hearing. I failed to consider this issue to be under the same grounds of a "detention" but that is exactly what it is, although just not behind bars in a jail generally. I would go above the previous author's recommendation of 24 hours and say it should be given 72 hours in order to ensure that the psychological evaluation is not done too hastily. This also gives caseworkers, mental health professionals and doctors time to prepare their documents for inclusion into the record for the "72-hour hearing" and ensures that at least a somewhat adequate amount of information is included in the hearing. If hearings are not properly prepared for, then the mental health agency can loose the case which would be dangerous to the public or to the client if there really are serious mental health concerns.

[Connopolis]

Isn't that somewhat nonsense? If a state establishes a lawful process for detaining individuals without trial for certain acts, there is immediately due process and the detention is not "criminal".

Forgive me for the poor wording of that clause; it was meant to imply detention for criminal actions, not the act of detaining someone criminally. I'll resolve this, in accordance with your comment.

Alternatively?

That should be "additionally;" we thank you for your circumspect observation, Your Excellency.

Unless that individual reveals further criminal acts, which should then be lawfully persued because the immunity is granted for testifying about a specific crime.

That is covered, Your Excellency:

Transactional immunity shall be defined as a legal immunity granted to a witness, in which they may not be prosecuted for offenses relating to their testimony.

All of the above really needs to be made much more verbose in trying to define what acts are being commited that the WA is concerned about. Nothing above here is criminal, unless it already violates international law. As this will come in after the repeal, any practice which would have been covered under the repealed legislation becomes lawful internationally until the replacement goes in.

Of course none of it is criminal, your Excellency; rather, it is unjust. Unless you're referring to my ambiguous "criminal detention" term, which will be modified.

Strongly opposed. Here's the rationale:
Jimmy "The finger" McDudgit has turned states witness on a mafia family accused under racketeering laws.
During his testimony he then reveals he's murdered seventeen people for the family, which relates directly to the charges against the family. If the prosecution was aware that Jimmy was the major family enforcer they would not have let him turn states evidence.
Jimmy is now free and clear of seventeen acts of murder.

We fail to see how the definition of transactional immunity would cover that; transactional immunity, as defined by the proposal, only protects individuals from offenses relating to their testimony. Albeit, we will clarify the clause to ensure no such confusion is incurred in the future.

That's rediculous. What if the individual is a danger to themselves or the populace because they have had a mental episode and the duty doctor has been delayed? They may not have commited a crime and then should be released?
24 hours I'll support. I know what you are trying to protect here but it fails to catch corner cases.

Ambassador, that simply states that you may not detain someone for more than three hours in one week without charging them with a crime. 24 hours, in this particular instance, would mean that member-states may detain any individual, without any reason, for 24 hours in any given week.

That's reasonable.

Why thank you, Your Excellency!

Yours very truly,

[Cerberion]

(for the sake of my sanity not quoting the whole thing).

You have not yet addressed the question of those being detained in protective custody who may pose a valid threat to the population at large.

Have you ever tried to get a doctor to come out on Sunday to look at the person found capering around the streets with a running chainsaw and a ski mask? Sure no crime was violated but it's certainly concerning and worth holding the person who then professed that they wanted to let the little demons out of the liliputians.

It has to be longer than 3 hours. That's just insufficient to make a valid decision on someone's mental health.

Thanks for taking my other gripes on board. I will look forward to clarification of the transactional immunity.

[Dukopolious]

Regarding Article 4 of the Convention on Procedural Defences

4.No individual may be held against their will without either being legitimately charged with a criminal offense, or being suspected of a criminal offense for more than three hours in any one week -

We would like to ask the honoured ambassador from Connopolis to extend the maximum detention period from 3 hours to 12 or above, for the individual may be valuable to the suspected crime, and 3 hours is considered to be far to short a timeline for processing.

We would also like to note, said individual may not be a suspect of a crime suspected to be related to a crime, a criminal or otherwise a hypothetical un-abiding citizen of the law, but rather a witness, or otherwise innocent individual whom could be influenced to refuse to speak with the member nation's law enforcement staff, or otherwise may not be able or be willing to speak of the information which could potentially stop a crime, or bring justice upon the criminal(s).

I'd encourage at least 12 hours, but a suggested 18 hours. I'd also make it mandatory, that in this time frame, the individual may not be punished unless breaking a law of the member nation the individual resides within.

[Black Marne]

First, I don't intend to submit a repeal of GAR67 until the replacement is ready.

Second, I'm not going to have internet access after today until the end of the weekend. When I get back, I'll work over this draft with a few revisions that hopefully will be acceptable.

Third, I definitely oppose the new exception in clause 2.

Goodness gracious! I'm not sure how I missed His Excellency Weebam-Na's comment, but we shall immediately modify the clause.

Wait, Black Marne's ambassador is actually the "Rat Ragu with Powdered Deer Penis" guy?

Esteemed ambassador, while I feel slightly honored that you at least remember something my namesake had said, the man you are referring to was a profiteering scoundrel. The Weebam-Na of that time was a well known hunter. And I must disappoint you, for he has been dead for over 13 centuries now. In fact, I only know of him due to an extreme love of the history of the first four eras of Black Marne, formerly Black Marsh.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Moronist Decisions]

4. No individual may be held against their will without either being legitimately charged with a criminal offense, or being suspected of a criminal offense for more than three hours in any one week - complete legal authorization for such detention is required. Such authorization shall reserve the right to extend the period of detention to, at most, twenty-eight hours in any given week.

I do think that this has two problems. Firstly, complete legal authorization (police?) for initial detention of 3 hours per week is allowed. I can then re-authorize this for up to 28 hours. What separates the first three hours and the subsequent 25 hours?

Also, the wording is suspect ;-). Specifically, this suggests that (based on another possible reading of this clause) to detain someone, I have to charge someone (fine, that can typically be done by the police) or "suspect someone for three hours". Okay, that delays arrest by three hours.

Why not just say that everyone must be charged with a crime to be detained, and that notification of charges must be given as soon as practicable?

I do think, however, that involuntary detention of the insane for evaluation should be allowed.

[Connopolis]

You have not yet addressed the question of those being detained in protective custody who may pose a valid threat to the population at large.

Have you ever tried to get a doctor to come out on Sunday to look at the person found capering around the streets with a running chainsaw and a ski mask? Sure no crime was violated but it's certainly concerning and worth holding the person who then professed that they wanted to let the little demons out of the liliputians.

It has to be longer than 3 hours. That's just insufficient to make a valid decision on someone's mental health.

Thanks for taking my other gripes on board. I will look forward to clarification of the transactional immunity.

Ambassador, I genuinely appreciate your circumspect analysis of the proposal, but I will not raise the time limit. Granted, to assuage your concerns: I fail to see why any member-state would fail to suspect someone of a crime, regardless of their mental state. If they have not yet committed a crime, but are suspected of insanity, would it not be reasonable to send them to a psychiatric institute, as opposed to extending the time period in which any given individual can be detained? Of course, as you already know, under current World Assembly legislation, the limit is two hours.

Yours in sincerity,

[Moronist Decisions]

would it not be reasonable to send them to a psychiatric institute, as opposed to extending the time period in which any given individual can be detained?

As written, as we read it, you can't detain someone in a psychiatric institution without their consent or without charging them with a crime. I suppose we can ... declare "being insane" as a crime in and of itself?

[Cerberion]

Ambassador, I genuinely appreciate your circumspect analysis of the proposal, but I will not raise the time limit. Granted, to assuage your concerns: I fail to see why any member-state would fail to suspect someone of a crime, regardless of their mental state. If they have not yet committed a crime, but are suspected of insanity, would it not be reasonable to send them to a psychiatric institute, as opposed to extending the time period in which any given individual can be detained? Of course, as you already know, under current World Assembly legislation, the limit is two hours.

Yours in sincerity,[/quote]

Forgive me, I thought the intention of this act was to improve on GA#67.

A police Officer is not qualified to assess a persons mental health, and can not be made responsible for the decision of whether to commit an individual to a mental institution. It is essential that a psychological medical practitioner assess the individual and make the judgment call of whether the person is likely to pose a threat to society.

Can you imagine the uproar if the average cop had a citizen committed to a psychiatric hospital because he was merely tuning his chainsaw and couldn't find his protective goggles? Just because he made a joke about liliputians he now has to undergo 4 months of evaluation?

One other aspect is that on a Saturday night, particularly after a large sporting event, it can take hours just to be processed, let alone charged with a crime.

Protective custody and enough time to process an individual is going to be an essential addition to the legislation if you want me to support this, and promote it within my region.

With Respect,
Cermon T. Dawg.

[Bears Armed]

Somebody is arrested but, due to circumstances (such as crowded courts, or the need for medical treatment first) cannot actually be charged within the three hours limit and therefore has to be released. The next day, they are caught red-pawed committing a verrry serious offence... but cannot even be arrested, because that would involve detaining them for longer than three hours in a single week?!? Opposed. Any time limit imposed should apply specifically to offences committed on a single occasion, not to offences committed on separate occasions within the longer period concerned...