[DEFEATED] No Penalty Without Law

[Mousebumples]

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its stance that "one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law,"

Regretting, however, the lack of legal safeguards protecting individuals from criminal penalties in circumstances where no relevant law exists,

Believing that the World Assembly must act to rectify this oversight,

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

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

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

4. Permits the following exceptions to clause three, subject to limitations and guidelines recognized by extant General Assembly legislation: 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;

5. Mandates that such established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law shall define the punishable action in good faith so as to minimize ambiguity;

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;

7. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified;

8. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall provide protection for those that claim ignorance of the law if the relevant law is publicly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of clause six.

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its stance that "one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law;"

Regretting, however, the lack of legal safeguards protecting individuals from criminal penalties in circumstances where no relevant law exists,

Believing that the World Assembly must act to rectify this oversight,

And to this end resolves;

1. No individual may be arrested, detained, or prosecuted for an action which is not illegal according to a member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law;

2. Such established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law shall define the punishable action in good faith so as to minimize ambiguity;

3. Member nations shall ensure that all established statutory laws, judicial precedents, and/or principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated through all means practical and necessary; member nations shall be prohibited from arresting, detaining, and/or prosecuting individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;

4. All individuals convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified.

"Right now, the name is esoteric at best and downright supercilious at worst, so I'm probably going to change it soon. As always, criticism and and comments are appreciated."

EDIT: Typo in the title.

[Araraukar]

OOC: ...despite it being Legalese, I think there's something somewhere about proposal titles needing to be understandable (aka English) to all...

Latin titles are legal

Legal, maybe yes, sensible, unlikely. Mind you, if you just put the translation at the top of the first post, it'd cut down on comments like mine.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: ...despite it being Legalese, I think there's something somewhere about proposal titles needing to be understandable (aka English) to all...

"That's not necessarily true. Latin titles are legal, so long as the translation matches the content. But as I said, I'm more than willing to change the name. 'No penalty without law' sounds a little bit insipid though, so I figured I'd wait until a better title came along."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"First thoughts: don't use 'and/or'.

"I wonder how this will impact customary law. It might be worth specifying that for the purposes of this resolution - or in general - all other forms are to supercede customary law where there is an ambiguity. (Given The Dark Star Republic does not have a strong customary law tradition, though, I won't wade too deeply into this.)

"Article 4 doesn't address people previously convicted, but now released: they should have their convictions nullified too.

"Otherwise, we of course remain completely supportive of this."

~ former Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Sciongrad]

"First thoughts: don't use 'and/or'.

"A very fair criticism."

"I wonder how this will impact customary law. It might be worth specifying that for the purposes of this resolution - or in general - all other forms are to supercede customary law where there is an ambiguity. (Given The Dark Star Republic does not have a strong customary law tradition, though, I won't wade too deeply into this.)

"This is certainly worth considering. I'll attempt to address it in the next draft."

"Article 4 doesn't address people previously convicted, but now released: they should have their convictions nullified too.

"Good catch! I'll change that shortly."

"Otherwise, we of course remain completely supportive of this."

"As always, I'm humbled by your delegation's continued support and assistance."

[Alqania]

"The Queendom would prefer to see this proposal in the Human Rights category, but otherwise we are tentatively supportive of the draft as currently written", approved Lord Raekevik.

[Sciongrad]

"The Queendom would prefer to see this proposal in the Human Rights category, but otherwise we are tentatively supportive of the draft as currently written", approved Lord Raekevik.

"I'm very willing to consider this. The more I think on it, the more I realize that precedent and logic indicate that Human Rights may be the more appropriate category."

[MRWOFFLE]

So just so I'm clear, this disallows countries to arrest people without there being a crime taken place...

1) You may want to add something that allows countries to arrest on suspicion of a major crime that will be committed, as long as proper evidence is obtained


2) Does this prevent impractical laws also? I mean yes you may be able to ban the ability to arrest criminals without them performing a crime, but what if the crime was something like not having properly shined shoes.


3) Does the government have the right to arrest a citizen over doing something evil or harmful, which would be declared a crime later on? Some countries are still discovering the beauty of the internet, perhaps piracy isn't a law yet, do you get what I'm saying. If murder wasn't a crime yet, would I get off free by doing a murder before the country realizes it's a horrible thing?


4) Is there any possible way for a country to detain a person for a certain amount of time out of pure suspicion?


I'm sorry to say that The Republic of MRWOFFLE does not support this proposal due to the fact that they at the moment we can not arrest a citizen over suspicion of a possible crime, even with evidence proposed(From my understanding), I also will not agree to these terms as citizens would be allowed to be freed over something presumed to be evil, before a law can be placed.

[Discoveria]

Doesn't a literal reading of this draft negate the jurisdiction of WA/international law? If the WA makes something illegal, but this proposal prevents prosecution for "an action which is not illegal according to a member nation's established statutory laws", then the WA's illegal activity can't be enforced.

[Sciongrad]

Doesn't a literal reading of this draft negate the jurisdiction of WA/international law? If the WA makes something illegal, but this proposal prevents prosecution for "an action which is not illegal according to a member nation's established statutory laws", then the WA's illegal activity can't be enforced.

"I don't necessarily think that's an issue, because WA law has the force of law in the legal jurisdictions of all member nations. Although if the problem does arise, I don't think it would be difficult to fix."

1) You may want to add something that allows countries to arrest on suspicion of a major crime that will be committed, as long as proper evidence is obtained

"This has nothing to do with arresting based on evidence. It involves arresting someone for a crime which is not recognized by a nation's legal system. If I have evidence that John killed someone, then I can arrest him because murder is illegal in Sciongrad. If inculpatory evidence indicates John murdered someone in another nation where murder is not illegal, however, he cannot be arrested because the action is not illegal."

2) Does this prevent impractical laws also? I mean yes you may be able to ban the ability to arrest criminals without them performing a crime, but what if the crime was something like not having properly shined shoes.

"This proposal's scope is limited to preventing penalties for actions that are not illegal. Forcing member nations to create laws that can be considered rational is not only outside the scope of this resolution, but unworkable."

3) Does the government have the right to arrest a citizen over doing something evil or harmful, which would be declared a crime later on? Some countries are still discovering the beauty of the internet, perhaps piracy isn't a law yet, do you get what I'm saying. If murder wasn't a crime yet, would I get off free by doing a murder before the country realizes it's a horrible thing?

"Arresting someone for an action and then declaring the action illegal later on is already prohibited by GAR#79. Regardless of how heinous the action might be, it is unjust to punish someone for something that is not illegal."

4) Is there any possible way for a country to detain a person for a certain amount of time out of pure suspicion?

"Again, this proposal deals strictly with punishing individuals for actions that are not illegal. The circumstances under which an arrest can be made are not within the scope of this resolution unless they pertain to arrests that are either for actions that are not illegal or for violations of laws that are not properly promulgated."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Doesn't a literal reading of this draft negate the jurisdiction of WA/international law? If the WA makes something illegal, but this proposal prevents prosecution for "an action which is not illegal according to a member nation's established statutory laws", then the WA's illegal activity can't be enforced.

"I don't necessarily think that's an issue, because WA law has the force of law in the legal jurisdictions of all member nations. Although if the problem does arise, I don't think it would be difficult to fix."

"I agree with Ambassador Turing; I was originally going to mention including 'and international law', but I forgot.

"The Queendom would prefer to see this proposal in the Human Rights category, but otherwise we are tentatively supportive of the draft as currently written", approved Lord Raekevik.

"I'm very willing to consider this. The more I think on it, the more I realize that precedent and logic indicate that Human Rights may be the more appropriate category."

"While I hope the discussion moves on from this issue, for now I'll state why I think Furtherment of Democracy is the right category.

"This doesn't create any new freedoms. If a nation wants to ban carrots, they still can; they simply have to tell their citizens that carrots are illegal, first. Should this pass, civil freedoms - to eat carrots - would not necessarily be any more liberal. But political freedoms - the right to have a government that represents them - would increase."

~ forgetful Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik glanced sceptically at Fungschlammer. "Since when does a state obligation to promulgate laws equal representative government? The Alqanian delegation finds this proposal comparable to the Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws, which is a Significant Human Rights resolution."

"On another note, I assume this proposal would not affect things like involuntary psychiatric commitment and detention under the Diplomat Protection Act."

[Araraukar]

If a nation wants to ban carrots, they still can; they simply have to tell their citizens that carrots are illegal, first.

But the carrots wouldn't be illegal before the law that bans them became into effect, after which it would be too late to tell the people...?

[Metox]

If a nation wants to ban carrots, they still can; they simply have to tell their citizens that carrots are illegal, first.

But the carrots wouldn't be illegal before the law that bans them became into effect, after which it would be too late to tell the people...?

Then Ex Post Facto Law ban comes into effect... right?

[MRWOFFLE]

1) You may want to add something that allows countries to arrest on suspicion of a major crime that will be committed, as long as proper evidence is obtained

"This has nothing to do with arresting based on evidence. It involves arresting someone for a crime which is not recognized by a nation's legal system. If I have evidence that John killed someone, then I can arrest him because murder is illegal in Sciongrad. If inculpatory evidence indicates John murdered someone in another nation where murder is not illegal, however, he cannot be arrested because the action is not illegal."

I don't believe I got my comment across, what I meant to suggest is do we still have legal right to arrest a man, if we have evidence that he was planning or may commit a crime. In a country where we have extreme surveillance to the point were not even thoughts are privately held, we know when laws are about to be broken, are we legally allowed to arrest them for it, even though technically they never broke a law?

[Aligned Planets]

Whilst recognising the esteemed opinion of the Gods on this (OOC: Kryo's ruling on latin titles as linked to already), we have to question the necessity of non-English phrasings for titles.

Without wishing to unduly impugn the honourable delegate from Sciongrad, whose opinion we have always held in the highest regard, we feel the proliferation of non-English titled proposals to be at best confusing and at worst overwrought. We refer here to the proposal from Alchemic Queendom, Persons Hors de Combat.

The immediate feeling amongst the delegation from the United Federation is to wish to sponsor a proposal mandating Federation-standard, also known as English, as de rigueur for proposal titles.

[MRWOFFLE]

Whilst recognising the esteemed opinion of the Gods on this (OOC: Kryo's ruling on latin titles as linked to already), we have to question the necessity of non-English phrasings for titles.

Without wishing to unduly impugn the honourable delegate from Sciongrad, whose opinion we have always held in the highest regard, we feel the proliferation of non-English titled proposals to be at best confusing and at worst overwrought. We refer here to the proposal from Alchemic Queendom, Persons Hors de Combat.

The immediate feeling amongst the delegation from the United Federation is to wish to sponsor a proposal mandating Federation-standard, also known as English, as de rigueur for proposal titles.

The delegates of MRWOFFLE disagree on your statement, we believe it's a proper name. Perhaps you should culturilize your self with other languages or learn basic Latin to be able to grasp a certain understanding to these languages. I believe a title from any Latin based language should be accepted, although a translation on the top of the proposal would be nice.

[Aligned Planets]

The delegates of MRWOFFLE disagree on your statement, we believe it's a proper name. Perhaps you should culturilize your self with other languages or learn basic Latin to be able to grasp a certain understanding to these languages. I believe a title from any Latin based language should be accepted, although a translation on the top of the proposal would be nice.

OOC: I have an A grade at GCSE in Latin and studied Roman history and culture as part of my undergraduate degree, thanks very much, although the patronising tone is most appreciated.

IC: To use your terminology, whilst use of language may not be covered de jure, it is by de facto a common precept that these proposals are constructed in English / Federation-standard. Deviations into other languages invites either confusion or requirements to translate. We simply don't see the point.

[Alchemic Queendom]

To use your terminology, whilst use of language may not be covered de jure, it is by de facto a common precept that these proposals are constructed in English / Federation-standard. Deviations into other languages invites either confusion or requirements to translate. We simply don't see the point.

LOL!

~~~ AQ ~~~

[Goddess Relief Office]

*GRO opines:

"Of all the things critics can pick apart in a resolution, the 'Title' should be the last thing an author wants to worry about. As such, I'd suggest the author make it English so that it does not become a reason for people to vote against. Ambassador -- you can do without the controversy.

Now turning to the content, how would this impact nations ruled by persons and not laws? Wouldn't it directly challenge the sovereignty of dictatorships, father know best states, kingdoms, and theocracies? Considering there are so many nation types in this Assembly, it seems a little unfair to force all nations to adopt common-law type legal systems.

On that consideration, GRO suggests the author speak with those nations and make an effort to incorporate and/or provide exceptions for them."

[Sciongrad]

Now turning to the content, how would this impact nations ruled by persons and not laws? Wouldn't it directly challenge the sovereignty of dictatorships, father know best states, kingdoms, and theocracies? Considering there are so many nation types in this Assembly, it seems a little unfair to force all nations to adopt common-law type legal systems.

On that consideration, GRO suggests the author speak with those nations and make an effort to incorporate and/or provide exceptions for them."

"While I thank you for your valuable input, your Excellency, I think your concerns may be unfounded. I have no intention of allowing autocrats and dictators to arrest their citizens for crimes that are not illegal - as a matter of fact, this proposal is to prevent just that. Note, however, that this is distinct from its mother proposal, "the Rule of Law," where such an objection may be more relevant. Furthermore, I did try to write the resolution in such a way that accomodates both civil and common law systems, if that's what your last comment is referring to."

Whilst recognising the esteemed opinion of the Gods on this (OOC: Kryo's ruling on latin titles as linked to already), we have to question the necessity of non-English phrasings for titles.

Without wishing to unduly impugn the honourable delegate from Sciongrad, whose opinion we have always held in the highest regard, we feel the proliferation of non-English titled proposals to be at best confusing and at worst overwrought. We refer here to the proposal from Alchemic Queendom, Persons Hors de Combat.

The immediate feeling amongst the delegation from the United Federation is to wish to sponsor a proposal mandating Federation-standard, also known as English, as de rigueur for proposal titles.

"This is certainly a fair objection, your Excellency. My initial intention was to change the title down the road, however I now see that it's causing commotion in the early drafting stages as well."

I don't believe I got my comment across, what I meant to suggest is do we still have legal right to arrest a man, if we have evidence that he was planning or may commit a crime. In a country where we have extreme surveillance to the point were not even thoughts are privately held, we know when laws are about to be broken, are we legally allowed to arrest them for it, even though technically they never broke a law?

"Whether or not they broke the law is not necessarily within the scope of this resolution. Rather, this proposal prohibits a nation from arresting individuals for crimes that are not illegal. For example, under the situation you presented, if plotting murder is a crime in MRWOFFLE, then you could very easily arrest an individual doing so without violating this proposal. But if plotting murder is not illegal, then you could not arrest them because you're punishing someone for something that is not a crime. This proposal merely ensures that only crimes recognized by law can be punished."

[MRWOFFLE]

"This has nothing to do with arresting based on evidence. It involves arresting someone for a crime which is not recognized by a nation's legal system. If I have evidence that John killed someone, then I can arrest him because murder is illegal in Sciongrad. If inculpatory evidence indicates John murdered someone in another nation where murder is not illegal, however, he cannot be arrested because the action is not illegal."

I don't believe I got my comment across, what I meant to suggest is do we still have legal right to arrest a man, if we have evidence that he was planning or may commit a crime. In a country where we have extreme surveillance to the point were not even thoughts are privately held, we know when laws are about to be broken, are we legally allowed to arrest them for it, even though technically they never broke a law?

My question still has not been answered, and I would like to notify you that on a new law will be created in my country that states that being a living being is illegal and will ensuring that I can arrest whomever I would like, and will not make arresting this person mandatory unless I state so or a policeman believes it's necessary.

[Sciongrad]

I don't believe I got my comment across, what I meant to suggest is do we still have legal right to arrest a man, if we have evidence that he was planning or may commit a crime. In a country where we have extreme surveillance to the point were not even thoughts are privately held, we know when laws are about to be broken, are we legally allowed to arrest them for it, even though technically they never broke a law?

My question still has not been answered, and I would like to notify you that on a new law will be created in my country that states that being a living being is illegal and will ensuring that I can arrest whomever I would like, and will not make arresting this person mandatory unless I state so or a policeman believes it's necessary.

"This scenario is outrageous and an obvious reason for why a resolution on the rule of law is absolutely necessary, but again, that is not within the scope of this resolution. This is meant to ensure that you can only punish individuals for acts that are illegal - it is not meant to determine what illegal actions are legitimate."

[MRWOFFLE]

*Now Supported"

I get what you are saying, but my government is honestly corrupt, but it works good this way, people are happy and do what they're told. And you still haven't answered my question on if we have evidence that someone is going to commit a crime, do we have legal right to arrest them? Because technically, the citizen had never broken a law, yet...

[Starkmoor]

How does this proposal differ from the ban on ex post facto laws?

(Image)

You misspelled 'disapproves' in your graphic there.