[DEFEATED] No Penalty Without Law

[Bears Armed Mission]

Approved.

[Little Tralfamadore]

We will not approve of such a law. Mainly due to the word "punish". This is far too vague of a term.

We have freedom of speech here in Little Tralfamadore but that doesn't mean you are free from any consequences at all. While you don't have to fear being arrrested for your words, but that doesn't mean you can't get fired or just disenvited from dinner.

As written if someone was to tel their employer that he's a piece of shit, if that person actively tried to undermine his employer, tried to get him fired, told his employer that his 17 year daughter was really really hot, etc, the employer couldn't respond in any way. He couldn't punish the employee by firing him, he couldn't even stop picking up lunch for the employee if he did so previously.

Think about it for a minute. Freedom of speech allows one to be a racist. However with this proposed law you couldn't punish a person for being a racist. Which means you couldn't fire them, you couldn't even boycot their store. Heck, you couldn't even stop being their friend.

And what about children? Can a child be punished for behavior that isn't illegal? According to this new proposed law, no they couldn't.

[Normlpeople]

We will not approve of such a law. Mainly due to the word "punish". This is far too vague of a term.

We have freedom of speech here in Little Tralfamadore but that doesn't mean you are free from any consequences at all. While you don't have to fear being arrrested for your words, but that doesn't mean you can't get fired or just disenvited from dinner.

As written if someone was to tel their employer that he's a piece of shit, if that person actively tried to undermine his employer, tried to get him fired, told his employer that his 17 year daughter was really really hot, etc, the employer couldn't respond in any way. He couldn't punish the employee by firing him, he couldn't even stop picking up lunch for the employee if he did so previously.

Think about it for a minute. Freedom of speech allows one to be a racist. However with this proposed law you couldn't punish a person for being a racist. Which means you couldn't fire them, you couldn't even boycot their store/

"Only if there is a national law in place that says one cannot fire an employee with cause. Extreme belligerence would be cause. All this draft states is that you cannot punish someone, by law, for breaking a law which does not exist. It sounds like such a law would fit in fine within your nation"

[Bananaistan]

3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished unless they have committed a crime that is specifically illegal according to international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

We regret we didn't see the implications of that section prior to the proposal being submitted. It doesn't specify that the authority doing the punishing is the state. For example a sports club could no longer enforce a code of discipline on its members unless we are expected to give, say, the rules of golf, the force of law in each and every member state. There are numerous other examples including those raised by the ambassador for Little Tralfamadore. Had the section stated the state or any governmental authority could not arrest etc an individual then this would not be an issue.

[Wrapper]

3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished unless they have committed a crime that is specifically illegal according to international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

We regret we didn't see the implications of that section prior to the proposal being submitted. It doesn't specify that the authority doing the punishing is the state. For example a sports club could no longer enforce a code of discipline on its members unless we are expected to give, say, the rules of golf, the force of law in each and every member state. There are numerous other examples including those raised by the ambassador for Little Tralfamadore. Had the section stated the state or any governmental authority could not arrest etc an individual then this would not be an issue.

We hadn't thought of this either.

Even with your suggested wording, this would prevent, say, a state, county or city government from firing a worker for something that's against a code of conduct but is not illegal (e.g. sexual harrassment, showing up to work drunk). Indeed, the word "punish" seems to be the issue.

EDIT: Although, maybe, one can argue that a code of conduct signed by a municipal employee might be considered "guidelines with the force of law".

[Sciongrad]

We hadn't thought of this either.

Unfortunately, neither had I. I guess I'll pull this and fix that."

EDIT: Although, maybe, one can argue that a code of conduct signed by a municipal employee might be considered "guidelines with the force of law".

"Yes, these are my thoughts. Any rules imposed by the state dictating conduct probably have the force of law."

EDIT: Will this resolve the issue: "3. Stipulates that member nations, nor political subdivisions thereof, may arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish 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; "

[Normlpeople]

Clover shook her head. "Clearly I did not see the prior objection properly. Disregard my previous statement, I shall take this as a lesson not to try to debate immediately after a trip to the bar.."

[Wrapper]

arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish any individual

Why not "incarcerate or fine" instead of "punish"? Such wording would allow public employees to be fired for something that's not exactly illegal.

[Sciongrad]

arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish any individual

Why not "incarcerate or fine" instead of "punish"? Such wording would allow public employees to be fired for something that's not exactly illegal.

"Fair enough. The change has been made."

[Louisistan]

arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish any individual

Why not "incarcerate or fine" instead of "punish"? Such wording would allow public employees to be fired for something that's not exactly illegal.

Soo.... Court Mandated Community Service is fine without law?

[Wrapper]

Stipulates that member nations, nor political subdivisions thereof, may arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish any individual

Er... oops? Wethinks that should be "may not"...

[Bears Armed]

I disagree: "punish" is a better choice of wording than "incarcerate or fine", because switching to "incarcerate or fine" means that there would be then be no ban on punishments of other kinds, such as [for example] flogging... although I agree that the situation with regard to allowing enforcement of reasonable 'local' rules (workplace, school, etc...) does need to be addressed.

[Sciongrad]

I disagree: "punish" is a better choice of wording than "incarcerate or fine", because switching to "incarcerate or fine" means that there would be then be no ban on punishments of other kinds, such as [for example] flogging... although I agree that the situation with regard to allowing enforcement of reasonable 'local' rules (workplace, school, etc...) does need to be addressed.

"This is also a fair concern. I'll need a little while to think of a solution to this issue, unless someone else has an idea."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Given this proposal is about the rule of law, how about 'punished by law'?

3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished by law, 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;

[Defwa]

Given this proposal is about the rule of law, how about 'punished by law'?

3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished by law, 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;

But you're not punished by law if there is no law for the punishment.

[Lexicor]

Why not use "incarcerate, fine or otherwise legally reprimand"?

Unless there is a character length issue I think this would work.

[Defwa]

Why not use "incarcerate, fine or otherwise legally reprimand"?

Unless there is a character length issue I think this would work.

"Otherwise reprimand" could still restrict nongovernmental entities. Its not illegal to yell at your boss but your boss "otherwise reprimand"ing or firing you is illegal with that phrasing.

Its only under overly literal interpretations any of this becomes a problem but it still could cause issues

[Bears Armed Mission]

Given this proposal is about the rule of law, how about 'punished by law'?

3. Stipulates that no individual may be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or punished by law, 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;

Works for me.

[Sciongrad]

Given this proposal is about the rule of law, how about 'punished by law'?

But you're not punished by law if there is no law for the punishment.

"I don't think that's meant to be read so literally. I interpret that as referring to formal law enforcing authorities, not being punished by an actual law. And even if there is some ambiguity, I'm going to assume that no reasonable nation would choose to interpret it in such a manner that would cause them to restrict all types of punishment that lacks a basis in law."

[Mousebumples]

As the WA Delegate for Europeia, I have registered our votes against, as a discussion and vote on our off-site forum has directed me to do. Our opposition is due to the following aspects of Clause 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

We feel that there are non-criminal activities that merit government-sponsored/coordinated short-term detainment that would not be allowed under this resolution that are not specifically permitted under Clause 4. Yes, our nations could make everything "illegal" and thereby subject to the resolution in question, but we'd prefer to not need to pass new laws that would then be recorded on the criminal record of otherwise innocent citizens.

Examples include:
1) Children who are potentially being abused should not have to be charged with the "crime of being abused," if only because that is a mess of blame shifting that no nation should get involved in. However, in order to comply with this resolution, it seems like we'd have to do that, should this pass.
2) Sick individuals - who may spread their disease to others - should not need to be charged with the "crime of contracting a virulent disease" so they can be properly quarantined for the health of populace.
3) Drunk individuals (who are only a danger to themselves and not others) should not need to be charged with "crime of excessive drinking" (or whatever you want to call it), so that they can be detained in the drunk tank long enough to sleep off their bender.

Our forum vote, at the time of this posting is 0-5 Against, and I have voted against accordingly.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I for one wish Sciongrad had posted a drafting thread and allowed comments on this proposal. It would have been great to have been able to comment over the last three months, but the fact he didn't shows just how immensely important it is to make use of the WA forum for drafting.

[Mundiferrum]

I for one wish Sciongrad had posted a drafting thread and allowed comments on this proposal. It would have been great to have been able to comment over the last three months, but the fact he didn't shows just how immensely important it is to make use of the WA forum for drafting.

OOC: Isn't this the drafting thread? This has been here for, like, three months now, actually, only this had been in the second page. I don't really get what yer saying there.....
IC: We generally agree with the statement from ambassador Hale. Since our uber-dictatorial policies on arrests and stuff have already been tempered with multiple GA resolutions the moment we joined this Assembly, we have switched our style of government to one that is more, er, lenient and based on law; hence, we would have supported this, if the problems ambassador Hale pointed out were pulled out. We shall be voting AGAINST, though we do hope that this effort, like the recently failed blocker "On Hydraulic Fracturing", remains strong upon defeat, so that once said flaws have been removed, this resolution shall be, er, approved of....
And yes, we're very annoyed that no one, including us, noticed those little errors when this whole discussion was taking place.

[Mousebumples]

I for one wish Sciongrad had posted a drafting thread and allowed comments on this proposal. It would have been great to have been able to comment over the last three months, but the fact he didn't shows just how immensely important it is to make use of the WA forum for drafting.

OOC: Isn't this the drafting thread? This has been here for, like, three months now, actually, only this had been in the second page. I don't really get what yer saying there.....
IC: We generally agree with the statement from ambassador Hale. Since our uber-dictatorial policies on arrests and stuff have already been tempered with multiple GA resolutions the moment we joined this Assembly, we have switched our style of government to one that is more, er, lenient and based on law; hence, we would have supported this, if the problems ambassador Hale pointed out were pulled out. We shall be voting AGAINST, though we do hope that this effort, like the recently failed blocker "On Hydraulic Fracturing", remains strong upon defeat, so that once said flaws have been removed, this resolution shall be, er, approved of....
And yes, we're very annoyed that no one, including us, noticed those little errors when this whole discussion was taking place.

OOC: Add me to the chorus too. I thought I'd be supporting this one, and then someone else in Euro pointed those out when we were doing our pre-vote discussion/debate. And given my previous similarly themed repeal, my oversight was somewhat embarrassing.

[Scow Creek]

Under no circumstance could our nation consider voting in favor of this resolution, nor will we abide by it if passed.

This resolution eradicates the Common Law heritage of our Nation, and would force all member nations who follow a Common Law approach into a statute-based, civil law society. It strikes at the very heart of our legal system, which has some of the most expansive civil liberties in the world, while at the same time, one of the strongest environmental records in the world - all due to our non-statute based common law heritage.

[Jakuso]

On behalf of the Yakusan people, I vote AGAINST this resolution in order to protect the common good. Customary law is like the common law that exists in many nations, including Yakus. It is the set standard of belief of what is morally right and wrong. No legislation is needed to declare that murder is a crime as it is a customary law. This resolution would be PROTECTING the rights of guilty criminals by effectively saying that murder isn't illegal unless such legislation exists in that country. If this resolution passed, it suggests that those in prison for breaching customary law be released and pardoned, so in Yakus that would mean convicted murderers would be free to go. Strongly AGAINST this proposal and frankly, I don't understand how it got approved for voting.