[PASSED] Repeal "Double Jeopardy Prohibition"

[Mousebumples]

SUBMITTED! Delegates, please approve!

The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition, which was to ban the deplorable practice of Double Jeopardy within WA member states;

REGRETS that the resolution ultimately overstepped its intended purpose and made it much more difficult for WA member states to ensure that those individuals who have committed a crime are appropriately punished;

NOTES that the resolution's text includes the following statement: "1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.";

CLARIFIES that the term "acquitted" in the aforementioned clause is not the same as a final judgment of innocence, which in turn creates a number of legal problems for WA member states;

DETAILS that this restriction outlaws a number of otherwise fair and necessary judicial proceedings such as:

1. Trial de novo, which is a common civil law occurrence in which a trial is essentially redone,
2. Concurrent jurisdiction, which may exist on both on the international and national level and may result in local politics playing a role in determining where an individual is tried in order to impact the outcome of the trial,
3. Prosecution appeal, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
   
   1. Learning of judge or jury bias during the original proceedings,
   2. Tampering with evidence, or
   3. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;

BELIEVES that such an absolute ban is neither wise nor prudent due to the compelling need for WA member states to run their judicial systems in a just and reasonable manner through having access to the previously mentioned appeal proceedings;

REPEALS GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Co-Authored by: Mallorea and Riva

Alqania is working on a replacement draft as well. If there's something in particular that you want in the replacement, see here

Moronist Decisions has another replacement option going here.

As you may already know, Mallorea and Riva started up this as an Insta-Repeal, but as RL is currently causing him all sorts of headaches, he's passed the torch over to me. You can find his original thread here, but I've understandably started up my own thread for the stretch run prior to submission.

Draft One (ish):

The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the intentions of GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition, which were to ban the deplorable practice of Double Jeopardy within WA member nations;

REGRETS that the resolution contains several sections that ultimately overstepped its intended purpose and made it much more difficult for WA member nations to ensure that those individuals who have committed a crime are appropriately punished;

HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a problematic clause, which states: "1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.";

CLARIFIES that the term "acquitted" in the aforementioned clause is not the same as a final judgment of innocence, which in turn creates a number of legal problems for WA member states;

DETAILS that this restriction outlaws a number of otherwise fair and necessary judicial proceedings such as:

1. Trial de novo, which is a common civil law occurrence in which a trial is essentially redone,
2. Concurrent jurisdiction, which may exist on both on the international and national level, which may result in local politics playing a role in determining where an individual is tried in attempt to game the outcome of the trial,
3. Prosecution appeals, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
   
   1. Learning of judge or jury bias during the original proceedings,
   2. Tampering with evidence, or
   3. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;

BELIEVES that such an absolute ban is neither wise nor prudent due to the compelling need for member states to run their judicial systems in a just and reasonable manner through having access to the previously mentioned appeal proceedings;

REPEALS GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Co-Authored by: [nation=short]Mallorea and Riva[/nation]

As always, comments and critiques are welcome. As Mall's already been drafting this, or a variation thereof, for a few weeks, I'm hoping to get this submitted yet this week. Alqania is working on a replacement draft as well, if there are any concerns on that front. If there's something in particular that you want in the replacement, see here.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Zakath read over the draft and nodded with approval
Fully supported, ready for submission.

[Paper Flowers]

We remain in full support of attempts to repeal this terrible piece of legislation and look forward to seeing the combined work of the above representatives reach the voting floor.

Ambassador Walker

[Merfurian]

We're happy with this proposal. By the way, because the Representative of M&R is too busy at the moment, does that mean that the instareplacement will be in your hands too?

OOC: or is someone different authoring the instareplacement?

Klause Uliyan
etc

[Mallorea and Riva]

We're happy with this proposal. By the way, because the Representative of M&R is too busy at the moment, does that mean that the instareplacement will be in your hands too?

OOC: or is someone different authoring the instareplacement?

Klause Uliyan
etc

The replacement was never really my concern. There is a replacement being drafted, but it is independent of the repeal (as all replacements should and must be).

[Mousebumples]

We're happy with this proposal. By the way, because the Representative of M&R is too busy at the moment, does that mean that the instareplacement will be in your hands too?

OOC: or is someone different authoring the instareplacement?

Nope, I'm not tackling the replacement. I think Alqania was working on one, and - last I heard - he was away on a short holiday with the family. Given the length of the queue, though, right now, he'll probably be back by the time this gets voted on.

Thanks for the support!

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We approve of this proposal, with only one little quibble:

HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a very controversial clause

Just because something is controversial is hardly a valid casus belli to object to it. Since you've already stated the problem with the clause, saying it is controversial looks out of place. Therefore could we please have "Highlights that the resolution text contains an inappropriate clause" or something more like that? This repeal should be a matter of law, not populist politics. (Edit: Although populist politics may include making the Law sensible. But that's still because of the arguments after this statement, not the controversy in and of itself.)

Since it's only the principal, if you have a good reason for keeping it as 'controversial', we will continue to support this proposal.

[Mousebumples]

We approve of this proposal, with only one little quibble:

HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a very controversial clause

Just because something is controversial is hardly a valid casus belli to object to it. Since you've already stated the problem with the clause, saying it is controversial looks out of place. Therefore could we please have "Highlights that the resolution text contains an inappropriate clause" or something more like that? This repeal should be a matter of law, not populist politics. (Edit: Although populist politics may include making the Law sensible. But that's still because of the arguments after this statement, not the controversy in and of itself.)

Since it's only the principal, if you have a good reason for keeping it as 'controversial', we will continue to support this proposal.

Honestly, populist politics and/or rhetoric often help with gaining votes. Inappropriate doesn't seem to be quite the right term, in my mind, as that doesn't quite fit in my mind. Contentious, perhaps? But I'm not sure if that's much better.

I'll mull over the concept and see if I can come up with something else ...

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Damanucus]

I'm just going to migrate my support across to here. The sooner we get rid of this horror of a resolution, the better.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Mousebumples]

We approve of this proposal, with only one little quibble:

HIGHLIGHTS that the resolution text contains a very controversial problematic clause

Better? I edited it into the OP, although I will fully acknowledge that I'm too lazy to do a full on "repost/whatever" with only that change to this point.

Otherwise: I am hoping to submit within the next 24-36 hours, so any last minute comments should be made now versus ... after that point.

Yours in graciousness,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Endorie]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Paper Flowers]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I'm sure I speak for many here when I thank the Representative of Endorie for the clearly well thought out argument with regards to this repeal and hope that it is the last we hear from them on this issue.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Utopiopolis]

The Department of International Affairs has recently brought this piece of legislation to the attention of the Government of Utopiopolis, making the very valid point that the literal wording prevents a re-trial should new evidence come to light at a later date. Such things can be common, and as such any repeal would have our nation's full support.

I would add that in terms of this draft specifically I do not believe that pointing out that the legislation is contentious is in fact needed. The fact it is effectively preventing re-trials when new evidence occurs should be argument enough.

[Mousebumples]

The Department of International Affairs has recently brought this piece of legislation to the attention of the Government of Utopiopolis, making the very valid point that the literal wording prevents a re-trial should new evidence come to light at a later date. Such things can be common, and as such any repeal would have our nation's full support.

I would add that in terms of this draft specifically I do not believe that pointing out that the legislation is contentious is in fact needed. The fact it is effectively preventing re-trials when new evidence occurs should be argument enough.

Thanks for your support. I believe the draft has been updated, as the term "contentious" is no longer present. It is now referred to as being a "problematic clause," which I think is accurate and appropriate.

In other news, I'll likely be submitting this in the next few hours, if there are any further suggestions that individuals would like to make.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Mousebumples]

SUBMITTED! Delegates, please approve!

Of course, prior to submission, I did my usual "Let's edit all the text and stuff" thing - although nothing *serious* changed. Just some minor wording, phrasing quibbles. Here's the updated text, which has been edited into the OP:

The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition, which was to ban the deplorable practice of Double Jeopardy within WA member states;

REGRETS that the resolution ultimately overstepped its intended purpose and made it much more difficult for WA member states to ensure that those individuals who have committed a crime are appropriately punished;

NOTES that the resolution's text includes the following statement: "1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.";

CLARIFIES that the term "acquitted" in the aforementioned clause is not the same as a final judgment of innocence, which in turn creates a number of legal problems for WA member states;

DETAILS that this restriction outlaws a number of otherwise fair and necessary judicial proceedings such as:

1. Trial de novo, which is a common civil law occurrence in which a trial is essentially redone,
2. Concurrent jurisdiction, which may exist on both on the international and national level and may result in local politics playing a role in determining where an individual is tried in order to impact the outcome of the trial,
3. Prosecution appeal, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
   
   1. Learning of judge or jury bias during the original proceedings,
   2. Tampering with evidence, or
   3. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;

BELIEVES that such an absolute ban is neither wise nor prudent due to the compelling need for WA member states to run their judicial systems in a just and reasonable manner through having access to the previously mentioned appeal proceedings;

REPEALS GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Co-Authored by: Mallorea and Riva

[Sanctaria]

Very happy to have approved this.

Though granted, it could have included the lyrics to La Marseillaise and I probably would have approved it...

Dr. Christian Ferguson
Sanctarian Ambassador to the WA
WA Delegate of the International Democratic Union

[Southern Patriots]

Happily approved of and endorsed.

[Flibbleites]

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[AverageBob]

Cannot support anything that reopens case if found not guilty in court. Too much room for abuse.

[Damanucus]

I support this regardless. I cannot allow something that permanently closes a compromised case with an acquittal. (Additionally, I shall not support any replacement.)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Warrior Thorin]

My main concern, as was my main concern previously, is what happens if new evidence is found that can find the acquitted actually committed the crime? As I read this, I don't believe that this is covered.

I agree that restricting Double Jeopardy should be a high standard, but before the WA places any restrictions on my CJ system, it should be clear that a case may be re-opened due to new evidence. Consider what may happen as we obtain better technology (historically, for example, DNA evidence).

Cover this, and you will have my support.

[Mousebumples]

Cannot support anything that reopens case if found not guilty in court. Too much room for abuse.

I don't want to speak for Alqania, who is the delegation drafting the replacement for this repeal, but I would hope that any replacement would ALLOW for such an eventuality but would not require such an option. I expect that your nation could continue to limit appeals in such a way, if you see fit.

I support this regardless. I cannot allow something that permanently closes a compromised case with an acquittal. (Additionally, I shall not support any replacement.)

Ideally, I would have liked to have seen this topic covered within one of the multitude of other legal proposals being drafted, but given the timing of all the repeals that have since been required, that's unlikely to happen. I hope for a general proposal on the subject that avoids being too micromanaging and dictating overmuch to what WA member nations can and cannot do.

My main concern, as was my main concern previously, is what happens if new evidence is found that can find the acquitted actually committed the crime? As I read this, I don't believe that this is covered.

I agree that restricting Double Jeopardy should be a high standard, but before the WA places any restrictions on my CJ system, it should be clear that a case may be re-opened due to new evidence. Consider what may happen as we obtain better technology (historically, for example, DNA evidence).

Cover this, and you will have my support.

I referenced this shortcomings under clause 3c, within the repeal text -->

3. Prosecution appeal, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:
c. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;

I am unable to amend the existing resolution as amendments are not legal. However, such a provision could be (and I believe should/is) covered in the replacement currently being drafted. (I've linked to that thread in the OP.)

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Zaklen]

I am pleased to announce that Zaklen supports this repeal, and that we have convinced our regional delegate to approve it.

[Merfurian]

WE HAVE QUORUM!

Let's see the abomination of Double Jeopardy Protection get thrown off the statute books.

Klause Uliyan

[Moronist Decisions]

WE HAVE QUORUM!

Let's see the abomination of Double Jeopardy Protection get thrown off the statute books.

Klause Uliyan

Yes, congratulations. The Lion in Council looks forward to seeing our new Chief Representative arrive in time to vote for this.