[PASSED] Repeal "Habeas Corpus"

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Notice the last part of that: without full legal authorisation for a retrial. That is, the legal system may authorise double jeopardy.

And conversely the legal system can not authorize double jeopardy. Gee, it looks to me like those nations that don't want to allow double jeopardy in their nations, don't have to have it.

The problem that lead to the repeal is that some member nations don't want authorizing double jeopardy to even be an option. They want the international law to say explicitly "No Double Jeopardy."

I think just about everyone agrees that something called "double jeopardy" is bad. The problem we've been seeing lately is that people draw the double jeopardy line different places. Some (like the proponents of the repeal) think that any subsequent prosecution of a person who has been declared not guilty should be absolutely barred. Others think the prosecution should have a chance to appeal. Still others think that the prosecution should have an appeal and the power to retry serious cases if there were procedural errors/new evidence. And still others think that the prosecution should be able to retry any and every case if new evidence comes to light. And then there's all the positions in between.

With the lack of consensus on the issue, I'm tempted to advocate voting against this repeal. Unless we have a solid Double Jeopardy resolution ready to go, repealing this Habeas Corpus resolution is untimely. I'd rather keep these protections in place until we are truly ready to come to a consensus on what Double Jeopardy is, and how to protect people from it without unfairly limiting the prosecutorial powers of individual nations.

[Quelesh]

I had chosen to abstain from approval, but seeing as it has reached quorum, I'm going to be brutally honest with the parts of this repeal.

I appreciate your critique, Ambassador.

TERRIBLY VEXED that the aforementioned resolution explicitly allows double jeopardy, the practice of trying an individual more than once for the same offense;

FURTHER VEXED that the aforementioned resolution imposes minimal obstacles to the unfettered use of double jeopardy, merely requiring the approval of a person who is "duly authorised by the legal system" to grant a "full legal authorisation for a retrial," essentially allowing for indefinite retrials, continuing to detain the individual all the while, until the court hands down a verdict favorable to the state;

I personally have no qualms with double jeopardy, so much so that I actually think preventing double jeopardy can be seen as a trapdoor for people to commit crimes and get away with it in the eyes of the common people. This is my big negative with the repeal.

Double jeopardy will not immediately be prohibited upon the repeal of GAR67. Even if you oppose the prohibition of double jeopardy, we think you should support the repeal for the other reasons listed. In fact, we have decided to, upon the passage of this repeal, submit two replacement proposals, not just one; one will have the core habeas corpus protections and the other will prohibit double jeopardy. If you support habeas corpus but also support double jeopardy (as contradictory as we feel that position is), you can support this repeal and support my core habeas corpus replacement while opposing my double jeopardy proposal.

STUNNED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after an acquittal;

Is this even within the confines of the original resolution's intention?

FLABBERGASTED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after his or her criminal sentence has been completed;

As above.

Apparently not, which is a major flaw with the original resolution that needs to be fixed.

The Medical Blockade replacement was delayed by its author's decision to submit a legality query to the Secretariat, a move which is to be commended rather than reproved. Lasting proposals take time to craft.

"I don't disagree," said Ambassador Mac Lochlainn, "but in the case of issues so important as habeas corpus, a replacement proposal should be ready to submit before the repeal proposal is ever submitted.

"Unfortunately, ambassadors, a replacement proposal is not ready to submit. Because the Queleshi ambassador refuses to strip the double jeopardy language from her replacement proposal it looks unlikely to pass, and in any event His Excellency Lord Raekevik has found a legal problem. In light of this, the Kingdom is opposing this repeal proposal until such a time as a viable replacement draft is introduced and encourages other ambassadors to do the same. Hopefully a viable replacement draft will emerge before the repeal proposal comes up for a vote.

On the contrary, Ambassador, I do intend to submit two replacement proposals, one with core habeas corpus protections and the other prohibiting double jeopardy. I certainly do not wish to jeopardize (OOC: ha!) my habeas proposal, and I also do not wish to be unreasonable. I adamantly oppose the injustice of double jeopardy, and I intend to propose that this Assembly ban the practice, but I do not intend to allow the issue of double jeopardy to delay the enactment of core habeas corpus protections.

Also, I very much disagree with the legality interpretation of the ambassador from Alqania, and I have asked for a Secretariat ruling on the issue. If the Secretariat rules unfavorably, or does not rule in time, it will be a trivial matter to add corrective wording to resolve the issue.

There are numerous reasons i'm against it. Namely - where's the replacement? The "replacement" has not been proposed. Until there is a replacement I will be inclined to vote Nay on this repeal.

As Dr. Ferguson said, I cannot submit the replacement proposal until GAR67 is repealed. (OOC: Sanc linked to my replacement draft.)

And conversely the legal system can not authorize double jeopardy. Gee, it looks to me like those nations that don't want to allow double jeopardy in their nations, don't have to have it.

This is absolutely correct, of course. However, a major flaw with GAR67 is that member states who do wish to allow this particular injustice can do so. I think that all people under WA jurisdiction have the right to be free of double jeopardy. This is one reason, but not the only reason, I am seeking to repeal GAR67 and replace it with an effective habeas corpus resolution and an anti-double-jeopardy resolution.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Quelesh]

The problem that lead to the repeal is that some member nations don't want authorizing double jeopardy to even be an option. They want the international law to say explicitly "No Double Jeopardy."

I think just about everyone agrees that something called "double jeopardy" is bad. The problem we've been seeing lately is that people draw the double jeopardy line different places. Some (like the proponents of the repeal) think that any subsequent prosecution of a person who has been declared not guilty should be absolutely barred. Others think the prosecution should have a chance to appeal. Still others think that the prosecution should have an appeal and the power to retry serious cases if there were procedural errors/new evidence. And still others think that the prosecution should be able to retry any and every case if new evidence comes to light. And then there's all the positions in between.

With the lack of consensus on the issue, I'm tempted to advocate voting against this repeal. Unless we have a solid Double Jeopardy resolution ready to go, repealing this Habeas Corpus resolution is untimely. I'd rather keep these protections in place until we are truly ready to come to a consensus on what Double Jeopardy is, and how to protect people from it without unfairly limiting the prosecutorial powers of individual nations.

Unfortunately, GAR67 provides very few meaningful protections in the first place, which is one of the major reasons it needs to be repealed and replaced. As I've said, I intend to separate the anti-double-jeopardy clause from my core habeas corpus proposal into a separate proposal to ensure greater support of the core replacement. Support for my replacement, sans the anti-double-jeopardy provision, is quite high, and I think that even the opposition to the anti-double-jeopardy provision, which will be submitted in a separate proposal, is coming from a vocal minority.

The core habeas replacement proposal is very solid, and the anti-double-jeopardy proposal will be "short and sweet," as they say.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Damanucus]

I personally have no qualms with double jeopardy, so much so that I actually think preventing double jeopardy can be seen as a trapdoor for people to commit crimes and get away with it in the eyes of the common people. This is my big negative with the repeal.

Double jeopardy will not immediately be prohibited upon the repeal of GAR67. Even if you oppose the prohibition of double jeopardy, we think you should support the repeal for the other reasons listed. In fact, we have decided to, upon the passage of this repeal, submit two replacement proposals, not just one; one will have the core habeas corpus protections and the other will prohibit double jeopardy. If you support habeas corpus but also support double jeopardy (as contradictory as we feel that position is), you can support this repeal and support my core habeas corpus replacement while opposing my double jeopardy proposal.

[scrolling snip]

On the contrary, Ambassador, I do intend to submit two replacement proposals, one with core habeas corpus protections and the other prohibiting double jeopardy.

I honestly think you are pushing your luck with the prohibition of double jeopardy. As I stated before, I have no qualms with the existence of double jeopardy (as many others have stated earlier in the debate), so having a blanket ban on it would be counter-productive (think the entire Legalize Prostitution debate).

Is this even within the confines of the original resolution's intention?



As above.

Apparently not, which is a major flaw with the original resolution that needs to be fixed.

Is it really? Does the release of someone from gaol actually come under habeas corpus?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Sanctaria]

Does the release of someone from gaol actually come under habeas corpus?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Habeas Corpus prevents unlawful detention. If someone feels they are unlawfully detained, they can apply for a writ of habeas corpus.

[Damanucus]

Does the release of someone from gaol actually come under habeas corpus?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Habeas Corpus prevents unlawful detention. If someone feels they are unlawfully detained, they can apply for a writ of habeas corpus.

Fair enough. In that respect then, according to GAR#67, once a criminal has fulfilled their sentence (assuming it to be a gaol sentence, of course), the gaolers have two hours to release them. Does that sound fair to everyone?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Kingdom of Aquanesha]

I read the proposed replacement and found it seems solid to me. With everything stated on here that as soon as this gets repealed and then the replacement gets sent to vote, I have changed my mind on this. I will vote in favor or repeal so long as a hasty replacement gets submitted for proposal. If not, I will have a repeal to the repeal in place.

[Linux and the X]

I will have a repeal to the repeal in place.

That's not actually possible.

[Damanucus]

I will have a repeal to the repeal in place.

That's not actually possible.

It kinda is; it's called a replacement.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Quelesh]

Just to let everyone know (in case you're following this discussion but not the others), I've decided to split up my replacement into two separate proposals, in order to ensure there are no barriers to the passage of core habeas corpus protections. You can discuss the proposal that solely addresses double jeopardy here.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[United Celts]

"I applaud Ambassador Yadoru for following the advice to split the double jeopardy issue into a separate proposal," Ambassador Mac Lochlainn said, "and I apologize if the language I used to express the Kingdom's point of view was overly strong. The Kingdom now fully endorses Repeal 'Habeas Corpus' and I urge other ambassadors to vote in favor."

[Heistrein]

Im not gonna lie, when I read the title, I was skeptical and thought "orly, another repeal. Fantastic". But upon reading it and seeing a replacement already well underway, I have to say you have changed my mind. Well written and thought out, from what I see

The nation of Heistrein supports this repeal. Good luck, ambassador Yadoru!

[Tibberiria]

We fully support this repeal in hopes that the replacement legislation can be brought to vote as quickly as possible.

[Quelesh]

I really appreciate your support. Thank you!

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Arivali]

I see no reason to repeal this.

[Linux and the X]

I see no reason to repeal this.

Erm, did you not read the repeal? You may disagree with the reason, but there rather obviously is one.

[Opaloka]

As have said before there have been too many repeals without replacement legislation in a ready to go state. We recently repealed 'medical blockades' & there is still nothing in place. We strongly urge fellow members to stop this immature nonsense starting with this.

[Wu Wei Shan]

The replacement, which blanket bans more than one trial for any crime regardless of any new evidence or confession, is simply unacceptable. And I don't like the flippant language in the repeal (Flabbergasted? Vexed? Really?)

AGAINST.

[Damanucus]

As have said before there have been too many repeals without replacement legislation in a ready to go state. We recently repealed 'medical blockades' & there is still nothing in place. We strongly urge fellow members to stop this immature nonsense starting with this.

Just because the replacement isn't immediately following the repeal, doesn't mean it isn't there. The replacement you mentioned is in its last drafting stage; you can help out by making a few suggestions for it prior to its submission.

Furthermore, there are two interrelated replacements coupled to this repeal. Please refer to the author of this repeal regarding them.

Finally, not all repeals require replacements coupled to them. The most recent repeals have had replacements coupled to them for various reasons. "Legalizing Prostitution", for example, only had a replacement coupled with it as a blocker. Others, like "Law of the Seas" genuinely have faults that make them too unstable to support. But others—"Social Assistance Accord" comes to mind—don't have replacements at all, and their reasons are just as varied.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Merfurian]

If we can be assured that there will be a replacement for this resolution, then we led our support. I can quite understand the Honourable ambassador's problems with GAR 67.

Yours

Klause Uliyan
Former Justice of the Federal Court of Criminal Appeals
Presidential Counsel
Chief Ambassador and Head of the Legal Team to the Delegation

[Quelesh]

As have said before there have been too many repeals without replacement legislation in a ready to go state. We recently repealed 'medical blockades' & there is still nothing in place. We strongly urge fellow members to stop this immature nonsense starting with this.

As I've said before, I intend to submit both of my replacement resolutions once the repeal passes.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Zarkanians]

If you don't want double jeopardy, make anlaw about it in your own country.

Besides, he used flabbergasted.

Against.

[Slivary]

After recently being elected delegate of the region, LIsa Adams, the delgate of Slivary as well, Stood up in the WA chamber and voted AYE.

[Rzeczpospolita Polska IV]

I too am in favor of "temporarily repealing" habeas corpus. There must be a resolution to replace the latter one and this is the first step to making that happen. Thank you.

[Lookingafterourselves]

If you don't want double jeopardy, make anlaw about it in your own country.

Besides, he used flabbergasted.

Against.

Mynameisnotimportant, duly elected representative of Lookingafterourselves, respectfully suggests that this repeal could be prefaced as NITPICKING (or should that be KNITPICKING?!) and is in danger of both throwing out babies in bathwater (the Babeas Corpus) and introducing a distinctly undesirable concept of expansion to the list of appropriate primary salutations to clauses in WA resolutions - FLABBERGASTED indeed!

Anticipating better things in future resolutions, I duly cast my vote against this repeal.

MNINI, LAO Representative at the WA