Advertisement
by Quelesh » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:02 pm
by Quelesh » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:25 am
by Opaloka » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:44 am
by Quelesh » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:55 pm
Opaloka wrote:Our concern is that the people behind this (connopolis et al') have not even replaced the 'medical blockades' act they repealed some time ago.
Our policy re' repeals us now this 1/ replacement legislation is ready BEFORE repeal is submitted 2/ each round of repeal-replace is complete before another repeal is submitted.
This fails in point 2.
GET 'MEDICAL BLOCKADES' SORTED! WITHDRAW THIS REPEAL AS PART OF THAT.
by Quelesh » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:40 pm
by Cowardly Pacifists » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:57 pm
by Parti Ouvrier » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:11 am
by Delegate Vinage » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:13 am
Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Oh, what's that? There's a replacement drafted, debated, and ready to go?
by Quelesh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:20 am
by Delegate Vinage » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:34 am
Quelesh wrote:Delegate Vinage wrote:
Is it actually ready to do because it seems it is still being debated. Can I have assurances from the author that is is ready and waiting to go otherwise we will be voting Nay.
I am ready to submit the replacement, and will do so very shortly after the repeal passes. While I will consider proposed changes to the replacement until that time (though I will not consider weakening the anti-double-jeopardy protection), I will not delay the replacement because of any controversy it generates.
by Quelesh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:07 am
Delegate Vinage wrote:Quelesh wrote:I am ready to submit the replacement, and will do so very shortly after the repeal passes. While I will consider proposed changes to the replacement until that time (though I will not consider weakening the anti-double-jeopardy protection), I will not delay the replacement because of any controversy it generates.
So I can reassure my electorate that we WILL be seeing the proposal submitted almost instantly if this passes? Our worry is that we will see something similar to the Medical Blockade Replacement which is yet to be submitted after being previously reassured such would happen.
by United Celts » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:58 pm
by Damanucus » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:41 pm
Quelesh wrote: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;
Quelesh wrote:DISTURBED that the aforementioned resolution allows the arbitrary detention, with no suspicion of wrongdoing, of an individual for up to twenty-four hours in any week, with minimal restrictions and with nothing to prevent repeated arbitrary detention for twenty four hours during every week indefinitely as a form of harassment or extra-legal punishment;
Quelesh wrote:STUNNED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after an acquittal;
Quelesh wrote: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;
Quelesh wrote:NOTING WITH CONSTERNATION that the aforementioned resolution does not actually require member states to allow detained individuals to challenge their detention, much less set any standards for such challenges;
by Ardchoilleans » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:36 pm
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.Delegate Vinage wrote:So I can reassure my electorate that we WILL be seeing the proposal submitted almost instantly if this passes? Our worry is that we will see something similar to the Medical Blockade Replacement which is yet to be submitted after being previously reassured such would happen.
by United Celts » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:18 am
Ardchoilleans wrote: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.
by Aetrina » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:33 am
Eist wrote:Nice! Wait. Am I the knight or the unicorn?
I think the joke would be less effective if you were the unicorn.
by Kingdom of Aquanesha » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:03 pm
by Paper Flowers » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:12 pm
Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:How can you say that GA 67 allows for double jeopardy? This is taken DIRECTLY from GA 67:
"7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial."
This prevents double jeopardy. I don't understand your intentions of repealing this so AGAINST
by Linux and the X » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:53 pm
Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:How can you say that GA 67 allows for double jeopardy? This is taken DIRECTLY from GA 67:
"7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial."
This prevents double jeopardy. I don't understand your intentions of repealing this so AGAINST
by Paper Flowers » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:21 pm
Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:Who does the authorization?
Habeas Corpus wrote:8) Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.
by Kingdom of Aquanesha » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:24 pm
by Sanctaria » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:26 pm
Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote: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.
by Flibbleites » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:59 pm
Linux and the X wrote:Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:How can you say that GA 67 allows for double jeopardy? This is taken DIRECTLY from GA 67:
"7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial."
This prevents double jeopardy. I don't understand your intentions of repealing this so AGAINST
Notice the last part of that: without full legal authorisation for a retrial. That is, the legal system may authorise double jeopardy.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement