[DEFEATED] Habeas Corpus Act

[Connopolis]

So an author should have the right - nay - does have the right to suppress the views of the majority simply because it conflicts with their personal views? I'm sure you'd disagree strongly if you attempted to be objective in your arguments. The fact that the World Assembly is legislating on judicial rights is enough of a nightmare, but the fact that you're arguing that the author's prerogative supersedes whatever sovereignty we have is truly absurd...

Who's suppressing anyone here? Neither I nor the Quelesian ambassador nor anyone else has any power to suppress anyone's vote. Ambassador Yadoru should be free to submit a proposal that her government actually agrees with. That's just commonsense. If a majority actually disagrees with that proposal, then the majority will vote it down. That the ambassadors who disagree with this proposal are so hell-bent on keeping this proposal from coming to a vote -- even to the point of using treachery to prevent it -- tells me that they know full well that a majority of voting delegations will not vote against this proposal, and thus that a majority does not disagree with it. Otherwise they wouldn't be so afraid of it coming to a vote.

Ambassador, I won't stand here, being insulted and accused of heinous treachery merely because I was concerned over the quality of the proposal. I telegrammed Quelesh multiple times, expressing my concern over the prospects of failure, or a possible repeal, yet Quelesh has not responded once. As co-author, I felt it was within my authority to remove the proposal to a) coax Quelesh into editing it sufficiently, or, in the event that this doesn't happen b) have my name removed from the proposal altogether.

Furthermore, those who are opposed do not want the proposal to get to vote because they know it will pass, not in spite of it. However, I've made no attempt to prevent it from getting to vote, and asked for its removal with full knowledge that Quelesh would eventually re-submit it; whether they decided to edit it was another story altogether...

Regards, etc.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Who's suppressing anyone here? Neither I nor the Quelesian ambassador nor anyone else has any power to suppress anyone's vote. Ambassador Yadoru should be free to submit a proposal that her government actually agrees with. That's just commonsense. If a majority actually disagrees with that proposal, then the majority will vote it down. That the ambassadors who disagree with this proposal are so hell-bent on keeping this proposal from coming to a vote -- even to the point of using treachery to prevent it -- tells me that they know full well that a majority of voting delegations will not vote against this proposal, and thus that a majority does not disagree with it. Otherwise they wouldn't be so afraid of it coming to a vote.

Ambassador, I won't stand here, being insulted and accused of heinous treachery merely because I was concerned over the quality of the proposal. I telegrammed Quelesh multiple times, expressing my concern over the prospects of failure, or a possible repeal, yet Quelesh has not responded once. As co-author, I felt it was within my authority to remove the proposal to a) coax Quelesh into editing it sufficiently, or, in the event that this doesn't happen b) have my name removed from the proposal altogether.

Furthermore, those who are opposed do not want the proposal to get to vote because they know it will pass, not in spite of it. However, I've made no attempt to prevent it from getting to vote, and asked for its removal with full knowledge that Quelesh would eventually re-submit it; whether they decided to edit it was another story altogether...

Regards, etc.

Zakath laughed cynically after hearing the speech
Yes, and in true Queleshian fashion it was immediately resubmitted without any thought for editing or review.

[Quelesh]

The Ambassador is being disingenuous. He knows well the only reason the Ambassadors are repeating their arguments is because the author is refusing to cooperate.

If by "cooperate" you mean "weaken the proposal in the way that you would like," then I take pride in my uncooperativeness.

So an author should have the right - nay - does have the right to suppress the views of the majority simply because it conflicts with their personal views?

If this proposal passes with a majority vote, which I am very confident it will, then neither I nor my government will be suppressing the views of the majority - on the contrary, we will be enacting them!

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

I'm going to guess there isn't a resolution regarding this, and hence is subject to the law of individual nations. Which will be interesting if there is a backlog. Would you like to do something in regards to this, or will you just leave this to individual nations to sort out?

I'm not entirely certain what you mean here. GAR37 already guarantees the right to a speedy trial. Or are you asking whether there should be a proposal specifically about the dismissal and refiling of criminal charges?

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial arbiter; should the arbiter deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately release the individual.

This is the main thing behind Habeas Corpus, and hence should be near the top, not the bottom where it can be easily forgotten.

I was trying to order the operative clauses in roughly chronological order (suspicionless detention, then detention on suspicion without charge, then pre-trial detention, then detention after acquittal or the completion of sentence). The right to challenge the legality of one's detention is indeed the core of habeas corpus, and I think it makes sense either at the beginning or at the end, but whether it's clause 1 or clause 7, it's equally obligatory on all member states.

(I do appreciate your comments, and I hope you'll forgive me for not directly responding to the remainder of your critique, but I've already responded to similar points previously.)

Ambassador, I won't stand here, being insulted and accused of heinous treachery merely because I was concerned over the quality of the proposal. I telegrammed Quelesh multiple times, expressing my concern over the prospects of failure, or a possible repeal, yet Quelesh has not responded once. As co-author, I felt it was within my authority to remove the proposal to a) coax Quelesh into editing it sufficiently, or, in the event that this doesn't happen b) have my name removed from the proposal altogether.

Furthermore, those who are opposed do not want the proposal to get to vote because they know it will pass, not in spite of it. However, I've made no attempt to prevent it from getting to vote, and asked for its removal with full knowledge that Quelesh would eventually re-submit it; whether they decided to edit it was another story altogether...

I will admit that I should have responded to your telegram, though I also think that you should have at least told me what you planned to do. However, while I disagree with your decision to request the proposal's withdrawal, and I find the timing of that request questionable, I cannot remain angry with you, and I will not hold a grudge.

Zakath laughed cynically after hearing the speech
Yes, and in true Queleshian fashion it was immediately resubmitted without any thought for editing or review.

In fact, in addition to the necessary edits to remove the work of the previous ambassador from Connopolis, I also made an addition to the proposal prior to resubmission in order to close a potential loophole. I have, however, rejected the edits proposed by a few ambassadors here, as they would unacceptably weaken the proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Merfurian]

Zakath laughed cynically after hearing the speech
Yes, and in true Queleshian fashion it was immediately resubmitted without any thought for editing or review.

In fact, in addition to the necessary edits to remove the work of the previous ambassador from Connopolis, I also made an addition to the proposal prior to resubmission in order to close a potential loophole. I have, however, rejected the edits proposed by a few ambassadors here, as they would unacceptably weaken the proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

We concur with the Malloran Ambassador. We wish to add that in further style of Qualesh, she obliterates the work of anyone who disagrees with her and then resubmits the proposal, whilst blocking her ears and singing very loudly to drown out criticism. Because all the lemmings absolutely adore (sarcasm intended) Qualesh, they'll ignore the fact that teh Ambassador doesn't have a clue about judiciaries or anything like that, and just vote for the Resolution.

Klause Uliyan
etc

[Ossitania]

I have helpfully condensed the Quelesian Ambassadors response in order to clarify her position to any other representatives who find themselves confused. After a review of the legislation at vote, we are withdrawing our previous support. Like many other delegations, we are concerned about the arbitrary time limits. We are also unhappy with clause 5 as it seems to be a detention-specific variant of the resolution currently at vote and in tandem with clause 7 seems to merely be advancing the Quelesian delegations anti-authority agenda in the WA rather than improving the world in any way by creating circumstances in which people could walk around with a shirt saying "I killed Barbara Gordon, aged 5, and pissed on her corpse" without any legal repercussions if, for whatever reason, they were initially acquitted of the murder of Barbara Gordon, aged 5.

I have already repeatedly addressed your objections. Please read through this transcript for my previous comments for my response to your objections.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

OOC about the "walk around with a shirt" comment: Really? Has something like that ever happened? What basis could you possibly have for that? In the United States, what you describe is unheard of, despite the US's constitutional ban on double jeopardy, which, by the way, is not what this proposal is about at all. This proposal addresses detention, and does not at all address double jeopardy, so this discussion is really off-topic.

OOC: Of course something like that has never happened, I'm roleplaying as an outraged diplomat. I was being hyperbolic. I disagree that my comments are off-topic, by the way, since clause 5 would prevent anyone being rearrested for a crime they were previously acquitted of, even if your current proposal failed and states retained their right to retry criminals after an acquittal has been appealed. In other words, even if your current resolution failed, this one would still essentially install the double jeopardy system you are pushing. I am also concerned by clause 7's implication that a successful challenge to the legality of detention must result in immediate release. A prisoner might successfully challenge the legality of being detained in solitary confinement, but that should merely result in his transport to a standard prison block, not his immediately release from captivity. Both these clauses clearly undermine the state's ability to protects its citizens, deliver justice, maintain order and enforce the law.

[Scion Lop On]

So an author should have the right - nay - does have the right to suppress the views of the majority simply because it conflicts with their personal views?

If this proposal passes with a majority vote, which I am very confident it will, then neither I nor my government will be suppressing the views of the majority - on the contrary, we will be enacting them!

Don't get me wrong - I never meant to imply that you were personally suppressing anyone's rights. I was rebutting the point of a certain ambassador in regards to how an author should draft proposals, and (again, generally) that no author should be exempt from replying to criticism simply because they're the author.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

This Act, in conjunction with the previously passed act from this author along similar lines, will completely devastate the system of trial. By limiting the holding period so stringently, it is near impossible for enough preparation to be made by the prosecution in order to ensure the conviction of criminals in difficult cases. It is certain that this act, if passed, will allow criminals to walk free. Whilst the thoughts behind it are commendable, there is simply not enough provision to ensure the net of justice is not circumvented or transcended.

The Peoples Republic is vehemently opposed to this legislation.

[Quelesh]

This Act, in conjunction with the previously passed act from this author along similar lines, will completely devastate the system of trial. By limiting the holding period so stringently, it is near impossible for enough preparation to be made by the prosecution in order to ensure the conviction of criminals in difficult cases. It is certain that this act, if passed, will allow criminals to walk free. Whilst the thoughts behind it are commendable, there is simply not enough provision to ensure the net of justice is not circumvented or transcended.

The Peoples Republic is vehemently opposed to this legislation.

It is helpful to note that it is actually GAR37, not this resolution, that provides the right to a speedy trial. Member states are already required to bring defendants to trial with "all reasonable speed" by GAR37. The pre-trial detention provision of this proposal merely prevents arbitrary or indefinite pre-trial detention if the right to a speedy trial is violated or if charges are dismissed.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

A question regarding the following:

Member states shall not detain any individual, without either formally charging or suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, four hours in any 30-day period or 24 hours in any 365-day period;

Since "detain" can mean "to keep in temporary confinement", what would this resolution do with regards to those on a jury? Normally when deliberating they are kept in temporary confinement, usually with (at least in Sanctaria) office police protection.

[Ossitania]

We are awaiting with anticipation the response of the Queleshian delegation to our concerns that;

1. Clause 5 effectively installs a second layer of the existing double jeopardy stipulations from Quelesh's previous resolution by preventing anyone being arrested or detained for a crime that they have already been acquitted of, which essentially means that even if Double Jeopardy Prohibition were to be repealed, the Queleshian double jeopardy agenda would remain intact.

2. Clause 7 prevents prisoners who appeal the legality of their detention from simply being transferred to a more appropriate form of detention, instead requiring that all successful appeals result in immediate freedom for the appellate, regardless of the nature of the legal question in dispute.

[Mousebumples]

I have proudly cast my region's votes AGAINST this travesty of a Habeas Corpus resolution. While I support the concept of Habeas Corpus, I feel that the execution of this particular draft is lacking.

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

[Mallorea and Riva]

I have happily thrown my full weight AGAINST this proposal, and look forward to watching the votes of my fellow WA members bring it down.

[Knootoss]

I have also been pleased to vote AGAINST this!

[Zaklen]

Zaklen stands against, and I am confident that the other 8 World Assembly nations in our region will do likewise. This Resolution, along with the recently passed piece of **** titled "Double Jeopardy Prohibition", will completely undermine the court systems of several member-states, and allow numerous criminals to walk free.

You title these resolutions so that they give the impression of implementing court standards which almost any reasonable nation would support, but the actual wording of said Resolutions warps these fine standards to the point where they are no longer preventing injustice, but enforcing a total perversion of justice!

Peter Zyvex gets up from his seat, tears his copy of "Habeas Corpus Act" to shreds, and proceeds to light the scraps on fire with a book of matches in his pocket. He then leaves the debate room, slamming the door behind him. A few minutes later, the sound of a jet taking off can be heard.

[Quelesh]

A question regarding the following:

Member states shall not detain any individual, without either formally charging or suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, four hours in any 30-day period or 24 hours in any 365-day period;

Since "detain" can mean "to keep in temporary confinement", what would this resolution do with regards to those on a jury? Normally when deliberating they are kept in temporary confinement, usually with (at least in Sanctaria) office police protection.

No, this resolution would not affect juries, since jury members are not being "detained" by any reasonable definition. "Sequestered," perhaps, but they're not being locked up. No reasonable nation would interpret this resolution as applying to juries.

1. Clause 5 effectively installs a second layer of the existing double jeopardy stipulations from Quelesh's previous resolution by preventing anyone being arrested or detained for a crime that they have already been acquitted of, which essentially means that even if Double Jeopardy Prohibition were to be repealed, the Queleshian double jeopardy agenda would remain intact.

This is not true. Clause 5 does not address double jeopardy at all. Double jeopardy is about retrials. Clause 5 is about detention. Clause 5 prevents you from just continuing to arbitrarily detain a person anyway after she has been acquitted.

2. Clause 7 prevents prisoners who appeal the legality of their detention from simply being transferred to a more appropriate form of detention, instead requiring that all successful appeals result in immediate freedom for the appellate, regardless of the nature of the legal question in dispute.

This is also not the case. If the detention itself (i.e. the fact that the person is being detained) is ruled to be in violation of law, then the person must be released.

You title these resolutions so that they give the impression of implementing court standards which almost any reasonable nation would support, but the actual wording of said Resolutions warps these fine standards to the point where they are no longer preventing injustice, but enforcing a total perversion of justice!

Would you care to elaborate as to what exactly about this resolution you believe to be "a perversion of justice"? The old GAR67 was a perversion of justice, due to its egregious loopholes that allowed it to be completely ignored and for people to be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained. This resolution closes the loopholes of GAR67 and provides meaningful habeas protections to everyone. That's hardly "a perversion of justice."

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Krala Sau]

>Put to vote only a short while ago.
>175 For, 1,237 Against.

I can see where this is going already.

[Merfurian]

Honourable Delegates to this Assembly;

I rise today to issue our Final Submissions regarding this Proposal as it enters the final stages on its way to becoming a Resolution. We have been instructed by his Excellency the Chancellor that we should reject this proposal. We believe that this proposal undermines our current appellate processes - specifically, those powers granted to appellate judges under Federal Rule of Procedure 125bis, which permits appellate judges to order a trial de novo. We cite the relevant paragraph within this proposal:

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense;

We cite paragraph five as a particular concern because for an effective trial de novo to take place, the defendant must be available. This therefore means that it is necessary to maintain the accused in detemtion. Based on a literal interpretation of the quoted paragraph, judiciaries would be precluded from undertaking such actions, and therefore Federal Rule 125bis would be invalidated.

We await the honoured author's Response Submission.

Klause Uliyan
etc
et al

[Quelesh]

We believe that this proposal undermines our current appellate processes - specifically, those powers granted to appellate judges under Federal Rule of Procedure 125bis, which permits appellate judges to order a trial de novo. We cite the relevant paragraph within this proposal:

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense;

We cite paragraph five as a particular concern because for an effective trial de novo to take place, the defendant must be available. This therefore means that it is necessary to maintain the accused in detemtion. Based on a literal interpretation of the quoted paragraph, judiciaries would be precluded from undertaking such actions, and therefore Federal Rule 125bis would be invalidated.

You seem to be confusing clause 5 with a double jeopardy provision, and detention with retrials. You also seem to think for some reason that you can't put someone on trial unless she's being detained, which is just silly.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Auralia]

Honourable Delegates to this Assembly;

I rise today to issue our Final Submissions regarding this Proposal as it enters the final stages on its way to becoming a Resolution. We have been instructed by his Excellency the Chancellor that we should reject this proposal. We believe that this proposal undermines our current appellate processes - specifically, those powers granted to appellate judges under Federal Rule of Procedure 125bis, which permits appellate judges to order a trial de novo. We cite the relevant paragraph within this proposal:

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense;

We cite paragraph five as a particular concern because for an effective trial de novo to take place, the defendant must be available. This therefore means that it is necessary to maintain the accused in detemtion. Based on a literal interpretation of the quoted paragraph, judiciaries would be precluded from undertaking such actions, and therefore Federal Rule 125bis would be invalidated.

We await the honoured author's Response Submission.

Klause Uliyan
etc
et al

Wouldn't the acquittal be thrown out if a trial de novo was conducted? Therefore, wouldn't the provisions of clause 5 not apply?

[Alqania]

"The Queendom supports habeas corpus but we do not support this piece of micromanagement and have accordingly cast our vote against", Lord Raekevik announced.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Honourable Delegates to this Assembly;

I rise today to issue our Final Submissions regarding this Proposal as it enters the final stages on its way to becoming a Resolution. We have been instructed by his Excellency the Chancellor that we should reject this proposal. We believe that this proposal undermines our current appellate processes - specifically, those powers granted to appellate judges under Federal Rule of Procedure 125bis, which permits appellate judges to order a trial de novo. We cite the relevant paragraph within this proposal:



We cite paragraph five as a particular concern because for an effective trial de novo to take place, the defendant must be available. This therefore means that it is necessary to maintain the accused in detemtion. Based on a literal interpretation of the quoted paragraph, judiciaries would be precluded from undertaking such actions, and therefore Federal Rule 125bis would be invalidated.

We await the honoured author's Response Submission.

Klause Uliyan
etc
et al

Wouldn't the acquittal be thrown out if a trial de novo was conducted? Therefore, wouldn't the provisions of clause 5 not apply?

Current WA law forbids trial de novo anyways, so until a repeal of that is passed it's rather irrelevant.

[Intellectula]

I have a question about the seventh (7th) operative clause of the resolution.

Who is this impartial arbiter? Is it someone who has been appointed by the state? Is it someone who has been appointed by the WA to each State? Do the authors of this resolution get to decide who this arbiter is for each state?

Please explain and/or specify.

[Triax]

Triax can not, and will not support any measure in which on nation imposes it's values on the entire World Assembly, we vote against this measure.

[Firstaria]

I'm not even starting on this one, with so many errors that we should simply let everyone free to be more accurate.

And surprise surprise this piece of waste has been made by the same guy who believes a guy can shout "I DID IT" after being acquitted for a murder and NOT being arrested because "this is justice".

I hope the next resolution I'll end up vote it's his condemnation in order to save this Assembly from his horrid proposal.

[Sanctaria]

A question regarding the following:

Member states shall not detain any individual, without either formally charging or suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, four hours in any 30-day period or 24 hours in any 365-day period;

Since "detain" can mean "to keep in temporary confinement", what would this resolution do with regards to those on a jury? Normally when deliberating they are kept in temporary confinement, usually with (at least in Sanctaria) office police protection.

No, this resolution would not affect juries, since jury members are not being "detained" by any reasonable definition.

Why is the Ambassador insistent that detained only means to having been "locked up". Detained also means to "delay, keep from proceeding", or "to keep in temporary confinement", or indeed, to "retain or withhold".

The Ambassador is stubborn in defending her flawed resolution.