[DEFEATED] Habeas Corpus Act

[Sanctaria]

An easy solution to this "issue" is to simply make contempt of court or violation of a judicial order a criminal act. Or just not arrest and detain people for contempt of court.

But... it's a civil issue, Ambassador.

Are you seriously suggesting nations totally overhaul their legal systems because you want people released after 2 hours instead of, say, 6 or something?

[Knootoss]

I do not believe the delegates here are interested in hearing about workarounds and bugfixes for this resolution.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Sanctaria]

I do not believe the delegates here are interested in hearing about workarounds and bugfixes for this resolution.

Indeed, Ambassador Koopman. A resolution shouldn't need workarounds or bugfixes to be implemented.

[Quelesh]

An easy solution to this "issue" is to simply make contempt of court or violation of a judicial order a criminal act. Or just not arrest and detain people for contempt of court.

But... it's a civil issue, Ambassador.

Are you seriously suggesting nations totally overhaul their legal systems because you want people released after 2 hours instead of, say, 6 or something?

There is no legitimate justification for detaining someone for more than two hours straight who is not even suspected of committing a crime. If she commits contempt of court, you can fine her. If she refuses to pay her fines, you can arrest and detain her for that crime. But you should not be able to just arrest her and hold her for a significant period of time for a "civil issue."

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Firstaria]

An easy solution to this "issue" is to simply make contempt of court or violation of a judicial order a criminal act. Or just not arrest and detain people for contempt of court.

But... it's a civil issue, Ambassador.

Are you seriously suggesting nations totally overhaul their legal systems because you want people released after 2 hours instead of, say, 6 or something?

Sadly, this is his idea of how the world works. I suggest we unite to sabotage this flawed resolution by any means. I've already proposed said individual condemnation.

[Sanctaria]

There is no legitimate justification for detaining someone for more than two hours straight who is not even suspected of committing a crime. If she commits contempt of court, you can fine her. If she refuses to pay her fines, you can arrest and detain her for that crime. But you should not be able to just arrest her and hold her for a significant period of time for a "civil issue."

The fact that the Ambassador is showing grave ignorance of the civil legal system tells me that she is not suitable to be drafting pieces of legislation which could affect either it, or the criminal legal system.

[Weed]

Dr. Ferguson's arguments have convinced me to change my vote to against. I'll have to confirm this with the Leader but I applaud his determination.

WA Ambassador from Weed,

Clinton Tew

[Quelesh]

There is no legitimate justification for detaining someone for more than two hours straight who is not even suspected of committing a crime. If she commits contempt of court, you can fine her. If she refuses to pay her fines, you can arrest and detain her for that crime. But you should not be able to just arrest her and hold her for a significant period of time for a "civil issue."

The fact that the Ambassador is showing grave ignorance of the civil legal system tells me that she is not suitable to be drafting pieces of legislation which could affect either it, or the criminal legal system.

"Non-criminal arrests," as you call them, should not happen, and if this resolution does ban them, then so much the better. Make it a crime, or don't lock someone up for it. It's that simple.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Auralia]

But... it's a civil issue, Ambassador.

Are you seriously suggesting nations totally overhaul their legal systems because you want people released after 2 hours instead of, say, 6 or something?

Sadly, this is his idea of how the world works. I suggest we unite to sabotage this flawed resolution by any means. I've already proposed said individual condemnation.

You know what? You have no valid basis for an SC condemnation, and I will campaign against it if and when you try to propose one. It is not wrong to bring forward a legitimate proposal to the GA. Vote against it if you will, but you can't condemn someone for it.

[Sanctaria]

"Non-criminal arrests," as you call them, should not happen, and if this resolution does ban them, then so much the better. Make it a crime, or don't lock someone up for it. It's that simple.

The Ambassador is telling us that non-criminal issues don't matter? Again, massive disrespect for the civil legal system. How anyone could continue to support a resolution written by someone with such disregard for the law and legal system is beyond me.

[Firstaria]

We applaud the decision of the Weed nation, and hope that soon the supporters of such individual will recognize his many flaws and withdrawn their approval for the sake of civil debate and mature behavior.

To also answer Auralia, my basis on the condemnation are not the bringing forward a legitimate proposal, but his the childish behavior the Quelesh ambassador is showing in ignoring the problem of said proposal, not answering the doubts of many people and, when answering them, suggesting that it's not his duty to correct the flaws of HIS resolution, but it's the burden of all the states to change their laws to stay behind his whims.

This childish behavior is, in our advice, worth of condemnation.

[Auralia]

The fact that the Ambassador is showing grave ignorance of the civil legal system tells me that she is not suitable to be drafting pieces of legislation which could affect either it, or the criminal legal system.

"Non-criminal arrests," as you call them, should not happen, and if this resolution does ban them, then so much the better. Make it a crime, or don't lock someone up for it. It's that simple.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Sometimes the government needs to forcibly transport someone somewhere without charging them with a crime. That's the case with civil contempt of court or even transporting legislators to a Parliament if quorum cannot be reached.

[Auralia]

We applaud the decision of the Weed nation, and hope that soon the supporters of such individual will recognize his many flaws and withdrawn their approval for the sake of civil debate and mature behavior.

To also answer Auralia, my basis on the condemnation are not the bringing forward a legitimate proposal, but his the childish behavior the Quelesh ambassador is showing in ignoring the problem of said proposal, not answering the doubts of many people and, when answering them, suggesting that it's not his duty to correct the flaws of HIS resolution, but it's the burden of all the states to change their laws to stay behind his whims.

This childish behavior is, in our advice, worth of condemnation.

No, it's not. Write your own proposal if you want, but Quelesh can do whatever he wants with his, and nobody can condemn him for it.

[Sanctaria]

We applaud the decision of the Weed nation, and hope that soon the supporters of such individual will recognize his many flaws and withdrawn their approval for the sake of civil debate and mature behavior.

To also answer Auralia, my basis on the condemnation are not the bringing forward a legitimate proposal, but his the childish behavior the Quelesh ambassador is showing in ignoring the problem of said proposal, not answering the doubts of many people and, when answering them, suggesting that it's not his duty to correct the flaws of HIS resolution, but it's the burden of all the states to change their laws to stay behind his whims.

This childish behavior is, in our advice, worth of condemnation.

No, it's not. Write your own proposal if you want, but Quelesh can do whatever he wants with his, and nobody can condemn him for it.

Though this is uncommon, I'm in agreement with Aurelian delegation here. Ambassadors shouldn't be condemned for pushing, even flawed, agendas at the World Assembly. It's their job, indeed, it's their prerogative.

[Ossitania]

I'm sick of this dismissive approach to genuine concerns about your proposals. Ambassador, is the following statement true or is it not;

"Clause 5 of this resolution prevents the state from arresting or detaining someone for a criminal offence of which they have been acquitted."

If it is not true, please explain why and we will retract our comments.

If it is true, then does it not follow that, regardless of whether your delegation's previous proposal remains on the books or not, this clause would prevent member-states from arresting or detaining someone for the purposes of a new trial on a charge of which they have previously been acquitted unless the accused voluntarily submits themselves for the trial? Is it not true that clause 5 would mandate a legal system where, regardless of whether GA #187 is repealed, member-states would not have the power to detain dangerous criminals for the purpose of bringing them to trial on charges of which they have previously been acquitted? If these concerns are unfounded, please explain why and we will retract our comments.

It's all a matter of interpretation.

This whole issue is moot, regardless, as WA law prohibits double jeopardy anyway.

In other words, yes, what I'm point out is completely accurate and the ambassador from Quelesh is choosing not to acknowledge this fact because she is hoping that if she does not admit to including in the resolution at vote a clause which would encode her double jeopardy agenda into WA law twice, thus ensuring that it would remain in place even if GA #187 was repealed, no one will notice.

And what if the detainee is challenging the legality of being detained in an area where he is at risk of exposure to potentially lethal allergens, for example? According to the stipulations of your resolution, if his challenge to the legality of his detention is successful, he must be immediately released, he cannot, for example, simply be moved to an area where he is no longer at risk of being exposed to the hazardous materials. Your text makes no differentiation between appealing the legality of the detention itself vs the legality of the particular form of detention in which the detainee finds themselves, it simply says "the legality of their detention". Does it not follow, therefore, that, according to your resolution, any successful legal challenge to detention must immediately result in the release of the prisoner? If this is not the case, explain why and we will retract our comments.

If your nation is foolish enough to interpret this resolution in such a way as to require a detainee to be released in such a situation, that's not my problem. The resolution says "should the arbiter deem the individual's detention," not "should the arbiter deem any aspect of the individual's detention."

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Yes, you are quite right, we misread the text and misinterpreted it as a result. We retract our comments. Of course, you could have pointed this out without getting abrasive about it, but that just wouldn't be consistent with Quelesh's track record of dealing with criticisms and concerns of its legislation, would it?

By the way, since the ambassador from Quelesh is pointedly avoiding actually investigating what a non-criminal arrest is and making a fool of herself as a result, we feel the need to point that one such form of non-criminal arrest would be detaining an inebriated or intoxicated person overnight for their own protection. We know this point was raised before, but we are unsure if the Quelesian delegation actually addressed it, as it has been some time since we perused the debate minutes.

[Sovreignry]

No, it's not. Write your own proposal if you want, but Quelesh can do whatever he wants with his, and nobody can condemn him for it.

Though this is uncommon, I'm in agreement with Aurelian delegation here. Ambassadors shouldn't be condemned for pushing, even flawed, agendas at the World Assembly. It's their job, indeed, it's their prerogative.

There's pushing flawed agendas, and there's being an asshole though.

[Auralia]

It's all a matter of interpretation.

This whole issue is moot, regardless, as WA law prohibits double jeopardy anyway.

In other words, yes, what I'm point out is completely accurate and the ambassador from Quelesh is choosing not to acknowledge this fact because she is hoping that if she does not admit to including in the resolution at vote a clause which would encode her double jeopardy agenda into WA law twice, thus ensuring that it would remain in place even if GA #187 was repealed, no one will notice.

When a new trial takes place, isn't the old acquittal thrown out, making clause 5 not applicable in this case?

[Firstaria]

We applaud the decision of the Weed nation, and hope that soon the supporters of such individual will recognize his many flaws and withdrawn their approval for the sake of civil debate and mature behavior.

To also answer Auralia, my basis on the condemnation are not the bringing forward a legitimate proposal, but his the childish behavior the Quelesh ambassador is showing in ignoring the problem of said proposal, not answering the doubts of many people and, when answering them, suggesting that it's not his duty to correct the flaws of HIS resolution, but it's the burden of all the states to change their laws to stay behind his whims.

This childish behavior is, in our advice, worth of condemnation.

No, it's not. Write your own proposal if you want, but Quelesh can do whatever he wants with his, and nobody can condemn him for it.

That's your own belief and I will accept it, I believe instead that such childish behavior should be condemned in order to defend the maturity and the confront on which the WA is based upon.

[Sanctaria]

That's your own belief and I will accept it, I believe instead that such childish behavior should be condemned in order to defend the maturity and the confront on which the WA is based upon.

Maturity? In the World Assembly?

Ahahahaha. Is it April 1st already?

[Ossitania]

In other words, yes, what I'm point out is completely accurate and the ambassador from Quelesh is choosing not to acknowledge this fact because she is hoping that if she does not admit to including in the resolution at vote a clause which would encode her double jeopardy agenda into WA law twice, thus ensuring that it would remain in place even if GA #187 was repealed, no one will notice.

When a new trial takes place, isn't the old acquittal thrown out, making clause 5 not applicable in this case?

Even if the acquittal is thrown out, the accused has still been acquitted. This is one of the main flaws of this resolution (and GA #187, but that's another matter for another day); it uses such unclear language that it is no longer safe to assume that overturning an acquittal is sufficient to satisfy the terms of this text. Such is the nature of the Quelesian delegation's agenda in the WA that even things that most of us would consider basic common sense in a legal system are being thrown out the window due to Quelesh's extremist anarcho-libertarian philosophy.

[Auralia]

Even if the acquittal is thrown out, the accused has still been acquitted. This is one of the main flaws of this resolution (and GA #187, but that's another matter for another day); it uses such unclear language that it is no longer safe to assume that overturning an acquittal is sufficient to satisfy the terms of this text. Such is the nature of the Quelesian delegation's agenda in the WA that even things that most of us would consider basic common sense in a legal system are being thrown out the window due to Quelesh's extremist anarcho-libertarian philosophy.

Wait a sec... I was under the impression that if an acquittal is thrown out, the accused has no longer been acquitted. It's just like when a criminal record is expunged, the accused is no longer convicted of those crimes (even though they technically were convicted at some point).

[Firstaria]

That's your own belief and I will accept it, I believe instead that such childish behavior should be condemned in order to defend the maturity and the confront on which the WA is based upon.

Maturity? In the World Assembly?

Ahahahaha. Is it April 1st already?

....As much as that is surely worth a long discussion, I suggest from now on to talk about the condemnation in the apposite place, using this space only to stop this abort of justice to become another flawed resolution.

[Ossitania]

Even if the acquittal is thrown out, the accused has still been acquitted. This is one of the main flaws of this resolution (and GA #187, but that's another matter for another day); it uses such unclear language that it is no longer safe to assume that overturning an acquittal is sufficient to satisfy the terms of this text. Such is the nature of the Quelesian delegation's agenda in the WA that even things that most of us would consider basic common sense in a legal system are being thrown out the window due to Quelesh's extremist anarcho-libertarian philosophy.

Wait a sec... I was under the impression that if an acquittal is thrown out, the accused has no longer been acquitted. It's just like when a criminal record is expunged, the accused is no longer convicted of those crimes (even though they technically were convicted at some point).

That's exactly what I'm saying. Quelesh's unclear language means that we can no longer reliably assume that this is the case.

[Auralia]

Wait a sec... I was under the impression that if an acquittal is thrown out, the accused has no longer been acquitted. It's just like when a criminal record is expunged, the accused is no longer convicted of those crimes (even though they technically were convicted at some point).

That's exactly what I'm saying. Quelesh's unclear language means that we can no longer reliably assume that this is the case.

No, I think the language is clear as-is. If an individual has had their acquittal thrown out, they are no longer considered to be "acquitted for that criminal offense."

[Tibberiria]

We have voted for the resolution, as we believe Habeas Corpus is an important right. We hope that, since it appears this resolution will be defeated, the WA will continue to work toward a resolution that all sides can agree on.