[DEFEATED] Habeas Corpus Act

[Damanucus]

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

I feel we have to repeat a debate that was recorded four pages back:

"Some nations' laws allow for the temporary detention of publicly intoxicated indivduals until they sober-up, for their own and the general public's safety, without actually requiring that they face any charges... A harmless procedure, indeed a benign one, which this proposal would prohibit."

I have a minor concern about this clause. In some quaint old fashioned systems of government, a person may be detained, with their consent, for periods longer than two hours in order to allow for specific time related conditions to occur. One example is becomming sober enough to legally drive, although I have heard cases where "detention" was used in cases of exceptionally low rates of homelessness and exceptionally harsh weather conditions as the cost of doing so was less than the cost of maintaining a mostly unused shelter.

And a continuation to this debate made three pages back:

[T]his resolution would make this procedure somewhat difficult to execute to full effectiveness. Intoxicated individuals may take more than two hours to sober up (and indeed may also need to be detained more than once in a week), and "public nuisance" events, such as out-of-control demonstrations, may need more than two hours just to get everyone settled down (although that may be a bit of a bad example). So, for once, I'm going to have to debate against the use of hard-coded time limits for this resolution, as it makes keeping the peace a lot more difficult.

Now, yes, Ambassador Yadoru provided her own response:

In some nations, public intoxication is a crime, and in such nations such individuals could be held on suspicion of that crime, or could be formally charged. In other nations, such as Quelesh, in which public intoxication is not a crime, clause 1 would limit "public safety" detention to two hours[.]

However, there are few who are satisfied with this response (and I hail back to my previous response, which actually came after Quelesh's response, as an example).

Additionally, I wish to bring to note this response that was made by Ambassador Yadoru, that was made after this resolution was resubmitted:

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.

Now, this comment only served to solidify what the delegations have debated for the entirety of this drafting (and I shall quote Klause Uliyan):

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.

This resolution has largely remained unchanged since it was first proposed for draft. (And yes, I checked.) The only changes that were executed were the shift of two clauses to "Prohibit Double Jeopardy" (by the same author), and the removal of Connopolis' contributions. Outside of that, what you see is what was proposed from the very beginning.

In the face of such concern, I shall change my initial, implied abstinence to a solid Against vote.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Now, I have a much more major concern, still somewhat related to the last point. Let me quote:

Removing the co-author was necessary in order to prevent that nation from further sabotaging this proposal.

Take it as you wish, but to me, this seems to indicate paranoia over an otherwise legitimate response to a fairly legitimate concern.

[Ossitania]

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."

The language states that member-states cannot detain an individual "after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense". That means that from the moment that someone is acquitted of a criminal offense onwards, member-states cannot detain them for that criminal offense. If the clause ended with "unless that acquittal is overturned or otherwise vacated", then I would agree with where you are coming from, but it does not and I do not.

[Datavia]

The way in which this proposal legislates about Habeas Corpus, clearly enters into details better left alone to each national legislation. One thing is to declare an universal right not to be arrested indefinitely, and one different thing is to happily propose the terms to be applied in every nation, regardless of its legal system. So we thoughtfully vote AGAINST

[Auralia]

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."

The language states that member-states cannot detain an individual "after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense". That means that from the moment that someone is acquitted of a criminal offense onwards, member-states cannot detain them for that criminal offense. If the clause ended with "unless that acquittal is overturned or otherwise vacated", then I would agree with where you are coming from, but it does not and I do not.

I still disagree with your interpretation, but I suppose it would be best if it were clarified.

[Sanctaria]

The language states that member-states cannot detain an individual "after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense". That means that from the moment that someone is acquitted of a criminal offense onwards, member-states cannot detain them for that criminal offense. If the clause ended with "unless that acquittal is overturned or otherwise vacated", then I would agree with where you are coming from, but it does not and I do not.

I still disagree with your interpretation, but I suppose it would be best if it were clarified.

The day we get a clarification on anything from the Quelesh Ambassador is the day I eat my hat*.

*I do not own a hat.

[Thatchland]

If the following has been discussed previously, we humbly ask for forgiveness as reviewing the morass of the minutes is quite discombobulating.

Our main concern is within these three sections:

1. 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;
2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. ...
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.

To restate more simply:

• A person not formally charged or under suspicion can be detained only for a very limited time
• If a person is under suspicion, but not formally charged, the time of being detained is lengthened slightly
• If a person is formally charged, whether under suspicion or not, they can be held only for a "reasonable" time
• If convicted, the person serves the time

So, let us assume there is an individual or individual(s) that a nation wishes to remove from the civilian population with somewhat of a legal excuse. They could easily arrest them and charge them with violation of xyz law. Under this Habeas Corpus proposition they can place formal charges (with the right judge overseeing the arraignment) - without suspicion needed - and it would pull them out of the civilian population for an indefinite period of time (as long as they prosecution can make the case they are moving forward toward a trial - again, with a friendly judge).

This proposal only covers "A OR B" and "A ONLY" with regards to suspicion/charges but does not require "A AND B" with moving forward with charges. And, as we all know - with the right judges, you would only need "B" and that is why "A" is a necessity with Habeas Corpus.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Before explaining our position, we wish to state for the record that this proposed resolution, if passed, will have no effect upon our nation. Kawaiians already enjoy full right of Habeas Corpus, as we do not jail individuals under arrest. Instead, they are released upon their own recognizance, and are expected to voluntarily report to the local Elder for Judgment of their case. That said, we believe that Habeas Corpus ought to be recognized as a right of all free people, particularly those whose state authorities enjoy the right to lock up the arrested.

Unfortunately, the proposal as written is, in our view, badly flawed. Prescribing fixed times of lock-up without consideration of local circumstances is almost perverse micromanagement. Also, as others here have pointed out, it leads to numerous bad--if unintended--consequences.

In the spirit of reducing the amount of needless WA meddling in national affairs, and in the hope that better legislation addressing this important topic be crafted, we urge that this proposal be voted down.

[Sanctaria]

It may be useful to know that should this vote continue along its present pattern and this resolution is defeated, I will be looking to draft a Habeas Corpus replacement myself.

That being said, should the Ambassador from Quelesh edit her proposal to allay any concerns Ambassadors may have, I'd be happy for her to resubmit such an edited copy.

[Quelesh]

So, let us assume there is an individual or individual(s) that a nation wishes to remove from the civilian population with somewhat of a legal excuse. They could easily arrest them and charge them with violation of xyz law. Under this Habeas Corpus proposition they can place formal charges (with the right judge overseeing the arraignment) - without suspicion needed - and it would pull them out of the civilian population for an indefinite period of time (as long as they prosecution can make the case they are moving forward toward a trial - again, with a friendly judge).

GAR37 already establishes the right to a speedy trial. I had to be somewhat vague in clause 4 because GAR37 is somewhat vague in its speedy trial requirement. But the nation that you describe would be in violation of GAR37.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Thatchland]

So, let us assume there is an individual or individual(s) that a nation wishes to remove from the civilian population with somewhat of a legal excuse. They could easily arrest them and charge them with violation of xyz law. Under this Habeas Corpus proposition they can place formal charges (with the right judge overseeing the arraignment) - without suspicion needed - and it would pull them out of the civilian population for an indefinite period of time (as long as they prosecution can make the case they are moving forward toward a trial - again, with a friendly judge).

GAR37 already establishes the right to a speedy trial. I had to be somewhat vague in clause 4 because GAR37 is somewhat vague in its speedy trial requirement. But the nation that you describe would be in violation of GAR37.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

The Ambassador missed my point completely: a nation could press formal charges on an individual without suspicion and therefore hold them for an extended period of time. And this would completely override the purpose of this resolution.

1. You have short period of detainment unless either charged OR under suspicion.
2. You have a slightly longer period if SOLELY under suspicion.
3. For the formal charges you have the longest period
4. But since you don't require suspicion as part of the formal charges, nations can just skip #2 and go straight to #3, if they so wished. During that time they can build their case of suspicion and gather evidence to back up their charges for the trial

Due to that technical fault, this Habeas Corpus act gives the ability to create many detainment centers for individuals which a nation would like to exclude from the civilian population.

And again, detention can be indefinite - as long as it remains "reasonable" (i.e. a first degree murder trial may not occur for 1-3 years after initial charges).

[Retired WerePenguins]

Ladies and gentlemen, after due consideration I have decided to vote ...

(SUDDENLY A DOZEN SCANTLY CLAD LADIES COMES INTO THE CHAMBER BRING A LARGE TRAY OF SUSHI AND CONTAINERS OF HOT SAKE)

(Z STARES AT THE FOOD)

For me? You want me to do what? Really I would never. Is that Uni?

WE VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION.

Oh, I'm also told free sushi to any delegate who votes against this resolution, and hot sake!

Damn, this uni is good!

Vote No! Get Uni!

[Sanctaria]

The double meaning behind "Get Uni!" is making me smile so much.

[Auralia]

I'm really not sure where to cast my vote here. Many delegates have brought up valid concerns, but the Quelesian has provided workarounds in each case. It would be better, I suppose, if the proposal were re-drafted to take into account these concerns, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I think we'll vote FOR. Of course, the point is moot since the resolution will most likely fail at vote, based on the results right now.

[Sanctaria]

I'm really not sure where to cast my vote here. Many delegates have brought up valid concerns, but the Quelesian has provided workarounds in each case. It would be better, I suppose, if the proposal were re-drafted to take into account these concerns, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I think we'll vote FOR. Of course, the point is moot since the resolution will most likely fail at vote, based on the results right now.

This resolution bans non-criminal arrests and the Quelesian "workaround" is to change your entire legal system and subvert civil justice.

But that's an acceptable workaround. Okey-doke.

[Auralia]

I'm really not sure where to cast my vote here. Many delegates have brought up valid concerns, but the Quelesian has provided workarounds in each case. It would be better, I suppose, if the proposal were re-drafted to take into account these concerns, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I think we'll vote FOR. Of course, the point is moot since the resolution will most likely fail at vote, based on the results right now.

This resolution bans non-criminal arrests and the Quelesian "workaround" is to change your entire legal system and subvert civil justice.

But that's an acceptable workaround. Okey-doke.

It doesn't actually ban non-criminal arrests, but limits them to two hours in duration. Furthermore, I wouldn't call re-categorizing the few cases where non-criminal arrests actually occur as criminal offenses as "changing our entire legal system" or a "subversion of civil justice".

[Sanctaria]

This resolution bans non-criminal arrests and the Quelesian "workaround" is to change your entire legal system and subvert civil justice.

But that's an acceptable workaround. Okey-doke.

It doesn't actually ban non-criminal arrests, but limits them to two hours in duration. Furthermore, I wouldn't call re-categorizing the few cases where non-criminal arrests actually occur as criminal offenses as "changing our entire legal system" or a "subversion of civil justice".

There is a reason why non-criminal arrest exists and, furthermore, there is a reason why criminal justice and civil justice are often separate entities. If the Ambassador cannot recognise the fundamental legal principles involved, then it is a lost cause.

[Auralia]

It doesn't actually ban non-criminal arrests, but limits them to two hours in duration. Furthermore, I wouldn't call re-categorizing the few cases where non-criminal arrests actually occur as criminal offenses as "changing our entire legal system" or a "subversion of civil justice".

There is a reason why non-criminal arrest exists and, furthermore, there is a reason why criminal justice and civil justice are often separate entities. If the Ambassador cannot recognise the fundamental legal principles involved, then it is a lost cause.

What's wrong with making it a crime to be in contempt of court, or to not show up to Parliament?

[Sanctaria]

There is a reason why non-criminal arrest exists and, furthermore, there is a reason why criminal justice and civil justice are often separate entities. If the Ambassador cannot recognise the fundamental legal principles involved, then it is a lost cause.

What's wrong with making it a crime to be in contempt of court, or to not show up to Parliament?

I sincerely hope the Ambassador doesn't think they are the only two incidences when a non-criminal arrest is used.

[Auralia]

What's wrong with making it a crime to be in contempt of court, or to not show up to Parliament?

I sincerely hope the Ambassador doesn't think they are the only two incidences when a non-criminal arrest is used.

I think another example was public drunkenness. That could be a criminal offense as well.

[Sanctaria]

I sincerely hope the Ambassador doesn't think they are the only two incidences when a non-criminal arrest is used.

I think another example was public drunkenness. That could be a criminal offense as well.

Ambassador, non criminal arrests are made in the event of a non criminal offense. If we were to make all non-criminal arrests criminal, then we would have to make non criminal offenses also criminal.

Now, Ambassador, what was that you were saying about seeing no subversion of the civil justice system?

[Auralia]

I think another example was public drunkenness. That could be a criminal offense as well.

Ambassador, non criminal arrests are made in the event of a non criminal offense. If we were to make all non-criminal arrests criminal, then we would have to make non criminal offenses also criminal.

Now, Ambassador, what was that you were saying about seeing no subversion of the civil justice system?

However, there are very few non-criminal offenses that require arrest.

[Sanctaria]

Ambassador, non criminal arrests are made in the event of a non criminal offense. If we were to make all non-criminal arrests criminal, then we would have to make non criminal offenses also criminal.

Now, Ambassador, what was that you were saying about seeing no subversion of the civil justice system?

However, there are very few non-criminal offenses that require arrest.

That depends on the jurisdiction, Ambassador. The number of offences that require arrest doesn't matter, it's the principle that this will destroy. If a nation's civil justice system requires a non-criminal arrest for every non-criminal offence, then this act would, effectively, forbid a nation from having their civil legal system thusly.

[Auralia]

However, there are very few non-criminal offenses that require arrest.

That depends on the jurisdiction, Ambassador. The number of offences that require arrest doesn't matter, it's the principle that this will destroy. If a nation's civil justice system requires a non-criminal arrest for every non-criminal offence, then this act would, effectively, forbid a nation from having their civil legal system thusly.

I'd argue that such a system probably shouldn't exist. At any rate, I've already agreed that changes to the resolution would be preferable, and that the resolution will most likely fail anyways, so what exactly is the point in continuing this discussion?

[Sanctaria]

That depends on the jurisdiction, Ambassador. The number of offences that require arrest doesn't matter, it's the principle that this will destroy. If a nation's civil justice system requires a non-criminal arrest for every non-criminal offence, then this act would, effectively, forbid a nation from having their civil legal system thusly.

I'd argue that such a system probably shouldn't exist. At any rate, I've already agreed that changes to the resolution would be preferable, and that the resolution will most likely fail anyways, so what exactly is the point in continuing this discussion?

As terrible as this sounds, Ambassador, and I understand this might upset you, but there are more Ambassadors than you in this Assembly. All of these Ambassadors are free to view the minutes. A continuation in the discussion helps these Ambassadors come to a more knowledgeable conclusion.

[Auralia]

I'd argue that such a system probably shouldn't exist. At any rate, I've already agreed that changes to the resolution would be preferable, and that the resolution will most likely fail anyways, so what exactly is the point in continuing this discussion?

As terrible as this sounds, Ambassador, and I understand this might upset you, but there are more Ambassadors than you in this Assembly. All of these Ambassadors are free to view the minutes. A continuation in the discussion helps these Ambassadors come to a more knowledgeable conclusion.

Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.