NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Habeas Corpus Act

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:20 pm

Quelesh wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
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:
Bears Armed wrote:"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."

Retired WerePenguins wrote: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:
Damanucus wrote:[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:
Quelesh wrote: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:
Quelesh wrote: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):
Merfurian wrote: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:
Quelesh wrote: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.
Last edited by Damanucus on Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:21 pm

Auralia wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
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.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Datavia
Attaché
 
Posts: 92
Founded: May 26, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Datavia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:23 pm

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

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:36 pm

Ossitania wrote:
Auralia wrote:
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.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:37 pm

Auralia wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
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.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Thatchland
Envoy
 
Posts: 254
Founded: Dec 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Thatchland » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:04 pm

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.
American Progress "The Progressive Quiz": 358/400 (Extremely Progressive)
The Political Compass: Economic -9.50 | Social -7.18

User avatar
The Eternal Kawaii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1761
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Eternal Kawaii » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:48 pm

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.
Learn More about The Eternal Kawaii from our Factbook!

"Aside from being illegal, it's not like Max Barry Day was that bad of a resolution." -- Glen Rhodes
"as a member of the GA elite, I don't have to take this" -- Vancouvia

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:51 pm

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.
Last edited by Sanctaria on Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:05 pm

Thatchland wrote: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
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Thatchland
Envoy
 
Posts: 254
Founded: Dec 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Thatchland » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:21 pm

Quelesh wrote:
Thatchland wrote: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).
Last edited by Thatchland on Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Progress "The Progressive Quiz": 358/400 (Extremely Progressive)
The Political Compass: Economic -9.50 | Social -7.18

User avatar
Retired WerePenguins
Diplomat
 
Posts: 787
Founded: Apr 26, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Retired WerePenguins » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:31 pm

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!

Image Vote No! Get Uni!
Totally Naked
Tourist Eating
WA NS
___"That's the one thing I like about the WA; it allows me to shove my moral compass up your legislative branch, assuming a majority agrees." James Blonde
___"Even so, I see nothing in WA policy that requires that the resolution have a concrete basis in fact," Minister from Frenequesta
___"There are some things worse than death. I believe being Canadian Prime Minister is one of them." Brother Maynard.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:32 pm

The double meaning behind "Get Uni!" is making me smile so much.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:21 pm

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.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:25 pm

Auralia wrote: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.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:28 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Auralia wrote: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".
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:31 pm

Auralia wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
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.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:32 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Auralia wrote:
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?
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:35 pm

Auralia wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
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.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:45 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Auralia wrote:
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.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:49 pm

Auralia wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
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?
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:53 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Auralia wrote:
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.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:55 pm

Auralia wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
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.
Last edited by Sanctaria on Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:58 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Auralia wrote:
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?
Last edited by Auralia on Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7755
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:01 pm

Auralia wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
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.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258

Dr. Bethany Greer ORD, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
GA#590 (Co)
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

Auralia wrote:Your condescending attitude is remarkably annoying.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4981
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:02 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Auralia wrote:
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.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads