NationStates

Quelesh wrote: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

Will someone please explain to me how in the world it's possible to charge everyone in less than two hours?

To bring everyone back to reality, let me cite some real-world statistics. In these countries, you can be held for this long without being charged with a crime:

United States . . . 2 days
Germany . . . 2 days
Italy . . . 4 days
Russia . . . 5 days
Spain . . . 5 days
France . . . 6 days
United Kingdom . . . 28 days

Source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/comparative-law-study-2010-pre-charge-detention.pdf (see chart on page 4)

Would this proposal outlaw involuntary (civil) commitment?

I strongly encourage every member of the World Assembly to vote against this proposal. Its authors obviously weren't thinking.

Knootoss wrote:Habeas Corpus is a good thing. Mini-managing the precise times that people are allowed to be held in detention most certainly is not.

Christian Democrats wrote:I strongly encourage every member of the World Assembly to vote against this proposal. Its authors obviously weren't thinking.

We find ourselves in fundamental agreement with both these ambassadors. "Avoiding loopholes" is a laudable goal, doing so by micro-managing entirely unrealistic timelines is not.

We also find the author's repeated and total dismissal of these valid points to be a severe negative in consideration of any of said author's mostly well-crafted proposals. We strongly encourage the Quelesh ambassador to request Secretariat removal of this proposal to properly address these flaws.

MJ Donovan, Ambassador Emeritus, Frisbeeteria.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Quelesh wrote: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

Will someone please explain to me how in the world it's possible to charge everyone in less than two hours?

To bring everyone back to reality, let me cite some real-world statistics. In these countries, you can be held for this long without being charged with a crime:

United States . . . 2 days
Germany . . . 2 days
Italy . . . 4 days
Russia . . . 5 days
Spain . . . 5 days
France . . . 6 days
United Kingdom . . . 28 days

Source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/comparative-law-study-2010-pre-charge-detention.pdf (see chart on page 4)

Would this proposal outlaw involuntary (civil) commitment?

I strongly encourage every member of the World Assembly to vote against this proposal. Its authors obviously weren't thinking.

Clause 1 sets limits on suspicionless detention - that is, detention without either being charged with or suspected of a crime. I'll underline the relevant phrase:

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;

The length of time that member states may detain a person suspected of a crime without charging her with that crime is regulated by clause 2.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Quelesh wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Will someone please explain to me how in the world it's possible to charge everyone in less than two hours?

To bring everyone back to reality, let me cite some real-world statistics. In these countries, you can be held for this long without being charged with a crime:

United States . . . 2 days
Germany . . . 2 days
Italy . . . 4 days
Russia . . . 5 days
Spain . . . 5 days
France . . . 6 days
United Kingdom . . . 28 days

Source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/comparative-law-study-2010-pre-charge-detention.pdf (see chart on page 4)

Would this proposal outlaw involuntary (civil) commitment?

I strongly encourage every member of the World Assembly to vote against this proposal. Its authors obviously weren't thinking.

Clause 1 sets limits on suspicionless detention - that is, detention without either being charged with or suspected of a crime. I'll underline the relevant phrase:

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;

The length of time that member states may detain a person suspected of a crime without charging her with that crime is regulated by clause 2.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Our minds boggle at your logic. How can someone be detained, even though the police do not suspect him/her of anything? To be detained, the police must arrest you or ask you to appear at the station, which means they've got some suspicion about you.

But, because you won't listen to me or others...

*Klause defenestrates the Qualeshian ambassador, locks the window again and does so with all the doors too*
There, that's keeping HER out. Now, what's the next Resolution to be discussed?

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

Merfurian wrote:Our minds boggle at your logic. How can someone be detained, even though the police do not suspect him/her of anything? To be detained, the police must arrest you or ask you to appear at the station, which means they've got some suspicion about you.

Examples include detention of witnesses for questioning, sobriety checkpoints, etc. It is not my intention to prohibit such short suspicionless detentions, but limits must be set on them to prevent abuse.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

The Republic of Quadrimmina will be lending its full support to this measure.

Quadrimmina wrote:The Republic of Quadrimmina will be lending its full support to this measure.

I'm very appreciative of your support!

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Merfurian wrote:Our minds boggle at your logic. How can someone be detained, even though the police do not suspect him/her of anything? To be detained, the police must arrest you or ask you to appear at the station, which means they've got some suspicion about you.

"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. Add to that the facts that the author has now rejected earlier advice about the clauses on total detention time allowed within fixed periods and on dealing with transactional immunity in cases where witnesses admit to greater offences during trials than they had confessed to when negotiating for that immunity, and that not only does "suspecting" provide a significant loophole but that on close examination of the submitted text I have now found several other loopholes that -- taken together -- effectively render this proposal pretty much useless, and I honestly can not advise my government to support this measure."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Quelesh wrote:

Merfurian wrote:Our minds boggle at your logic. How can someone be detained, even though the police do not suspect him/her of anything? To be detained, the police must arrest you or ask you to appear at the station, which means they've got some suspicion about you.

Examples include detention of witnesses for questioning, sobriety checkpoints, etc. It is not my intention to prohibit such short suspicionless detentions, but limits must be set on them to prevent abuse.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

*Klause defenestrates the Qualeshian ambassador again*

AND STAY OUT. I'll keep on defenestrating you until:
1) you abandon this idea
2) this proposal fails at vote (whichever comes first)

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

Merfurian wrote:AND STAY OUT. I'll keep on defenestrating you

[OOC] Please don't. You're new to this WA meme, but the rest of have had 6 or 8 years to get really tired of it.

We find ourselves, in this case, in agreement with Quelesh, given that clause 1 does not fall under detention with suspicion. However, the Moronist government does not believe that this clause is of any use, assuming that nations consider public intoxication as a crime.
Dr. C.

Moronist Decisions wrote:We find ourselves, in this case, in agreement with Quelesh, given that clause 1 does not fall under detention with suspicion. However, the Moronist government does not believe that this clause is of any use, assuming that nations consider public intoxication as a crime.
Dr. C.

"Intoxication is no more a crime in public than in private within Alqanian jurisdiction", Princess Christine informed. "If a person, intoxicated or sober, poses a danger to themselves or others, the person is committed to rehabilitation. It is our understanding that this proposal would not hinder that; at least, the Queendom will not define detention in a way that would include involuntary admission to a mental health facility."

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.

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, as Princess Christine of Alqania pointed out, depending upon the nation's involuntary commitment laws, apparently dangerous individuals could be involuntarily committed until such time as they are no longer dangerous.

Bears Armed wrote:dealing with transactional immunity in cases where witnesses admit to greater offences during trials than they had confessed to when negotiating for that immunity

It seems rather silly for me that a nation would promise an individual immunity for everything that she says in testimony, no matter how unrelated to the issue at hand. For example, let's say that trafficking in certain drugs is a crime in a member state, and a person is accused of being a low-level drug trafficker. The state may promise her immunity against drug trafficking prosecution in exchange for her testimony against a higher-level trafficker. This is reasonable. However, it would be silly for the state to promise immunity to prosecution for all crimes that she happens to bring up. If she says, "oh, by the way, I murdered five people too," why would a member state promise immunity for that?

Alqania wrote:"Intoxication is no more a crime in public than in private within Alqanian jurisdiction", Princess Christine informed. "If a person, intoxicated or sober, poses a danger to themselves or others, the person is committed to rehabilitation. It is our understanding that this proposal would not hinder that; at least, the Queendom will not define detention in a way that would include involuntary admission to a mental health facility."

That is my interpretation as well, and it is not my intention to include involuntary psychiatric commitment in this proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Quelesh wrote:

Merfurian wrote:Our minds boggle at your logic. How can someone be detained, even though the police do not suspect him/her of anything? To be detained, the police must arrest you or ask you to appear at the station, which means they've got some suspicion about you.

Examples include detention of witnesses for questioning, sobriety checkpoints, etc. It is not my intention to prohibit such short suspicionless detentions, but limits must be set on them to prevent abuse.

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.

But that's a minor nit pick and one can easily provide work arounds to this problem (in other words you got to build the shelters and therefore it's not detention if someone actually uses them).

Since I find no major objections, this continues to have my full support.

Alqania wrote:

Moronist Decisions wrote:We find ourselves, in this case, in agreement with Quelesh, given that clause 1 does not fall under detention with suspicion. However, the Moronist government does not believe that this clause is of any use, assuming that nations consider public intoxication as a crime.
Dr. C.

"Intoxication is no more a crime in public than in private within Alqanian jurisdiction", Princess Christine informed. "If a person, intoxicated or sober, poses a danger to themselves or others, the person is committed to rehabilitation. It is our understanding that this proposal would not hinder that; at least, the Queendom will not define detention in a way that would include involuntary admission to a mental health facility."

If you pose a danger to yourself or to others, unless such a danger is lawfully proven (by the formal charging with a crime) and the appropriate remedial course of action taken, then the course of action should not be taken. In other words, by ensuring that detention is only allowed by formal charging, the proposing delegation is ensuring that frivolous claims are not brought to cause detention. In Quadrimmina, being a danger to yourself or others is considered a misdemeanor punishable by psychological rehabilitiation. If the Queleshian standard is not adopted, then essentially anyone can be considered insane and thrown in a mental institution without due process.

Of course, we would ask that the phrase "due process of law" appear in this resolution with respect to the charging. We feel it is important to ensure that legal parameters are met.

Honourable Members of this Most Hallowed Chamber;

I rise today to present you with the Delegation's Initial Submission in anticipation of a vote which will begin in 20 hours' time. I am not campaigning for or against this resolution, as I have already done so. The Initial Submission sets out our Delegation's finalised viewpoint on this Resolution in its final form. It also serves as a Submission wherein we can collate our disparate opinions on the Resolution. Dependant on our timezone and the projected time when a Proposal is due to come to vote, we normally submit our Initial Submissions within the 24 hours directly preceding the Resolution coming to vote. I would now, therefore, like to take the pleasure in doing so.

Ladies and Gentlemen of this Chamber, the Delegation first wishes to congratulate the Qualeshian ambassador for his efforts on legislation regarding habeas corpus. We admire the intention and ideals propogated by the learned sponsor, but, sadly, as we have previously noted, there are issues with this Proposal which we cannot support. As I have stated, we are not campaigning for change in the text, as this Resolution has progressed too far for that to be viable. We are merely giving our opinion. I will now present the material elements of our Submission.

As have been previously highlighted, we believe that the following clause:

Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

is open to abuse, because the judicial authorities may not be "available" for quite some time. When a person is bailed because of the 96-hour limit, he would be promptly rearrested for the same crime, and the vicious cycle shall begin anew. We were not, and still are not, satisfied by the Sponsor's response, and we still stand opposed to this Clause.

We further raise concern with this clause

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

which seems to bolster and encourage the abuse which we feared from the clause mentioned in the above paragraph.

Finally, we take issue with this clause

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;

which has not been properly defined, and thus the test is subjective. A police chief who detains someone for 3 months may believe that said time is "necessary" to provide that individual with a speedy trial, even though the detainee may not think so.

Your Honours, for the reasons stated above, we cannot support such admiral intentions from the Lead Sponsor of Qualesh, and the Co-Sponsor of Connopolis. We declare, however, that they should be congratulated for their efforts.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ambassadors, Regional Delegates and fellow Observers, I thank you for your time and patience. I now yield the floor to await the Response Submissions of the Lead Sponsor and the Co-Sponsor respectively.

Klause Uliyan
etc

No. 1330491713, the quorate proposal "Habeas Corpus Act" (submitted by Quelesh), has been withdrawn by authorial request.

Goobergunchia wrote:No. 1330491713, the quorate proposal "Habeas Corpus Act" (submitted by Quelesh), has been withdrawn by authorial request.

I did not request that this proposal be withdrawn.

Merfurian wrote:As have been previously highlighted, we believe that the following clause:

Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

is open to abuse, because the judicial authorities may not be "available" for quite some time. When a person is bailed because of the 96-hour limit, he would be promptly rearrested for the same crime, and the vicious cycle shall begin anew. We were not, and still are not, satisfied by the Sponsor's response, and we still stand opposed to this Clause.

We further raise concern with this clause

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same criminal charges shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

which seems to bolster and encourage the abuse which we feared from the clause mentioned in the above paragraph.

Clause 3 actually prevents the abuse that you fear clause 2 allows. If someone is detained on suspicion of a crime, without being formally charged with that crime, for the maximum of 36 hours (or possibly a maximum of up to 132 hours if the judicial authorities are unavailable for 96 of those hours), and is then released because the time limit has been reached, that person can no longer be detained on suspicion of that crime without being formally charged, because the length of time she was detained earlier counts toward the time limit.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

The proposal has been removed, anyway. Maybe now we can discuss the changes that so many ambassadors have been asking for?

Merfurian wrote:Finally, we take issue with this clause

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;

which has not been properly defined, and thus the test is subjective. A police chief who detains someone for 3 months may believe that said time is "necessary" to provide that individual with a speedy trial, even though the detainee may not think so.

It seems that I forgot to address this point earlier; I apologize. Anyway, by way of explanation, I'll quote my note on that clause from the earlier drafting thread:

Quelesh wrote:This is related to speedy trials. If GAR37 weren't on the books, I would institute particular time limits for criminal trials. But GAR37 already requires a speedy trial ("MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence"), so setting a time limit could potentially be both duplicative and contradictory. My clause 5 basically says that "if a person is denied the right to a speedy trial as required by GAR37, that person must be released." It does so without actually mentioning GAR37, thus avoiding house of cards issues. Another reason for not setting exact time limits here is to avoid preventing nations from detaining people pending (speedy) trial. Whether or not to detain pending trial would thus be left up to member states.

Now that you've gotten me to look at this clause in more detail, however, it occurs to me that it's possible that, if a person is charged with a crime, detained on that charge, and then the charge is dropped prior to trial, the member state may be able to continue to detain the person on that charge anyway for as long as would have been required to give her a speedy trial, even though the charge has been dropped, because she "has been charged." I'll add a sentence to this clause to prevent this potential loophole.

Knootoss wrote:The proposal has been removed, anyway. Maybe now we can discuss the changes that so many ambassadors have been asking for?

"So many ambassadors" refers to yourself and to less than a small handful of other people. Other than my response to Merfurian above, I have not been convinced of the need for any other changes to this proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

OOC: The proposal was removed because the player behind Connopolis, as co-author, requested on IRC that the mods remove the proposal. I did not know about this, and this was not wanted by me. I will remove Connopolis' language (i.e. the transactional immunity clause, because that's the only part of the proposal that still uses his language) from the proposal so that I can resubmit it without a co-author.

First approval!

Okay, second, but Quelesh's doesn't count 'cause she submitted it.

So you just removed the co-author who turned against the current wording as well as useful language that he added so that you can still, stubbornly, resubmit this without any response to the criticism of your proposal? Wow. Talk about stubborn.

Don't worry, almost every regional delegate is going to like, suppress this silly act.

I have modified and resubmitted the proposal. The most significant change is the removal of the transactional immunity clause. That clause was the only clause that still used Connopolis' wording. In order to prevent further acts of sabotage, I removed it so that I could resubmit without a co-author. I am now the sole author of this proposal, as all the remaining wording is my own.

I have also added a sentence to clause 4 addressing detention after a charge is dropped. This is to close a potential loophole.

Delegates, please approve!

The new submitted version is below:

Linux and the X wrote:First approval!

Okay, second, but Quelesh's doesn't count 'cause she submitted it.

Thanks! Everyone else gets sloppy seconds, but I'm sure they're okay with that.

Knootoss wrote:So you just removed the co-author who turned against the current wording as well as useful language that he added so that you can still, stubbornly, resubmit this without any response to the criticism of your proposal? Wow. Talk about stubborn.

Removing the co-author was necessary in order to prevent that nation from further sabotaging this proposal. As it would have been improper for me to submit the proposal without a co-author had I included Connopolis' transactional immunity language, it was necessary for me to remove it. I do not oppose the transactional immunity language, and Connopolis is free to create a separate proposal addressing that issue. I will likely support it.

Also, I have in fact already addressed the criticism that you refer to during this debate, and see no reason to reiterate my views.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador