NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Calderax
Secretary
 
Posts: 39
Founded: Apr 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Calderax » Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:15 am

It is an undue strain on the Great Nation of Calderax's court systems to allow convicted felons to appeal, all of whom, thanks to our stellar and competent executive system, we know are guilty. So, truly, this legislation is NOT about increasing rights. It's about bankrupting nations in more and more red tape. If you have a problem with proper justice in your nations, then I suggest you look at the way in which you govern or what kind of ignorant cultural background your nations people hail from. But in the Great Calderax, we are complete and efficient in our justice and have no need of this useless legislation.

Calderax votes AGAINST.
The Delegation of Calderax speaks for The Great Father, Gah Bua Kham.

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

I am brilliance contained in a single entity.

User avatar
Delegate Vinage
Envoy
 
Posts: 305
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Delegate Vinage » Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:45 am

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate and Media Minister of Europeia will be voting AYE on this proposal after a 6/1 internal vote decided such action as governed by Europeian Law. With no glaring issue found in this proposal, and a shred of National Sovereignty kept, we see little reason to deny this proposal to our books. It's simple, clear and doesn't impose any of these time-limits so, with that, our vote is cast.

Image
Vinage V. Grey-Anumia
World Assembly Delegate &
Former President of Europeia


"The Delegate Wipes What The Region Spills"
"Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force"

User avatar
Luethdno
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Luethdno » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:31 am

The Republic of Luethdno has decided to vote against this resolution, though it is fair to many people the people of Luethdno do not want to take the risk of letting a person that may still be guilty and may commit again out in the public, alongside this we use our prisoners as apart of our working state, so it's a no on all levels.

User avatar
Computeropia
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jun 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

What is resonable

Postby Computeropia » Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:50 am

AFFIRMS the right of member-states to grant broader appellate rights than those mandated by this resolution and to place a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge.


It seems to me that any nation can negate the entire wording of this resolution by claiming a "resonable ceiling" on the number of appeals can be set at "one" in their own nation. There would be no uniformity between nations. One nation may allow 5 chances and another 1.

User avatar
New Matawan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 581
Founded: Jun 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby New Matawan » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:42 am

The United Socialist States of New Matawan, finding Nothing within the Document contradictory to our deepest Beliefs, and Believing that all criminals should be given a Fair and Honest trial and the Right to defend themselves from any and all Conviction, hereby votes YEA to the Convict Appelate Rights Proposal.
Last edited by New Matawan on Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DEFCON Rating:
5: Peace
4: Increased Notice
{3: War Preparation}
2: War
1: Nuclear War
The United Socialist Cantons of New Matawan is a huge, genial nation, ruled by Toad85 with a fair hand, and renowned for its anti-smoking policies. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 912 million are free to do what they want with their own bodies, and vote for whoever they like in elections; if they go into business, however, they are regulated to within an inch of their lives.

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

Postby Ossitania » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:50 am

Calderax wrote:It is an undue strain on the Great Nation of Calderax's court systems to allow convicted felons to appeal, all of whom, thanks to our stellar and competent executive system, we know are guilty. So, truly, this legislation is NOT about increasing rights. It's about bankrupting nations in more and more red tape. If you have a problem with proper justice in your nations, then I suggest you look at the way in which you govern or what kind of ignorant cultural background your nations people hail from. But in the Great Calderax, we are complete and efficient in our justice and have no need of this useless legislation.

Calderax votes AGAINST.


Your judiciary is what decides whether appeals are heard or not. If your oh-so-perfect justice system is really as great as you claim, then surely you have judges who are competent enough to dismiss applications to have an appeal heard by pointing out that your system leaves no question of guilt and its perfection would surely extend to making sure there were no procedural errors during the trial, meaning that convicts in your country would have no grounds to appeal as they would all be definitively guilty.

Following on from that, logically speaking, this resolution would have no effect on your nation, as there would never be a need for appeals to be heard, so convicts would never have grounds to appeal their convictions in the first place. That means that you are voting against extending these rights to people who may genuinely need them in countries with less perfect justice systems because...because why exactly? All you've shown is that the resolution won't affect your nation (well, actually, you claimed it would but the claim wasn't supported by your further statements), you haven't argued that it will negatively impact others. Unless such a negative impact can be demonstrated, your negative vote comes across as quite illogical, ambassador.

Luethdno wrote:The Republic of Luethdno has decided to vote against this resolution, though it is fair to many people the people of Luethdno do not want to take the risk of letting a person that may still be guilty and may commit again out in the public, alongside this we use our prisoners as apart of our working state, so it's a no on all levels.


In case the ambassador from Luethdno is under some misconception, we do not see the problem. This resolution does not require that all appeals be accepted or even heard. There are grounds presented on which appeals must be heard but it is your nation's judiciary which will, in each case, determine if the arguments put forward by the appellant fit one or more of these grounds. If the appellant is then deemed to have the requisite grounds for an appeal, that still doesn't guarantee his success - he could very well fail at appeals, just as he could fail before he even gets that far. In reality, the chance of a truly guilty convict successfully appealing his conviction seems rather remote. In addition, you speak of prisoners when this resolution has nothing to do with prisoners - it is to do with people who have been declared guilty of a crime, no matter the punishment given to them. This isn't about appealing the legality of one's detention - that's the purview of the recently-passed GA #201 Habeas Corpus. This resolution is about appealing against the declaration of guilt, even after sentence has been served. This is about clearing one's good name, not escaping punishment, though that would be the natural result should someone who is serving time successfully appeal their conviction before their sentence is served.


Computeropia wrote:
AFFIRMS the right of member-states to grant broader appellate rights than those mandated by this resolution and to place a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge.


It seems to me that any nation can negate the entire wording of this resolution by claiming a "resonable ceiling" on the number of appeals can be set at "one" in their own nation. There would be no uniformity between nations. One nation may allow 5 chances and another 1.


Naturally, but setting a strict number would have been even more disastrous, as the number could have been a farcically large amount in species with a short lifespan and a farcically small amount in species with a long one. If we had attempted to dictate a specific number, it would have pleased no one in the end, whereas with this, we can guarantee that every single person gets at least one chance at an appeal and, in many nations, they will get a reasonably more significant number.
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
Whipporwill
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Apr 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Whipporwill » Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:08 am

Ossitania wrote:
Calderax wrote:Your judiciary is what decides whether appeals are heard or not. If your oh-so-perfect justice system is really as great as you claim, then surely you have judges who are competent enough to dismiss applications to have an appeal heard by pointing out that your system leaves no question of guilt and its perfection would surely extend to making sure there were no procedural errors during the trial, meaning that convicts in your country would have no grounds to appeal as they would all be definitively guilty.


You expect to gain support by criticizing and ridiculing our members' judiciary systems?! This is unacceptable! THE REPUBLIC OF WHIPPORWILL DEMANDS THAT THE MEMBER FROM THE INDEPENDENT COMMONWEALTH OF OSSITANIA BE REMOVED AND SUSPENDED FROM THIS ASSEMBLY!

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7548
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:11 am

Whipporwill wrote:
Ossitania wrote:


You expect to gain support by criticizing and ridiculing our members' judiciary systems?! This is unacceptable! THE REPUBLIC OF WHIPPORWILL DEMANDS THAT THE MEMBER FROM THE INDEPENDENT COMMONWEALTH OF OSSITANIA BE REMOVED AND SUSPENDED FROM THIS ASSEMBLY!

We are disinclined to acquiesce to your demand.

Means no.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

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

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

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

Postby Ossitania » Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:42 am

Whipporwill wrote:
Ossitania wrote:


You expect to gain support by criticizing and ridiculing our members' judiciary systems?! This is unacceptable! THE REPUBLIC OF WHIPPORWILL DEMANDS THAT THE MEMBER FROM THE INDEPENDENT COMMONWEALTH OF OSSITANIA BE REMOVED AND SUSPENDED FROM THIS ASSEMBLY!


1) I haven't criticised or ridiculed anyone's judicial system, I have criticised and ridiculed arguments against my proposal by people who clearly haven't noticed that their arguments are predicated on the incompetency of their own judicial systems. I haven't insulted anyone's judicial systems, I've merely pointed out that their judicial systems must be incompetent for their arguments to hold true, with the implication that their argument is wrong, not that their judicial system is incompetent.

2) Criticising and ridiculing the institutions of other member-states is not grounds for suspension from the Assembly anyway. And anyway, what's wrong with criticising? Are you so insecure in your institutions that you cannot take their flaws being pointed out to you?
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
Fritzergald
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 122
Founded: May 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

SCREW THAT!!!!!!

Postby Fritzergald » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:49 pm

This will completely destroy WA nations who have the Most Extreme governments. You are just trying to get dictators on you! :palm:
Lord of the Dead, Anubis
A violent Revolution will only destroy, and divide. The Revolution, must be from within

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1696
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Goobergunchia » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:54 pm

We do not wish to engage in anything that kinky.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

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

Postby Ossitania » Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:56 pm

Fritzergald wrote:This will completely destroy WA nations who have the Most Extreme governments. You are just trying to get dictators on you! :palm:


Any dictatorship that would be completely destroyed by this proposal is far too weak a dictatorship to concern the Independent Commonwealth of Ossitania.
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
New Matawan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 581
Founded: Jun 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby New Matawan » Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:44 pm

Calderax wrote:It is an undue strain on the Great Nation of Calderax's court systems to allow convicted felons to appeal, all of whom, thanks to our stellar and competent executive system, we know are guilty. So, truly, this legislation is NOT about increasing rights. It's about bankrupting nations in more and more red tape. If you have a problem with proper justice in your nations, then I suggest you look at the way in which you govern or what kind of ignorant cultural background your nations people hail from. But in the Great Calderax, we are complete and efficient in our justice and have no need of this useless legislation.

Calderax votes AGAINST.


Are you seriously suggesting that, simply because your judicial systems are so much more "efficient" and "stellar", you get to impose that this Resolution is not needed for other, perhaps more needy, countries? Just because you don't require such legislation doesn't mean you can decide to restrict it from those that do need it.
Last edited by New Matawan on Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
DEFCON Rating:
5: Peace
4: Increased Notice
{3: War Preparation}
2: War
1: Nuclear War
The United Socialist Cantons of New Matawan is a huge, genial nation, ruled by Toad85 with a fair hand, and renowned for its anti-smoking policies. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 912 million are free to do what they want with their own bodies, and vote for whoever they like in elections; if they go into business, however, they are regulated to within an inch of their lives.

User avatar
Not Kony Run Uganda
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 133
Founded: Mar 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Not Kony Run Uganda » Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:44 pm

Sounds like something that should be covered under habeas corpus.
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1696
Founded: Antiquity
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Goobergunchia » Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:40 pm

We already have a resolution on habeas corpus. Rights not covered by that resolution should, as in this case, be covered in additional, subsequent resolutions.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador



EWWW! That ambassador said the H-C words!

Darren Funkel
Deputy WA Ambassador

User avatar
Sanctaria
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7548
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:17 am

Not Kony Run Uganda wrote:Sounds like something that should be covered under habeas corpus.

No. No it shouldn't.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

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

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

User avatar
Federal Republic of Zimbabwe
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 53
Founded: Mar 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Federal Republic of Zimbabwe » Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:33 am

As the legislation stands, the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe formally adds their support.

User avatar
Lenzum
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Dec 23, 2003
Father Knows Best State

Postby Lenzum » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:04 pm

The Grand Empire of Lenzum will be voting NAY on the resolution as it stands.

Why? There is one simple reason - the death penalty would prevent HIM Lenzar III and his government from being able to comply,

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

Postby Ossitania » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:02 pm

Lenzum wrote:The Grand Empire of Lenzum will be voting NAY on the resolution as it stands.

Why? There is one simple reason - the death penalty would prevent HIM Lenzar III and his government from being able to comply,


No, it wouldn't. The right to use the death penalty is already explicitly protected by extant international law (GA #112 Convention on Execution). Anyway, this proposal doesn't make any provision that would affect the ability to employ the death penalty, so I don't know where you're getting that out of.
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
Gelattia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Gelattia » Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:37 pm

The Republic of Gelattia would vote for this if it could. Unfortunately, Topdop has voted against. We implore them to vote for. Anyone who votes against this resolution doesn't care about their people.

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

Postby Damanucus » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:02 pm

Gelattia wrote:The Republic of Gelattia would vote for this if it could. Unfortunately, Topdop has voted against. We implore them to vote for. Anyone who votes against this resolution doesn't care about their people.


Not necessarily. They may care enough for their people that, should there be an issue with the law at vote that may prevent them from properly caring for their nation, they will vote against it, just to deal with that issue.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:43 am

We are proud to have registered our vote in favour of this proposal, and surprised that we didn't register it earlier.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

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

Postby Quelesh » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:16 am

We've voted FOR this proposal.

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
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:45 am

"While I am saddened that this proposal has furthered the Quelesh agenda I congratulate the author on its passage."

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

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:19 am

I rise to inform the House that the ayes were 9,075, the noes were 1,905. with an overall support of 83%

We move to the next item on the agenda, "Repeal Nautical Pilotage Act". I withdraw and yield the floor.
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sierra Lyricalia

Advertisement

Remove ads