NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Peoples Empire
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Feb 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Criminal Appellate Rights

Postby Peoples Empire » Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:31 pm

Ossitania wrote:As the Lion has indicated elsewhere, we have chosen to split our drafts again, such that they now deal with complimentary aspects of the criminal justice system. This draft now deals solely with appealing criminal convictions.

Constructive comments are appreciated.


I was just wondering if you planed to put any enforcement provisions in this draft, so if nation states do not comply there would be a chance of punishment, and therefore would be more willing to enforce "Criminal Appellate Rights" in there nations.

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

Postby Merfurian » Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:43 am

Peoples Empire wrote:
Ossitania wrote:As the Lion has indicated elsewhere, we have chosen to split our drafts again, such that they now deal with complimentary aspects of the criminal justice system. This draft now deals solely with appealing criminal convictions.

Constructive comments are appreciated.


I was just wondering if you planed to put any enforcement provisions in this draft, so if nation states do not comply there would be a chance of punishment, and therefore would be more willing to enforce "Criminal Appellate Rights" in there nations.



Ambassador;

Traditionally, jurisprudence and doctrine has always held that membership of the WA = WA resolutions are automatically enforced in a nation. No need for enforecement clauses.

Dr Klause Uliyan
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.

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

Postby Ossitania » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:37 am

Peoples Empire wrote:
Ossitania wrote:As the Lion has indicated elsewhere, we have chosen to split our drafts again, such that they now deal with complimentary aspects of the criminal justice system. This draft now deals solely with appealing criminal convictions.

Constructive comments are appreciated.


I was just wondering if you planed to put any enforcement provisions in this draft, so if nation states do not comply there would be a chance of punishment, and therefore would be more willing to enforce "Criminal Appellate Rights" in there nations.


It is as the gentleman from Merfurian says; the Compliance Commission ensures enforcement. While it is not uncommon for additional enforcement measures to be introduced where appropriate, I see no compelling reason to do so here.
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
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:50 pm

With the removal of the double jeopardy provisions, I can completely support this proposal as currently written, regardless of the outcome of the current double jeopardy fracas.

I would request, though, that the reference to "criminals" be changed to "convicts," or "people who have been convicted of a crime," or something similar. After all, if they've been wrongfully convicted, then they're not really criminals.

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

Postby Ossitania » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:53 pm

The Quelesian ambassador's correction has been taken on board.
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
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:46 pm

Do "criminal appeals" include appeals by the prosecution of an acquittal (or a conviction, though that's unlikely)?

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

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:55 am

Upon consideration, The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria would like to announce its support of this proposal.
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
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:31 am

Auralia wrote:Do "criminal appeals" include appeals by the prosecution of an acquittal (or a conviction, though that's unlikely)?


By my interpretation of the statutory language contained in this Resolution and other jurisprudence of this House, I believe that such an interpretation is correct.

Dr Klause Uliyqn PC
etc
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.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:42 am

Merfurian wrote:
Auralia wrote:Do "criminal appeals" include appeals by the prosecution of an acquittal (or a conviction, though that's unlikely)?


By my interpretation of the statutory language contained in this Resolution and other jurisprudence of this House, I believe that such an interpretation is correct.

Dr Klause Uliyqn PC
etc


In that case, this resolution mandates that certain forms of double jeopardy be permitted. I think it would be best if this resolution were limited to criminal appellate rights, not prosecutorial appellate rights.

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

Postby Ossitania » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:56 am

No, this doesn't include prosecutorial appeals, that's the whole reason that the Lion and I resplit our combined proposal. We split the issue along the lines of a criminal court - Moronist Decisions's "Preventing Multiple Trials" covers the prosecution side and this proposal covers the side of the defendant.

EDIT: I've cleaned up the language to clarify this point.
Last edited by Ossitania on Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:01 am

Ossitania wrote:No, this doesn't include prosecutorial appeals, that's the whole reason that the Lion and I resplit our combined proposal. We split the issue along the lines of a criminal court - Moronist Decisions's "Preventing Multiple Trials" covers the prosecution side and this proposal covers the side of the defendant.

EDIT: I've cleaned up the language to clarify this point.


In that case, we are pleased to offer our support for this proposal.

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

Postby Ossitania » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:17 am

We thank the Auralian gentleman for his support. However, we are holding off on submitting this until there are fewer proposals in the queue, to give this proposal the best chance at getting to quorum. While domestic difficulties (OOC: Illness, familial matters, exam pressures) were part of the reason that our repeal of GA #117 didn't get to quorum, we believe there is at least a bit of approval fatigue and especially repeal fatigue at the moment, so it seems to be in our best interests to let the poor delegates rest for a while.
Last edited by Ossitania on Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Tue May 15, 2012 12:37 pm

I'm considering a retitle before I submit. Here's my suggestions, others are more than welcome;

  • Convict Appellate Rights
  • Protecting Innocents Act
  • Appellate Rights Convention
  • Wrongful Conviction Act
  • Appellate Rights Accord
Last edited by Ossitania on Tue May 15, 2012 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Thu May 17, 2012 12:03 pm

I will be submitting this upon the conclusion of the current vote.
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
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Thu May 17, 2012 12:20 pm

As I've said before, now that this proposal deals solely with the rights of convicts to appeal their convictions (mandating that appeals be allowed on certain grounds while doing nothing to restrict appeals on other grounds), we can support this proposal at vote.

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
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Thu May 17, 2012 12:30 pm

"Hmm, I think the first list item was meant to say the following", Lord Raekevik speculated.

  • evidence has emerged that was previously unavailable which suggests the conviction was factually false,
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Thu May 17, 2012 12:42 pm

DECLARES that all member-states shall create a legal mechanism by which convicts may appeal their conviction,


There's always a limit to how many times a convict can appeal their sentence though. As written, I fear it may mandate infinite appeals. I would recommend changing this to

DECLARES that all member-states shall create a legal mechanism by which convicts may appeal their initial conviction,


(thus guaranteeing them at least one appeal)

Otherwise, looks fine by me.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

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

Postby Ossitania » Thu May 17, 2012 1:45 pm

Alqania wrote:"Hmm, I think the first list item was meant to say the following", Lord Raekevik speculated.

  • evidence has emerged that was previously unavailable which suggests the conviction was factually false,


We thank the Alqanian gentleman for catching our error.

Moronist Decisions wrote:
DECLARES that all member-states shall create a legal mechanism by which convicts may appeal their conviction,


There's always a limit to how many times a convict can appeal their sentence though. As written, I fear it may mandate infinite appeals. I would recommend changing this to

DECLARES that all member-states shall create a legal mechanism by which convicts may appeal their initial conviction,


(thus guaranteeing them at least one appeal)

Otherwise, looks fine by me.


I'm not sure how comfortable I am with at least one appeal. I was thinking, perhaps, of doing something similar to Sanctaria's Habeas Corpus proposal, like this;

"REQUESTS that member-states determine, within their own jurisdiction, a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge"

or possibly expanding the final clause;

"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."

Thoughts?
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
Quadrimmina
Minister
 
Posts: 2080
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quadrimmina » Thu May 17, 2012 2:05 pm

The Republic of Quadrimmina would rather see one resolution dealing exclusively with "Rights of the Accused" rather than a piecemeal that the WA seems so apt to support on a resolution-by-resolution basis.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kerrigan, Ambassador to the World Assembly from the Republic of Quadrimmina.
National Profile | Ambassadorial Profile | Quadrimmina Gazette-Post | Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

Authored:
GA#111 (Medical Research Ethics Act)
SC#28 (Commend Sionis Prioratus)
GA#197 (Banning Extrajudicial Transfer)

Co-authored:
GA#110 (Identity Theft Prevention Act)
GA#171 (Freedom in Medical Research)
GA#196 (Freedom of Information Act)

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Thu May 17, 2012 2:08 pm

Ossitania wrote:
Alqania wrote:"Hmm, I think the first list item was meant to say the following", Lord Raekevik speculated.



We thank the Alqanian gentleman for catching our error.

Moronist Decisions wrote:
There's always a limit to how many times a convict can appeal their sentence though. As written, I fear it may mandate infinite appeals. I would recommend changing this to



(thus guaranteeing them at least one appeal)

Otherwise, looks fine by me.


I'm not sure how comfortable I am with at least one appeal. I was thinking, perhaps, of doing something similar to Sanctaria's Habeas Corpus proposal, like this;

"REQUESTS that member-states determine, within their own jurisdiction, a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge"

or possibly expanding the final clause;

"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."

Thoughts?


"Number of appeals?" Lord Raekevik asked with curiosity. "In the legal system I know, the Alqanian one, an appeal may be made within three weeks after the verdict is given. If there are numerous claims submitted against the same verdict, those are collected and considered together as one appeal. If three weeks have passed without any appeal submitted, then the time is up for appeals, but the case may still be reopened in accordance with Alqanian law and in accordance with the resolution at vote. The situations described in this proposal would all warrant such a reopening. I presume there would be no reason to force a member state to allow a process which is called 'appeal' rather than a process called 'reopening' if the result for the convict remains the same."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

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

Postby Ossitania » Thu May 17, 2012 2:17 pm

Quadrimmina wrote:The Republic of Quadrimmina would rather see one resolution dealing exclusively with "Rights of the Accused" rather than a piecemeal that the WA seems so apt to support on a resolution-by-resolution basis.


Dr. Frick and I had originally presented a combined resolution but reconsidered it and decided that splitting the resolution into two would better ensure that the topics were dealt with adequately. At any rate, this resolution has nothing to do with the accused, this is about the already convicted.

Alqania wrote:"Number of appeals?" Lord Raekevik asked with curiosity. "In the legal system I know, the Alqanian one, an appeal may be made within three weeks after the verdict is given. If there are numerous claims submitted against the same verdict, those are collected and considered together as one appeal. If three weeks have passed without any appeal submitted, then the time is up for appeals, but the case may still be reopened in accordance with Alqanian law and in accordance with the resolution at vote. The situations described in this proposal would all warrant such a reopening. I presume there would be no reason to force a member state to allow a process which is called 'appeal' rather than a process called 'reopening' if the result for the convict remains the same."


I don't follow, ambassador.
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
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Thu May 17, 2012 6:39 pm

Ossitania wrote:
Alqania wrote:"Number of appeals?" Lord Raekevik asked with curiosity. "In the legal system I know, the Alqanian one, an appeal may be made within three weeks after the verdict is given. If there are numerous claims submitted against the same verdict, those are collected and considered together as one appeal. If three weeks have passed without any appeal submitted, then the time is up for appeals, but the case may still be reopened in accordance with Alqanian law and in accordance with the resolution at vote. The situations described in this proposal would all warrant such a reopening. I presume there would be no reason to force a member state to allow a process which is called 'appeal' rather than a process called 'reopening' if the result for the convict remains the same."


I don't follow, ambassador.


"A verdict given in an Alqanian District Court may be appealed to the appropriate Appellate Court within three weeks. If three weeks pass without any appeal being submitted, the verdict is considered final and can no longer be appealed. In the circumstances mentioned by this proposal, a case may however be reopened and there is no time limit on how long after the verdict that the case may be reopened and the verdict overturned that way. I guess that instead of reopening cases, other nations may overturn verdicts in trials de novo. Point is, after a verdict is final, it can no longer be appealed and verdicts should be finalised sooner than later."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

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

Postby Ossitania » Fri May 18, 2012 8:19 am

Alqania wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
I don't follow, ambassador.


"A verdict given in an Alqanian District Court may be appealed to the appropriate Appellate Court within three weeks. If three weeks pass without any appeal being submitted, the verdict is considered final and can no longer be appealed. In the circumstances mentioned by this proposal, a case may however be reopened and there is no time limit on how long after the verdict that the case may be reopened and the verdict overturned that way. I guess that instead of reopening cases, other nations may overturn verdicts in trials de novo. Point is, after a verdict is final, it can no longer be appealed and verdicts should be finalised sooner than later."


Right, I totally get that. I just don't see how this relates to what's being discussed.
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
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Fri May 18, 2012 8:51 am

DECLARES that all member-states shall create a legal mechanism by which convicts may appeal their conviction,


I can't speak for Alq, but this implies, on second thought, that convicts need to be able to appeal their conviction whenever they feel like it, no matter the fact that (a) the conviction occurred decades ago, or (b) that he's appealed to everyone and his/her grandmother. Maybe replace "convict" with "those convicted of crimes"?
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri May 18, 2012 9:30 am

Moronist Decisions wrote:
DECLARES that all member-states shall create a legal mechanism by which convicts may appeal their conviction,


I can't speak for Alq, but this implies, on second thought, that convicts need to be able to appeal their conviction whenever they feel like it, no matter the fact that (a) the conviction occurred decades ago, or (b) that he's appealed to everyone and his/her grandmother. Maybe replace "convict" with "those convicted of crimes"?


How about adding "within a reasonable time frame"?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads