NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

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

Postby Ossitania » Fri May 18, 2012 10:02 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"?


What was wrong with "REQUESTS that member-states determine, within their own jurisdiction, a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge" or "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"? No one responded to these suggestions for some reason.
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
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Fri May 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Hrm, I was mostly looking at the original text in the OP. Sorry about that. I suppose with the limits in mind I'd agree with granting all convicts the right to appeal under those circumstances at any time.
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 » Fri May 18, 2012 3:47 pm

Which do you think would be better, the expansion of the AFFIRMS clause or the addition of the REQUESTS clause?
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
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Fri May 18, 2012 3:51 pm

I'd prefer the AFFIRMS clause, by far. (sorry, I waffled)
Last edited by Moronist Decisions on Fri May 18, 2012 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Fri May 18, 2012 4:14 pm

Are there any serious objections as of the current draft?
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 » Sat May 19, 2012 12:07 pm

Ossitania wrote:
Moronist Decisions wrote:
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"?


What was wrong with "REQUESTS that member-states determine, within their own jurisdiction, a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge" or "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"? No one responded to these suggestions for some reason.


"What is wrong with those clauses is that the number of appeals is not the primary concern", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Like I hinted at earlier, a member state would not be prevented from collecting six, twelve or twenty-four appeals of the same verdict and dealing with them collectively. Of greater concern would be if a person decided to submit a single appeal twelve years after their verdict was given for a crime with a period of prescription/statute of limitations of six years, perhaps even after the person has long been released from incarceration or paid their fines. The proposal as currently written could effectively mean that a verdict is never final. The Queendom would like to retain our ability to set a clear time frame for appeals, during which the verdict remains open to appeal, and thereafter consider the verdict final and only removable by reopening the case, in accordance with the resolution at vote."
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 » Sat May 19, 2012 3:54 pm

Alqania wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
What was wrong with "REQUESTS that member-states determine, within their own jurisdiction, a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge" or "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"? No one responded to these suggestions for some reason.


"What is wrong with those clauses is that the number of appeals is not the primary concern", Lord Raekevik asserted. "Like I hinted at earlier, a member state would not be prevented from collecting six, twelve or twenty-four appeals of the same verdict and dealing with them collectively. Of greater concern would be if a person decided to submit a single appeal twelve years after their verdict was given for a crime with a period of prescription/statute of limitations of six years, perhaps even after the person has long been released from incarceration or paid their fines. The proposal as currently written could effectively mean that a verdict is never final. The Queendom would like to retain our ability to set a clear time frame for appeals, during which the verdict remains open to appeal, and thereafter consider the verdict final and only removable by reopening the case, in accordance with the resolution at vote."


Right, you could have just said this instead of hinting at it. This is a house of legislature, not literature, subtlety is not your prime directive. To put it bluntly, as you should have several comments ago, could you intimate exactly how this resolution contradicts the model you have? You are directed to create a legal mechanism of appeal. There is nothing that stipulates the details of the mechanism or even decrees that you call it "appeal". It simply mandates that convicts be able to appeal their conviction, whether you call it an "appeal", a "reopening" or a "florblemagoo". There is nothing which suggests that the finality of a verdict has any bearing on the specifics of the mechanism you employ. These absences are very deliberately employed to allow this resolution to apply to as many nations as possible without forcing serious and unnecessary structural changes in their justice system.

In short, unless there is some other important detail you've been hinting at without actually explaining, I fail to see how the tiered approach your nation takes is at odds with the proposal.

EDIT: I would also argue that there should never be a period of prescription or statute of limitations on a convict's right to appeal their sentence anyway, though this proposal does not prevent their use. I also argue that the use of "convict" precludes people who have been released from incarceration from the right to appeal, as such people are typically considered "ex-convicts".
Last edited by Ossitania on Mon May 21, 2012 1:04 pm, edited 4 times 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
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Wed May 23, 2012 5:28 pm

Ossitania wrote:I also argue that the use of "convict" precludes people who have been released from incarceration from the right to appeal, as such people are typically considered "ex-convicts".


I wouldn't agree with that, though it may be a matter of interpretation. It seems to me that a "convict" is "one who has been convicted of a crime," not necessarily one who is currently incarcerated. If it did only apply to people who are currently incarcerated, then member states would be able to entirely deny the right to appeal to people who were not sentenced to incarceration at all.

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
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Wed May 23, 2012 7:02 pm

While I generally see merit with Quelesh's argument, in many contexts I can see this confusion. To prevent problems, maybe you should define convict in the preamble or the first clause?

And on this issue, I would agree that those who have served their sentence or who have not been jailed should be allowed to appeal their sentences, if for no reason other than to expunge the conviction from their records.
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 24, 2012 3:21 pm

How's it looking now?
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
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Fri May 25, 2012 11:44 am

We approve of the updated version. It will fit nicely with our judiciaries, whilst also giving us the right to impose whatever penalty we choose (including death if we so choose, I presume?)

Dr Klause Uliyan
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
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Fri May 25, 2012 4:41 pm

DEFINES "convict" as a person who has been declared responsible for one or more criminal act


Maybe replace "responsible" with "criminally responsible"? Or do you want to include those found responsible in civil law as well?

Otherwise, looks fine.
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 » Fri May 25, 2012 5:07 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:
DEFINES "convict" as a person who has been declared responsible for one or more criminal act


Maybe replace "responsible" with "criminally responsible"? Or do you want to include those found responsible in civil law as well?

Otherwise, looks fine.


Which do you think is preferable?
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 » Sun May 27, 2012 5:44 pm

I'd like to submit this next Friday, so any final comments should be made before then.
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
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Sun May 27, 2012 5:50 pm

I don't have a strong opinion on how the appellate rights proposal should include civil cases, but here is my clarification of what I was asking.

Okay, correct me if this is an American/British centric view of justice, or if I'm flat out wrong, but ...

As it stands, as defined above (and this is not the usual definition), a "convict" includes anyone who has been deemed to be, say, responsible for damaging your property even though they did not commit any crime doing so.

Example: You borrow someone's lawn mower with their permission and you break it, accidentally.

You have not committed a crime per se and will not be sent to jail or be fined by the government for that. However, you have damaged that person's lawn mower and you can therefore be ordered to pay compensation.

Should cases like this be subject to this resolution? I'll leave you to decide, Ossitania. I just wanted to ensure that you're aware of this.
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: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Sun May 27, 2012 7:00 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:I don't have a strong opinion on how the appellate rights proposal should include civil cases, but here is my clarification of what I was asking.

Okay, correct me if this is an American/British centric view of justice, or if I'm flat out wrong, but ...

As it stands, as defined above (and this is not the usual definition), a "convict" includes anyone who has been deemed to be, say, responsible for damaging your property even though they did not commit any crime doing so.

Example: You borrow someone's lawn mower with their permission and you break it, accidentally.

You have not committed a crime per se and will not be sent to jail or be fined by the government for that. However, you have damaged that person's lawn mower and you can therefore be ordered to pay compensation.

Should cases like this be subject to this resolution? I'll leave you to decide, Ossitania. I just wanted to ensure that you're aware of this.


I would support granting someone who has lost a civil case the right of appeal.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

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

Postby Ossitania » Mon May 28, 2012 9:46 am

Moronist Decisions wrote:I don't have a strong opinion on how the appellate rights proposal should include civil cases, but here is my clarification of what I was asking.

Okay, correct me if this is an American/British centric view of justice, or if I'm flat out wrong, but ...

As it stands, as defined above (and this is not the usual definition), a "convict" includes anyone who has been deemed to be, say, responsible for damaging your property even though they did not commit any crime doing so.

Example: You borrow someone's lawn mower with their permission and you break it, accidentally.

You have not committed a crime per se and will not be sent to jail or be fined by the government for that. However, you have damaged that person's lawn mower and you can therefore be ordered to pay compensation.

Should cases like this be subject to this resolution? I'll leave you to decide, Ossitania. I just wanted to ensure that you're aware of this.


Okay, yeah, I see what you mean. I'm obviously in favour of the right to appeal decisions in a civil court but I'd rather keep this resolution purely within the confines of criminal law just because I'm not satisfied that there wouldn't be an uncomfortable ambiguity if I tried to legislate on both at the same time. I've rewritten the first clause.
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 » Wed May 30, 2012 12:34 pm

With a minor edit to include improper bias of the jury as well as improper bias of the judge, I have submitted this proposal. Two days earlier than I intended but I've decided to take the night off from study anyway, so there was no point waiting until Friday.

Delegates, please approve 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
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Wed May 30, 2012 1:35 pm

Full support. -J. Frick
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
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Wed May 30, 2012 4:26 pm

Approved. We're behind this 100%.

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 » Wed May 30, 2012 4:42 pm

Quelesh wrote:Approved. We're behind this 100%.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador


While we thank the Quelesian delegation for their support, we must query how they can declare full support for our proposal while duplicating its stipulations in a proposal they are drafting.
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 » Wed May 30, 2012 4:51 pm

Ossitania wrote:
Quelesh wrote:Approved. We're behind this 100%.


While we thank the Quelesian delegation for their support, we must query how they can declare full support for our proposal while duplicating its stipulations in a proposal they are drafting.


This proposal is very much within our thinking regarding defense appeals. I've included defense appeals in my draft because they are currently unregulated by this Assembly. If this proposal passes, I will of course remove the relevant section from my draft, as it will no longer be necessary.

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 » Wed May 30, 2012 4:52 pm

Quelesh wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
While we thank the Quelesian delegation for their support, we must query how they can declare full support for our proposal while duplicating its stipulations in a proposal they are drafting.


This proposal is very much within our thinking regarding defense appeals. I've included defense appeals in my draft because they are currently unregulated by this Assembly. If this proposal passes, I will of course remove the relevant section from my draft, as it will no longer be necessary.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador


Ah, fair enough, I guess.
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
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Wed May 30, 2012 5:08 pm

We are dubious about this proposal on account of Quelesh' support and apparent input on it.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Lemmingtopias
Diplomat
 
Posts: 547
Founded: Apr 03, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Lemmingtopias » Wed May 30, 2012 5:25 pm

Knootoss wrote:We are dubious about this proposal on account of Quelesh' support and apparent input on it.


How petty
Iason Kretheus
Ambassador-General of Lemmingtopias to the NationStates Community


Embassy Program - Elections

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads