NationStates

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.

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.

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

I'd prefer the AFFIRMS clause, by far. (sorry, I waffled)

Are there any serious objections as of the current draft?

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."

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".

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

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.

How's it looking now?

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

Full support. -J. Frick

Approved. We're behind this 100%.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

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.

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

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.

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

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

How petty