[PASSED] Double Jeopardy Prohibition

[Quelesh]

Yet you posted this specific resolution and shoved it into the voting process in a single week.

Most of the language of this proposal, including the language in clause 1, has been discussed in this chamber for almost two months, with hardly a peep about this issue until quite recently.

I have made no mistake at all. The proposal says and does exactly what I want it to. If a nation wants to allow prosecution appeals of not guilty verdicts, but is foolish enough to interpret "acquit" in such a way that it prohibits them from doing so, that's neither my fault nor my problem. Your interpretation of this proposal is just plain wrong.

You have yet to provide any adequate definition of acquit that supports your viewpoint. Every single definition of acquit shows that you are wrong, yet you still bravely push forward, ignoring the examples I have provided because your IntFed legislation is Right and Just, and anyone who disagrees is Wrong and Misinformed.

I have more than adequately explained how member states will be able to allow prosecution appeals of not guilty verdicts under this proposal. I strongly suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse in your refusal to recognize a distinction between a not guilty verdict and an acquittal. I think you're deliberately misrepresenting what this proposal does in a misguided attempt to drum up opposition.

We must oppose this resolution as well. It does not, in fact, prohibit Double Jeopardy so much as the prosecution appealing against an initial finding of 'not guilty'. Clearly, this is unacceptable. I implore the authors to withdraw the resolution and consider their wording more carefully.

As I have repeatedly explained, there is a distinction between an initial not guilty verdict and an acquittal. If clause 1 said "been found not guilty," then it would do what you say it does. But it does not say that, so it does not do that.

The Republic of Quadrimmina can regrettably not support a proposal that would limit our ability to, with new evidence and due process, retry an individual for a crime for which he or she was acquitted specifically due to lack of that evidence. It would be an affront to public safety and the sanctity of our criminal justice system. We take human rights in criminal justice very seriously, but must note that flexibility in law enforcement is equivalently important.

I continue to maintain that the extremely rare case that you describe does not justify opening the floodgates to double jeopardy, and that the procedural rights of defendants, including the right to be free from double jeopardy, must take precedence over the interests of the state in securing convictions.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Knootoss]

"Acquittal" as opposed to a "not guilty" verdict is purely a common law concept. Look it up. The distinction exists only in your mind.

OOC: The wikipedia page on acquittal even starts with "In the common law tradition," before even giving the definition ffs.

[Merfurian]

"Acquittal" as opposed to a "not guilty" verdict is purely a common law concept. Look it up. The distinction exists only in your mind.

OOC: The wikipedia page on acquittal even starts with "In the common law tradition," before even giving the definition ffs.

We concur. We provide - as evidence to the Chamber:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal

[Quelesh]

"Acquittal" as opposed to a "not guilty" verdict is purely a common law concept. Look it up. The distinction exists only in your mind.

If a nation that wants to allow prosecution appeals of not guilty verdicts is so foolish as to not draw such a distinction in the face of this resolution, then there's really nothing for it.

All of this talk on the part of this resolution's opponents about prosecution appeals of not guilty verdicts is a ruse; these delegations simply and outright oppose a ban on double jeopardy and they would oppose this resolution regardless, and they think that misrepresenting the effects of this resolution will reduce its support. They're wrong, and double jeopardy will be banned despite their efforts to the contrary.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

As the author is aware, acquittal is generally defined as the finding that a defendant is not guilty; since acquittal is not defined within the proposal, that also what I'm assuming the proposal intends for it to mean to.

My question to the author is then what happens in situations where courts are able to give more than a not guilty verdict? Verdicts are not always so black and white. In various legal systems, there exists the "guilty" verdict, the "not guilty" verdict, but also a "not proven" verdict.

Does acquittal also cover "not proven" verdicts? It is substantially different to a "not guilty" verdict, which is itself defined as an acquittal.

[Quelesh]

As the author is aware, acquittal is generally defined as the finding that a defendant is not guilty; since acquittal is not defined within the proposal, that also what I'm assuming the proposal intends for it to mean to.

My question to the author is then what happens in situations where courts are able to give more than a not guilty verdict? Verdicts are not always so black and white. In various legal systems, there exists the "guilty" verdict, the "not guilty" verdict, but also a "not proven" verdict.

Does acquittal also cover "not proven" verdicts? It is substantially different to a "not guilty" verdict, which is itself defined as an acquittal.

First, you're wrong about the definition of "acquittal" versus a not guilty verdict. Clause 1 does not apply until a person has been finally acquitted by the judicial system, which may occur at some point after a jury returns a not guilty verdict, in order to give the prosecution time to appeal.

Second, as this proposal does not explicitly define "acquittal," leaving the definition to the reasonable interpretation of member states, a system in which an unappealed not guilty verdict results in a final order of acquittal but an unappealed not proven verdict does not would not violate this proposal, so long as the member state is reasonable in its implementation (e.g. doesn't just say that from now on not guilty verdicts are replaced by not proven verdicts and final orders of acquittal are never entered for anyone).

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

As the author is aware, acquittal is generally defined as the finding that a defendant is not guilty; since acquittal is not defined within the proposal, that also what I'm assuming the proposal intends for it to mean to.

My question to the author is then what happens in situations where courts are able to give more than a not guilty verdict? Verdicts are not always so black and white. In various legal systems, there exists the "guilty" verdict, the "not guilty" verdict, but also a "not proven" verdict.

Does acquittal also cover "not proven" verdicts? It is substantially different to a "not guilty" verdict, which is itself defined as an acquittal.

First, you're wrong about the definition of "acquittal" versus a not guilty verdict. Clause 1 does not apply until a person has been finally acquitted by the judicial system, which may occur at some point after a jury returns a not guilty verdict, in order to give the prosecution time to appeal.

((OOC: Seriously? Are you sure about that? Being found not guilty is being acquitted; when you are acquitted, you have just been found not guilty. Acquittal is dependant on being given the not guilty verdict. My definition is correct. Check any legal dictionary.))

[Moronist Decisions]

For what it's worth, we are highly uncomfortable splitting hairs between "acquittal" and "not guilty".

[Sanctaria]

For what it's worth, we are highly uncomfortable splitting hairs between "acquittal" and "not guilty".

We would normally agree, Ambassador, but there exists legal systems where other verdicts aside from not guilty exist and the legal definition for acquittal is being found not guilty.

[Goobergunchia]

First, you're wrong about the definition of "acquittal" versus a not guilty verdict. Clause 1 does not apply until a person has been finally acquitted by the judicial system, which may occur at some point after a jury returns a not guilty verdict, in order to give the prosecution time to appeal.

We note that lack of the word "final" in clause 1, which would suggest to us that it could be interpreted to apply as soon as an initial verdict has been delivered. We refer to Friday's Legal Dictionary, which states as follows:

ac·quit·tal n 2: a setting free of deliverance from the charge of an offense by verdict of a jury, judgment of a court, or other legal process

judg·ment n ◊ Under the Rules of Standard Judicial Procedure, judgment encompasses a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.

final judgment : a judgment that leaves nothing further to be done on a matter except execution

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Mallorea and Riva]

As the author is aware, acquittal is generally defined as the finding that a defendant is not guilty; since acquittal is not defined within the proposal, that also what I'm assuming the proposal intends for it to mean to.

My question to the author is then what happens in situations where courts are able to give more than a not guilty verdict? Verdicts are not always so black and white. In various legal systems, there exists the "guilty" verdict, the "not guilty" verdict, but also a "not proven" verdict.

Does acquittal also cover "not proven" verdicts? It is substantially different to a "not guilty" verdict, which is itself defined as an acquittal.

First, you're wrong about the definition of "acquittal" versus a not guilty verdict. Clause 1 does not apply until a person has been finally acquitted by the judicial system, which may occur at some point after a jury returns a not guilty verdict, in order to give the prosecution time to appeal.

Second, as this proposal does not explicitly define "acquittal," leaving the definition to the reasonable interpretation of member states, a system in which an unappealed not guilty verdict results in a final order of acquittal but an unappealed not proven verdict does not would not violate this proposal, so long as the member state is reasonable in its implementation (e.g. doesn't just say that from now on not guilty verdicts are replaced by not proven verdicts and final orders of acquittal are never entered for anyone).

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

I am finished with this debate. Completely finished. You have made a mockery if this entire assembly through your actions here, your complete dishonesty with every ambassador here, and your infuriating bullheadedness regarding the wording of your proposal. That you would rather get it passed now rather than have it withdrawn, corrected, and resubmitted is testament to how little you care about the actual law you are putting into place.

[Wisconsin7]

First, you're wrong about the definition of "acquittal" versus a not guilty verdict. Clause 1 does not apply until a person has been finally acquitted by the judicial system, which may occur at some point after a jury returns a not guilty verdict, in order to give the prosecution time to appeal.

Second, as this proposal does not explicitly define "acquittal," leaving the definition to the reasonable interpretation of member states, a system in which an unappealed not guilty verdict results in a final order of acquittal but an unappealed not proven verdict does not would not violate this proposal, so long as the member state is reasonable in its implementation (e.g. doesn't just say that from now on not guilty verdicts are replaced by not proven verdicts and final orders of acquittal are never entered for anyone).

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

I am finished with this debate. Completely finished. You have made a mockery if this entire assembly through your actions here, your complete dishonesty with every ambassador here, and your infuriating bullishness regarding the wording of your proposal. That you would rather get it passed now rather than have it withdrawn, corrected, and resubmitted is testament to how little you care about the actual law you are putting into place.

I'm in agreement with the Quelesian ambassador. If this passes, I will immediately propose a repeal; if that fails my nation will leave the assembly. The unclear language and lack of a clause to allow reopening a case in the event of new evidence being discovered is a mockery of justice, and I have no intention of allowing it to stand.

[Embolalia]

All of this talk on the part of this resolution's opponents about prosecution appeals of not guilty verdicts is a ruse; these delegations simply and outright oppose a ban on double jeopardy and they would oppose this resolution regardless, and they think that misrepresenting the effects of this resolution will reduce its support. They're wrong, and double jeopardy will be banned despite their efforts to the contrary.

This is demonstrably false, and you know it. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. Such blatant lying on the floor of this assembly is completely abhorrent. Foisting opinions upon your opponents, even though you have participated in the debate in which they state the exact opposite, in order to scare people into supporting you is despicable. Your intransigence shocks me, ambassador. I had thought better of you.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Knootoss]

The author seems to have put his fingers in his ear with regards to reasonable criticisms about the wording of the proposal. So, who wants a shot at repealing this if it passes? I'll help.


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

[Mallorea and Riva]

The author seems to have put his fingers in his ear with regards to reasonable criticisms about the wording of the proposal. So, who wants a shot at repealing this if it passes? I'll help.

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

I call dibs. I tried my best to stop it, I want to be the one to bring it down. Seriously. Give. It. Up.

[Linux and the X]

Alexandria goes by male pronouns now? Hrm.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Alexandria goes by male pronouns now? Hrm.

OOC: Double fail, meant to put "it", put "him".

[Damanucus]

The author seems to have put his fingers in his ear with regards to reasonable criticisms about the wording of the proposal. So, who wants a shot at repealing this if it passes? I'll help.

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

I know it's rare illegal to put more than one co-author, but I'll put in my support and assistance. [hears laughter of assembly in background]

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Wisconsin7]

The author seems to have put his fingers in his ear with regards to reasonable criticisms about the wording of the proposal. So, who wants a shot at repealing this if it passes? I'll help.

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

I call dibs. I tried my best to stop it, I want to be the one to bring it down. Seriously. Give. It. Up.

Hey, I was the first person to mention repealing it, I should get first shot at it.

[Quelesh]

We note that lack of the word "final" in clause 1, which would suggest to us that it could be interpreted to apply as soon as an initial verdict has been delivered.

Sure, it could be interpreted that way. But any reasonable nation that wants prosecutors to be able to appeal a not guilty verdict won't interpret it that way.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Mallorea and Riva]

We note that lack of the word "final" in clause 1, which would suggest to us that it could be interpreted to apply as soon as an initial verdict has been delivered.

Sure, it could be interpreted that way. But any reasonable nation that wants prosecutors to be able to appeal a not guilty verdict won't interpret it that way.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

That's not how this works. The law says what it says, means what it means, and is what it is. You can try to squeak through loopholes. Jump over small hills. But you cannot take the exact opposite meaning of the definition of the word simply because you are unwilling to deal with the consequences of your error.

[Merfurian]

1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.

This clause COMPLETELY contradicts Cluase 2:

Member states may vacate an individual's conviction of a crime and grant the individual a new trial for that crime.

How can you retry someone under Clause 2 if they cannot be retried, according to Clause 1?

Further, Clause 1 destroys the institution of trial de novo, which is essential for correcting judicial error where Appeals Courts are unable to do so.

I also disagree with other Delegates insofar that I believe this ambassador has correctly identified the difference between acquittal and not guilty, being as they both mean the same thing. This is notwithstanding my previous criticisms.

Yours

Klause Uliyan
etc

[Goobergunchia]

Sure, it could be interpreted that way. But any reasonable nation that wants prosecutors to be able to appeal a not guilty verdict won't interpret it that way.

Of course it would be possible to redefine common legal terms so that the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic remains in compliance. However, we would vastly prefer not to have to reprint all legal documents pertaining to criminal procedures to comply with a resolution that we are otherwise generally in compliance with.

Accordingly, we must stand opposed to this resolution when it goes to vote. Unless the Queleshi government is offering to fund our reprinting costs?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Linux and the X]

1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.

This clause COMPLETELY contradicts Cluase 2:

Member states may vacate an individual's conviction of a crime and grant the individual a new trial for that crime.

How can you retry someone under Clause 2 if they cannot be retried, according to Clause 1?

Clause one bans retrying someone who has been acquitted. Clause two allows retrying someone who has been found guilty. This is, with no judgement on the fact intended, very defendant-biased.

[Quelesh]

1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.

This clause COMPLETELY contradicts Cluase 2:

Member states may vacate an individual's conviction of a crime and grant the individual a new trial for that crime.

How can you retry someone under Clause 2 if they cannot be retried, according to Clause 1?

Clause 1 deals with retrials after acquittals. Clauses 2-4 deal with retrials after convictions.

Clause one bans retrying someone who has been acquitted. Clause two allows retrying someone who has been found guilty. This is, with no judgement on the fact intended, very defendant-biased.

Thanks for also explaining the difference. It has also been my intention to be "defendant-biased" in this proposal, and criminal justice systems should be defendant-biased. That's why there's a presumption of innocence.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador