[PASSED] Habeas Corpus Act

[Quelesh]

New draft:

(Human rights / strong)

The World Assembly,

ALARMED by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals;

DISTURBED by the continued detention of individuals after being cleared of wrongdoing or after serving their criminal sentences;

RESOLVED to prevent such practices and to grant relief to individuals being unjustly detained;

hereby MANDATES the following, subject to any limitations existing in prior international law:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless, in accordance with international law, (1) the individual's acquittal has been lawfully vacated and (2) the detention is for the purpose of a lawful retrial on the same charge;

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;

11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and

12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

Character count: 3,182

There are no substantive changes; primarily I combined clauses 1 and 2 of the previous draft into a single clause and renumbered clauses accordingly.

We approve wholeheartedly of the current draft.

Thank you! I'm happy we were able to agree on this one.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Quelesh]

The proposal has been submitted. Delegates, please approve!

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Drosophila melanogaster]

Given our life span, the timespan for detention before charge will be very, very long ...

[Damanucus]

Okay, let's have a look at this:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

Okay, they are mostly fine, subject to comments from further down (and I will make them).

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless, in accordance with international law, (1) the individual's acquittal has been lawfully vacated and (2) the detention is for the purpose of a lawful retrial on the same charge;

We could say something about that, but that is for another time. Otherwise, it seems okay to me, unless I missed something.

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

Making obvious what should be standard practice; no problems there.

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

A question I should have asked last time was, where is this impartial adjudicator coming from? Please clarify.

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;

11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and

12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

This last part disturbs me more than anything. Why is all of this down here? It seems like a footnote, a "just to prove" statement. It should be up there; that's why they invented subclauses and exceptions.

I'll withhold my support for now. While it does seem the intentions of the delegation from Quelesh are there...well, I've made my points pretty clear about the current submission thus far.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Zaklen]

Still opposed! Get rid of the time limits!

[Quelesh]

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

A question I should have asked last time was, where is this impartial adjudicator coming from? Please clarify.

The proposal doesn't specify, which means the impartial adjudicator can be anyone member states want, so long as she's (1) impartial and (2) an adjudicator. This would be a judge in most legal systems.

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;

11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and

12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

This last part disturbs me more than anything. Why is all of this down here? It seems like a footnote, a "just to prove" statement. It should be up there; that's why they invented subclauses and exceptions.

In my opinion this section was the best way of saying "this resolution doesn't prohibit these things," and it was needed too, since some ambassadors objected that previous incarnations of this proposal could be interpreted as prohibiting some of these things. I don't see a good way of adding these as exception subclauses, and even if there were a good way to do that, the result is the same either way.

Also, exception subclauses tend to be worded "member states may do X," or the like, which I wanted to avoid. I wanted to avoid creating a blocker on these issues. I added the CLARIFIES section to make clear that member states would still be able to, for example, keep their involuntary psychiatric commitment system unchanged (which may change if Linux and the X's proposal passes).

Still opposed! Get rid of the time limits!

You would be opposed to this proposal regardless, and I would certainly not weaken this proposal in such a manner so your nation can arbitrarily or indefinitely detain people. This isn't GAR67.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Zaklen]

No, I would not. Even in the absence of international law on the subject, Zaklen has Habeas Corpus, my objections rise from the "impartial arbiter", which, due to my nation's legal codes, cannot exist, and ridiculous time limits, though in the case of the latter, they have improved from the previously submitted proposal. Neither this, nor "Double Jeopardy Prohibition", which is also written by yourself, have any respect for the unique qualities of the legal systems of various member-states.

Thank you for trying, and, in the case of your previous work, succeeding, to undermine our justice system.

[Quelesh]

No, I would not. Even in the absence of international law on the subject, Zaklen has Habeas Corpus, my objections rise from the "impartial arbiter", which, due to my nation's legal codes, cannot exist, and ridiculous time limits, though in the case of the latter, they have improved from the previously submitted proposal. Neither this, nor "Double Jeopardy Prohibition", which is also written by yourself, have any respect for the unique qualities of the legal systems of various member-states.

Thank you for trying, and, in the case of your previous work, succeeding, to undermine our justice system.

To be quite frank, your nation's justice system doesn't sound very just to me. It is my hope that this proposal will make it more so.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Retired WerePenguins]

After due consideration I have decided to support this resolution. I reserve the right to change my mind if something exceptionally horrible comes up in the course of the debates, or if I am suitably bribed or if the region forces my nation to cut off my sushi allowance, but otherwise I am voting in favor.

[Quelesh]

After due consideration I have decided to support this resolution. I reserve the right to change my mind if something exceptionally horrible comes up in the course of the debates, or if I am suitably bribed or if the region forces my nation to cut off my sushi allowance, but otherwise I am voting in favor.

Thanks for your support. You can't let anything threaten your sushi intake, of course. Here, have some sake to wash it down.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Robanistania]

Thank you for introducing this updated piece of legislation. I have happily voted for it.

[Naboompu]

Dear World Assembly,

I am in shock and awe at the fact that this has made it to the floor of the World Assembly. While I am glad that double jeopardy was not banned by means of this resolution, I am horrified that this resolution would make it impossible to detain possible criminals. The accused could potentially be dangerous to society and incarceration for the short-term helps ensure the safety of civilians and eliminates the flight risk of a prospective convictee. Moreover, police investigations take a long time and it is at times necessary to keep the accused incarcerated while evidence is gathered; 36 hours is not a long enough period of time to go through the process of a thorough investigation. This resolution will result in quicker, more rushed and inconclusive investigations that will invariably end up in the prosecution of innocent civilians. It is duly noted that a maximum term of incarceration without conviction should be established; however, a day and half is simply not enough. Moreover, this act over-sympathises with the criminal, thus facilitating the repunishment of the victim(s), and is not a move forward towards lowering crime rates and protecting the individual. Governments should be giving individuals more rights and means to protect themselves from aggressors; this act will undermine the judicial system and the individual's right to safety and protection from offenders. Oppose this act!

Sincerely,

John Birch
WA Delegate of North Atlantic Treaty Organization

[Knootoss]

This proposal has all of the same flaws, just a claim on the bottom saying that it doesn't. Arguing with the author is completely useless, so we move for another quick repeal. (By a delegation who can do so quickly. The other repeal of a pathetic Quelesh resolution still not having been voted on is utterly shameful.)

[Quelesh]

this resolution wants to make it impossible to detain possible criminals

What? That's absurd.

It is duly noted that a maximum term of incarceration without conviction should be established; however, a day and half is simply not enough.

You seem to be misinterpreting the clause in question. The detainee must be formally charged with the crime within 36 hours (or possibly longer if those responsible for charging the detainee are not available to do so). Once the detainee has been formally charged, she can be held for as long as it takes to give her a reasonably speedy trial as already required by existing international law.

This proposal has all of the same flaws, just a claim on the bottom saying that it doesn't. Arguing with the author is completely useless, so we move for another quick repeal. (By a delegation who can do so quickly. The other repeal of a pathetic Quelesh resolution still not having been voted on is utterly shameful.)

The CLARIFIES section materially affects the resolution; it says "this resolution does not do the following things." For example, one claim made about the previous incarnation of this resolution is that it may prohibit involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients. The resolution currently at vote clearly does not prohibit this, because it explicitly says that it does not.

Or are you arguing that this resolution does in fact prohibit involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, despite the fact that it explicitly says that it doesn't? If so, what is your justification for that assertion?

Your real gripe against this resolution is the time limits. You think there should be no time limits at all in this resolution so that your nation can detain people arbitrarily and indefinitely, and that is not something that I am interested in allowing. You would oppose this resolution regardless.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Mendevia]

There are a few problems with this proposal. Let me tell you the main issue that I have with it. The impartial adjudicator. Would he really be impartial? Who employs him? Is he a lawyer that the accused hires or is an employee of the state. Either way someone pays him and he will not be impartial. Mendevia will not support this act.

[Quelesh]

There are a few problems with this proposal. Let me tell you the main issue that I have with it. The impartial adjudicator. Would he really be impartial? Who employs him? Is he a lawyer that the accused hires or is an employee of the state. Either way someone pays him and he will not be impartial. Mendevia will not support this act.

The proposal does not specify who the impartial adjudicator is to be, which means that she can be whoever your nation wants her to be, so long as she's (1) impartial and (2) an adjudicator. This would be a judge in most legal systems.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Mendevia]

There are a few problems with this proposal. Let me tell you the main issue that I have with it. The impartial adjudicator. Would he really be impartial? Who employs him? Is he a lawyer that the accused hires or is an employee of the state. Either way someone pays him and he will not be impartial. Mendevia will not support this act.

The proposal does not specify who the impartial adjudicator is to be, which means that she can be whoever your nation wants her to be, so long as she's (1) impartial and (2) an adjudicator. This would be a judge in most legal systems.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

But there is no guarantee that he will be impartial. Just because the law says something doesn't mean people will do it. This is open to so many abuses. Not every nation is free of corruption. And even though it could be a judge the proposal here doesn't say that he has to be. They could just pull a janitor from off the street who knows nothing about the law.

[Naboompu]

The WA Representative of North Atlantic Treaty Organization will rebut the following made by the author of this act:

"What? That's absurd [in response to not being able to detain possible criminals]".

Well, this act limits detaining people to two hours on a week. Gathering a simple report from people involved in the incident could take longer than two hours, let alone getting DNA testing done. Hence, how might the police be able to gather all the evidence in time? It is very costly to find a criminal once they have been released, not to mention the danger they could pose to society?

"You seem to be misinterpreting the clause in question. The detainee must be formally charged with the crime within 36 hours (or possibly longer if those responsible for charging the detainee are not available to do so). Once the detainee has been formally charged, she can be held for as long as it takes to give her a reasonably speedy trial as already required by existing international law."

I am not misinterpreting the clause in question. It is very difficult to come to thorough conclusions about a case in 36 hours; if there is some evidence pointing to the detainee's guilt, yet it is still not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is better for the police to go through a methodical investigation before officially charging the accused with the crime. The accused's right to a speedy trial is fair; however, a right to a hasty trial, in a period of time, which no case that prove's the detainee's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can be established, is exemplary of excessive civil rights. Moderation is key.

[Knootoss]

I can still rattle off the exact same list of flaws that persuaded the 10.000 islands region to go against it the last time.

Forcing the courts to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention is important, but there are too many flaws in this proposal.

The "Habeas Corpus Act" effectively bans temporary detention without charge, for example:

• Involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, who may be dangerous. (The new proposal only allows "psychiatric" commitment, whatever the hell that is)
• Temporary detention of football hooligans. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)
• Temporary administrative detention of illegal immigrants. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)
• Letting drunks sleep it out. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained and can give their " fully informed, uncoerced consent" which is by definition impossible if you are drunk.)

Moreover, the time limits have still been arbitrarily chosen by the resolution author, and they may be wholly inappropriate. 2 hours is far too little time to consider charges for a person suspected of a complicated terrorist attack, and that person would have to be released. On the other hand, 36 hours of pre-charge detention is draconian for a person suspected of littering.

Also, let me add to my objections from the last time that this proposal would BAN MEDICAL QUARANTINE except in the event of "a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen". So a disease that is wreaking havoc on a multitude of nations yet which is not global would not be a just cause to allow medical quarantine. Similarly, a pandemic that isn't caused by an "infectious pathogen" but by something else is also not just cause for imposing a medical quarantine.

This proposal needs to be killed dead. If the lemmings pass it, it needs to be repealed. And the delegates here at the General Assembly should give serious consideration to a policy of voting against Quelesh resolutions, because they insist on proposing things in the face of a multitude of voices pointing out the flaws in their proposals, hoping that the lemmings will let it through.

[Krioval]

The Imperial Chiefdom finds the inclusion of statements allowing retrials after lawfully vacated acquittals to be incredibly disingenuous, especially since the authoring nation has just recently submitted a passed resolution that specifically bans retrials after acquittals, even those lawfully vacated. Using the fig leaf of "international law" to render an entire clause moot even before the clause can enter into force is frankly appalling. As such, we are forced to cast our vote against this resolution until and unless our concerns can be addressed.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Tibberiria]

Whatever flaws the resolution may have, We feel this is a vital and necessary protection to have on the books. We vote for.

[Damanucus]

I can still rattle off the exact same list of flaws that persuaded the 10.000 islands region to go against it the last time.

Forcing the courts to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention is important, but there are too many flaws in this proposal.

The "Habeas Corpus Act" effectively bans temporary detention without charge, for example:

• Involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, who may be dangerous. (The new proposal only allows "psychiatric" commitment, whatever the hell that is)
• Temporary detention of football hooligans. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)
• Temporary administrative detention of illegal immigrants. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)
• Letting drunks sleep it out. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained and can give their " fully informed, uncoerced consent" which is by definition impossible if you are drunk.)

Moreover, the time limits have still been arbitrarily chosen by the resolution author, and they may be wholly inappropriate. 2 hours is far too little time to consider charges for a person suspected of a complicated terrorist attack, and that person would have to be released. On the other hand, 36 hours of pre-charge detention is draconian for a person suspected of littering.

Also, let me add to my objections from the last time that this proposal would BAN MEDICAL QUARANTINE except in the event of "a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen". So a disease that is wreaking havoc on a multitude of nations yet which is not global would not be a just cause to allow medical quarantine. Similarly, a pandemic that isn't caused by an "infectious pathogen" but by something else is also not just cause for imposing a medical quarantine.

This proposal needs to be killed dead. If the lemmings pass it, it needs to be repealed. And the delegates here at the General Assembly should give serious consideration to a policy of voting against Quelesh resolutions, because they insist on proposing things in the face of a multitude of voices pointing out the flaws in their proposals, hoping that the lemmings will let it through.

Which brings me back to my nice little point on exceptions. If you want to prevent these things from happening, then tell us what it will affect. Namely, this is probably closer to what it should've been:

Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, with the exception of the following:

• Voluntary protective custody, in which case detention may be as long as is needed to ensure the individual's personal protection;
• Commitment for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, in which case detention will be only as long as needed for the evaluation or treatment

(The rest, as I see it, are already covered anyhow in other resolutions.)

Sadly, though, this resolution will pass courtesy of a few too many lemmings. I'm sorry, but the final clause is the one that does it for me. Again, I have to vote against.

Stephanie sits down, places her head in her hand, and goes, "Why, Alexandria? Why did you repeal it?"

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Sanctaria]

I'm still of the opinion that an entire resolution is not needed to address Habeas Corpus. A one line clause in a replacement resolution for the rights of the detained should suffice.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Also, let me add to my objections from the last time that this proposal would BAN MEDICAL QUARANTINE except in the event of "a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen". So a disease that is wreaking havoc on a multitude of nations yet which is not global would not be a just cause to allow medical quarantine. Similarly, a pandemic that isn't caused by an "infectious pathogen" but by something else is also not just cause for imposing a medical quarantine.

Uh, Knootoss, that's not what it says. It says "Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen." It doesn't say in the event of a pandemic but in order to prevent a pandemic. Almost most really nasty "infectious pathogen" can cause a pandemic and preventing one is what the clause states. And if something else is not infectious, why are you imposing a quarantine?

P.S. This is really good sake.

[Retired WerePenguins]

I can still rattle off the exact same list of flaws that persuaded the 10.000 islands region to go against it the last time.

Forcing the courts to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention is important, but there are too many flaws in this proposal.

The "Habeas Corpus Act" effectively bans temporary detention without charge, for example:

• Involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, who may be dangerous. (The new proposal only allows "psychiatric" commitment, whatever the hell that is)
• Temporary detention of football hooligans. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)
• Temporary administrative detention of illegal immigrants. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained ... uhhh)
• Letting drunks sleep it out. (Unless they voluntarily agree to be detained and can give their " fully informed, uncoerced consent" which is by definition impossible if you are drunk.)

Moreover, the time limits have still been arbitrarily chosen by the resolution author, and they may be wholly inappropriate. 2 hours is far too little time to consider charges for a person suspected of a complicated terrorist attack, and that person would have to be released. On the other hand, 36 hours of pre-charge detention is draconian for a person suspected of littering.

OK let's go through these points one at a time. I'll try to be as reasonable as possible but damn this sake is good! (*)

• "psychiatric commitment" ... look it up ... it's a proper term See here for an argument for involuntary psychiatric commitment.
• Why do you need to detain football hooligans? Kick them out on their bottoms. You don't need to detain when you can isolate.
• If you have evidence that they are illegal immigrants you can detain them subject to section 4 until the legal detention hearing takes place, assuming you do this within a reasonable time frame, which should be in your best interest to do so anyway. Holding illegal immigrants for shits and giggles is illogical.
• The voluntary clause certainly allows drunk detention. I would even argue that such situations shoudn't even be considered in this resolution unless you are holding them in the same pen as the rapists. Basically you are allowing the use of holding facilities for people who are not techincally objecting.

OK, technically speaking I went for the Gin and Tonic after the Good Friday service where my pastor went into a political liberal rant speach, but it's all the same in the end.