[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

[Frisbeeteria]

As sent in response to the GHR:

Differences in interpretation such as the one you're appealing are not subject to the "Honest Mistake" rule. That one is reserved for people who submit a proposal or a repeal that ends up in clear contradiction or duplication of the stated effects. The Secretariat isn't here to make arbitrary decisions about interpretation. That's up to WA delegates and member nations. Appeal denied.

[Retired WerePenguins]

I need to go over this repeal in a rational matter. (I want to strangle you to death Mousebumples, but every so often a Adele Penguin reminds me that I am supposed to be diplomatic.)

Claim 1: Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize otherwise non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.

Response: The definition of “non-criminal” offenses: “Generally the difference is whether or not you can be sentenced to jail. A criminal offense will carry the possibility of jail.” You want to put significant detention on offenses that carry no jail time? You're sick; really sick, as in “we need to purge your nation with nuclear fire” sick. It could be possible you have no clue what non-criminal means, see below for why misdemeanors do not count as "non-criminial."

Claim 1A: Government-provided child protective services would be severely limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period, due to shortcomings in GAR#19, Child Protection Act, in combination with GAR#190. This limit would apply to, for example, children who are removed from their homes due to suspicions of parental/guardian abuse.

Response: What the BEEP have you been smoking? No seriously, what have you been smoking. In the first place, child protective services isn't even covered under GAR#19. In the second place, such services should only be invoked upon a proper court order, which by definition isn't “detention.” Detention is when officers of the law restrain a person prior to a trial, not when a judge issues a restraining order. In the case of child protective services the restraining order belongs to the parents, not the child, who is placed in custody in order to protect the well being of the child who cannot live on their own.

Claim 1B: Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.

Response: You almost had me on that one. Really, you almost had me. You almost had me until I looked up the general nature of such detainment.

“A drunk tank is a facility used to detain people who have been arrested for public intoxication. In urban areas, the drunk tank may be a series of large jail cells in which multiple prisoners are deposited overnight to sleep off their intoxication, and in smaller communities, regular jail cells may do double-duty as the drunk tank as needed. Generally, people are released from the drunk tank the next morning, after they have sobered up.”

Public intoxication can be considered a misdemeanor. (A misdemeanor (also spelled misdemeanour) is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions (also known as minor, petty or summary offenses) and regulatory offenses. Many misdemeanors are punished with monetary fines.) Remember the original point for response one a criminal offense will carry the possibility of jail, not that all guilty verdicts must have a jail component. Misdemeanors are criminiaal acts and therefore clause 1 is not invoked.

Claim 1 C: Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.

Response: Way to jump the legal gun here. Don't give me this manure that you are going to deport someone who you have not proven in the appropriate legal venue that they are in violation of immigration laws. Once again, court ordered detention prior to determining the legal nation to send the immigrant to is not covered under the resolution. No way, no how.

Since this post is already too long I will leave the other points for another day. So let's recap.

1. A misdemeanor is defined as a “lesser” criminal act. The notion that this resolution does not cover misdemeanors is hog wash.
2. Once the accused has been brought up before an appropriate court entity and found guilty of the offense the resolution no longer applies. That is why you have immigration-courts. That is why you have courts that order the removal of children from their parents.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go into a walk in freezer and turn into a penguin.

[Quelesh]

OOC:

As sent in response to the GHR:

Differences in interpretation such as the one you're appealing are not subject to the "Honest Mistake" rule. That one is reserved for people who submit a proposal or a repeal that ends up in clear contradiction or duplication of the stated effects. The Secretariat isn't here to make arbitrary decisions about interpretation. That's up to WA delegates and member nations. Appeal denied.

That's unfortunate, but I respect the mods' decision on this matter.

[Scion Lop On]

Unequivocal support. Aside from supporting the arguments made in the repeal, we also strongly prefer the Sanctarian replacement over the current resolution, and will gladly offer all reasonable means of our delegation's support to Mr. Eberhart's disposal.

[Mousebumples]

Many thanks to the ambassadors who have offered their support at this point. I was hoping to have the time to write up a very detailed explanation of where each clause in the repeal comes from in the original resolution (as I'll be the first to admit that it's a complicated resolution to pick apart and present in a coherent, concise format - as if my initial drafting issues weren't evidence enough of that), but I'm afraid that my delegation has been kept busy with national and regional matters as of late. (OOC: RL interference. *sigh*)

This repeal is coming to vote at the upcoming minor update, and I urge a vote IN FAVOR.

Yours in thanks,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria would like to announce their full support for this proposal. We look forward to seeing it in the law books.

[Delegate Vinage]

The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria would like to announce their full support for this proposal. We look forward to seeing it in the law books.

Do you mean seeing it off the law books since it is a repeal?

Europeia is currently debating the Repeal and will cast our vote in the coming days

[Artificial Advantages]

This is seriously starting to get annoying.

My citizens are not people who like rules to change under their feets every 10 minutes.
So, would it be possible to avoid to have these rules created and repealed over and over again?

[Parti Ouvrier]

'Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.'

We are not concerned by this as we have no illegal immigrants.

DC

[Ossitania]

It is impossible to quantify my support for this repeal.

[Sanctaria]

Perhaps if the Ambassador included a link to my proposed replacement it would help?

Also it totally advertises my proposal. But that can only be a good thing, right?

[Opaloka]

This is seriously starting to get annoying.

My citizens are not people who like rules to change under their feets every 10 minutes.
So, would it be possible to avoid to have these rules created and repealed over and over again?

Indeed! Fortunately our developed socialist society shields our comrade citizens from the worst effects of WA cretinism. Nonetheless this assembly is a joke! This proposal is a joke! The proposer & supporters are a joke! If these delegates wish to entertain through comedy we suggest they become clowns in a circus.

[O-DAMN]

I think that there should be at least a 48 hour quarantine hour at least that long, id like 5 days at least, also for terrorists and things of that nature should be held much longer

[Knootoss]

This is seriously starting to get annoying.

My citizens are not people who like rules to change under their feets every 10 minutes.
So, would it be possible to avoid to have these rules created and repealed over and over again?

Stop voting in a herd-like fashion for flawed Quelesh proposals and the rest of us won't have to keep repealing them on account of their crippling flaws.

[Datavia]

After pondering the opposite arguments, and deeply annoyed with the roller-coaster nature of WA legislation (we also thought that the would-be repealed resolution went a bit too far with the time limits, but it's going to be funny to find an "Habeas Corpus Act" universally acclaimed), Datavia's delegate votes... (clicking of dice) AGAINST this repeal.

Blame the dice.

Really!

[Goobergunchia]

It is our opinion that, as there are no extraordinary circumstances in this case, it is too soon to revisit this resolution. Accordingly, Goobergunchia votes against.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Sanctaria]

but it's going to be funny to find an "Habeas Corpus Act" universally acclaimed

Most Ambassadors seem to like this one.

[Datavia]

but it's going to be funny to find an "Habeas Corpus Act" universally acclaimed

Most Ambassadors seem to like this one.

It seems good enough for me. At WA level. I would vote for it. It will be approved. And it will be repealed afterwards (sigh).

[Tibberiria]

This is seriously starting to get annoying.

My citizens are not people who like rules to change under their feets every 10 minutes.
So, would it be possible to avoid to have these rules created and repealed over and over again?

This. It's purely symbolic at this point but we're voting against.

[Airandia]

The Honourable People's Congress of The United Socialist Nations of Airandia resolve to fully support this initiative.

[The Biased Conservatives]

Is it me or does the GA seem to be all about Repealing laws for the past month or so?

[Damanucus]

Needless to say, we are voting for the repeal, and we have already provided our support for Sanctaria's replacement, when it comes to vote.

Is it me or does the GA seem to be all about Repealing laws for the past month or so?

In reality, we're just getting rid of those that are flawed and dead weight. And we are all getting in on the act.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Moronist Decisions]

What Damanucus said.

[Mendevia]

Is it me or does the GA seem to be all about Repealing laws for the past month or so?

Yes since our nation has returned from isolation we have mainly seen a vote then repeal, vote then repeal. It is an endless cycle. Normally I vote against everything, but in this case I can make an exception. I was not a fan of the law that we have now, and the future proposals are promising.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik had a surprised look on his face. "We just finished voting on a proposal that had nothing to do with this cycle of proposals and repeals on judiciary matters, so clearly we are doing some other things as well, although the habeas corpus/double jeopardy mess is prevalent.

Oh, and the Queendom has voted for this repeal of course, we did so as soon as we could."