[PASSED] Preventing Multiple Trials

[Embolalia]

Hear, hear! Aye vote I!

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

[Quelesh]

Unfortunately, this resolution would do the exact opposite of what its title claims - it would allow multiple trials, even after a final acquittal and even after all appeals have been exhausted. I encourage everyone to vote AGAINST this resolution which would explicitly allow double jeopardy.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sualtam]

Once found innocent a person should not be subject to further trial for the alleged offence. This does not do that. I vote no.

[Zaklen]

Unfortunately, this resolution would do the exact opposite of what its title claims - it would allow multiple trials, even after a final acquittal and even after all appeals have been exhausted. I encourage everyone to vote AGAINST this resolution which would explicitly allow double jeopardy.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

I seem to remember you spouting "Reasonable Nation Theory" awhile ago, and a "Reasonable Nation", in good faith compliance, as per GA #2, would only use the holes in this resolution in cases where it is necessary for the preservation of justice.

[Quelesh]

Unfortunately, this resolution would do the exact opposite of what its title claims - it would allow multiple trials, even after a final acquittal and even after all appeals have been exhausted. I encourage everyone to vote AGAINST this resolution which would explicitly allow double jeopardy.

I seem to remember you spouting "Reasonable Nation Theory" awhile ago, and a "Reasonable Nation", in good faith compliance, as per GA #2, would only use the holes in this resolution in cases where it is necessary for the preservation of justice.

Double jeopardy is inherently contrary to justice, and a proposal which explicitly allows double jeopardy, as this one does, is ipso facto unjust.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Moronist Decisions]

Double jeopardy is inherently contrary to justice, and a proposal which explicitly allows double jeopardy, as this one does, is ipso facto unjust.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

What about the case where someone committed perjury deliberately themselves, thus securing an acquittal?

[Zaklen]

I seem to remember you spouting "Reasonable Nation Theory" awhile ago, and a "Reasonable Nation", in good faith compliance, as per GA #2, would only use the holes in this resolution in cases where it is necessary for the preservation of justice.

Double jeopardy is inherently contrary to justice, and a proposal which explicitly allows double jeopardy, as this one does, is ipso facto unjust.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

And thank you, Ms. Yadoru, for once again, ignoring a valid point.

[Sovreignry]

Double jeopardy is inherently contrary to justice, and a proposal which explicitly allows double jeopardy, as this one does, is ipso facto unjust.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

What about the case where someone committed perjury deliberately themselves, thus securing an acquittal?

Then the justice system worked perfectly! [/sarcasm]

[Linux and the X]

Double jeopardy is inherently contrary to justice, and a proposal which explicitly allows double jeopardy, as this one does, is ipso facto unjust.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

And thank you, Ms. Yadoru, for once again, ignoring a valid point.

The only person ignoring valid points, Ambassador, is you. I can see why so many ambassadors believe Ms. Yadoru is ignoring them, though, when apparently counterarguing is considered ignoring.

[Quelesh]

Double jeopardy is inherently contrary to justice, and a proposal which explicitly allows double jeopardy, as this one does, is ipso facto unjust.

What about the case where someone committed perjury deliberately themselves, thus securing an acquittal?

First, such a case may justify a legitimate prosecution appeal of the outcome of the trial, and second, perjury is likely a serious crime in itself.

This proposal, however, would allow retrials even after all opportunities for appealing the original verdict have been exhausted, including because the state was negligent in gathering evidence the first time around.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Wu Wei Shan]

2. OUTLAWS retrials except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand, such as when proper legal procedure was not followed in the course of the previous trial.

Can only apply to an innocent person who is "supposed" to be guilty, either due to new evidence or mistrial. If prosecution screws up they should not get a mulligan. While this comes close to allowing new trials due to conclusive new evidence (and some circular reasoning), it is actually allowing multiple trials instead of preventing them, and therefore a fraud.

Against.

[Auralia]

What about the case where someone committed perjury deliberately themselves, thus securing an acquittal?

First, such a case may justify a legitimate prosecution appeal of the outcome of the trial

In many criminal justice systems, a successful prosecutorial appeal results in a new trial.

[Paper Flowers]

While this proposal is not our ideal solution to the matter at hand, we can live with it and at the same time be happy to have a shield against further Queleshi attempts to protect the guilty.

For

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Firstaria]

We voted for. Actually, we voted for then read the resolution.

Thanks to this, Quelesh will have to stop due to Duplication. It will mean this rooms will see less of his presence, boosting the medium intelligence of the GA x1000.

[Frisbeeteria]

Thanks to this, Quelesh will have to stop due to Duplication. It will mean this rooms will see less of his presence, boosting the medium intelligence of the GA x1000.

You're getting very close to the IC/OOC line in your attacks. Knock it off. Flaming is not acceptable.

[Christian Democrats]

I have voted for this proposal as a good compromise on this contentious issue.

[Dagguerro]

While this proposal is not our ideal solution to the matter at hand, we can live with it and at the same time be happy to have a shield against further Queleshi attempts to protect the guilty.

For

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

Agreed with the esteemed representative from Paper Flowers.

If nothing else it should block the inevitable submission of the next Double Jeopardy proposal from Quelesh.

For

[Goobergunchia]

While we do not fully support all provisions in this resolution, we have cast our vote in favor in an attempt to finally provide stability in international law on this issue.

However, the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic will declare that there is no circumstance that qualifies as a significant miscarriages of justice where national courts may reopen final judgements of acquittal.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Opaloka]

Double jeopardy is inherently contrary to justice, and a proposal which explicitly allows double jeopardy, as this one does, is ipso facto unjust.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

What about the case where someone committed perjury deliberately themselves, thus securing an acquittal?

Then they should be charged with purjury. Which incidently should be regarded as a very serious crime.

But the principle is this you are accused, tried found innocent, then that is it for that accusation. If there are issues like purjury witness or jury intimidation etc. Then those are seperate accusations & should be tried seperately.Only convicted persons should be able to appeal their conviction on the basis of new evidence,malpractice etc.

It says a lot about this assembly that basic freedoms can be eroded here. Can we have proper rights for WA citizens in regard to habeas corpus & double jeopardy these are not areas in which fudge or compromise are appropriate, they are basic rights & freedoms.

Reject this garbage!

[Moronist Decisions]

First, such a case may justify a legitimate prosecution appeal of the outcome of the trial, and second, perjury is likely a serious crime in itself.

Most nations have something called a "statute of limitation". In other words, a trial is considered "final" after a given amount of time. What if this knowledge is found only after the trial was considered "finalized"?

And yes, perjury is a serious crime. However, what about for multiple homicides? A perjury charge would seem minor in comparison.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

What about the case where someone committed perjury deliberately themselves, thus securing an acquittal?

Then they should be charged with purjury. Which incidently should be regarded as a very serious crime.

I find this assertion troubling. So we should let a rapist or a murder go free of those charges simply because they lied on the stand and a jury believed them? As serious as perjury may be, it is not as serious as many crimes. I object to the notion that we should not be able to try and convict a murderer for Murder on the grounds that he was a very convincing liar in his first trial. Proof of perjury should be enough to warrant a retrial.

That said, I stand with Lord Evif and many others in voting FOR this proposal, if for no other reason than to end (or, at the very least, change) the ongoing crippling debate on the subject.

We are very concerned that this proposal gives nations too much leeway in determining when a "significant and compelling miscarriage of justice" would require a second trial. A nation might well say that any instance of a possibly guilty person going free is a significant and compelling miscarriage of justice. But requiring nations to justify retrials at all is a substantial step up from having no protection whatsoever, and the longer this Double Jeopardy debate rages on, the more it seems that nobody can find consensus on when a prosecutorial retrial is warranted. In that case, it is better to let member nations come up with their own justifications and leave it at that.

[Blue Dog Isle]

Having tallied over 10% of the (expected) total votes that will be cast on this measure, this proposal is currently being supported at a ratio of 1.5 FOR to 1 AGAINST.

If these trends continue, our government expects this measure to PASS - 6,463 FOR to 4,309 AGAINST.

[Britannic Realms]

"Strongly FOR. A much more reasonable proposal than the one that shall not be named."

Louis Bridges, 3rd Earl of Burma
Britannic Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Knootoss]

Knootoss warmly supports this proposal.

[Unified Provinces]

I and President Davies wholeheartedly support this measure.

Phillip Dewhurst
-From the desk of Phillip Dewhurst, UP Ambassador to the World Assembly