[PASSED] Preventing Multiple Trials

[Vogelda]

The Vogeldean Council has agreed that, as each nation has its own legal system with differing views on what would qualify as a 'miscarriage of justice', the ability for a nation to determine its own circumstances for retrial is a fair and sensible compromise.

As we agree with it in its entirety, we are FOR this resolution.

-Lárrés Résathímorr
Vógeldáth Sathélól Lárrésól
Diplomat for the Vogeldean Council

[Tibberiria]

We are pleased to vote for this resolution and hope this is the final vote on this issue, at least for a while.

[Datavia]

Even if somewhat befuddled by the writing style of this proposal, this delegation is FOR it, as it provides protection enough against Double Jeopardy in most decent legal systems. And we said that this nonsensical dance would happen when the original resolution was repealed.

[Robanistania]

The Vogeldean Council has agreed that, as each nation has its own legal system with differing views on what would qualify as a 'miscarriage of justice', the ability for a nation to determine its own circumstances for retrial is a fair and sensible compromise.

As we agree with it in its entirety, we are FOR this resolution.

-Lárrés Résathímorr
Vógeldáth Sathélól Lárrésól
Diplomat for the Vogeldean Council

I have lodged my support for this proposal for the reason quoted above. Thank you for the effort everyone went to in drafting this piece of legislation.

[Enheightening]

-The young man strode leisurely in... had been lingering a while actually, but had given pause for a smoke... and come back, listening to the banter at hand... some of it to the point and others more friendly. Circling round toward the front he made himself heard... not a recognizable face, but the Ambassador of some land for sure,-

This is a well written draft man but... I mean come on... I haven't been listening the whole time but does anybody except me see that this is pretty much preventing any retrials for occuring on a defendant's behalf? Like...

-He paused, touching two fingers between his eyebrows like something briefly hurt,- I mean okay so they fucked up... prolly did... but if the law screwed up then we have another issue. Sometimes new evidence does emerge. Sometimes it's incriminating man and... and I say we use it to put criminals away... or set free the falsely accused. And you can't determine that without a retrial!

-Waving a dismissive hand he walked away from the front of the room,- We have our own laws to protect against double jeopardy and the like in my nation without something coming along and steering our judicial system towards the slaughterhouse...

[Orbis Ordinis]

This is almost identical to the attempted Double Jeopardy Prohibition, why should we vote for this when we have already voted against its predecessor?

[Quadrimmina]

Full support will be provided from my government on this measure. Good work, honored ambassadors!

[Syrkania]

As this fits with what is necessary for Syrkania to carry out trials, I hereby cast our vote FOR this proposed resolution.

Harim Kelsis,
Wa Special Envoy for Syrkania

[Retired WerePenguins]

I support this fine resolution.

[Mousebumples]

Very much in favor of this resolution, as my delegation feels that the wording allows for the adaptation of these limitations in a way that can fit the judicial needs and cultures of each unique WA member nations.

We encourage all WA members to vote IN FAVOR of this proposal to ensure its passage.

[Leschnikoff]

Much better than the previous resolution. Still leaves plenty of room for governments to act in.

[The Conglomerate WA seat of Hexitus]

3. MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system:
a. Specific circumstances, which qualify as significant miscarriages of justice, under which retrials are allowed.
b. A reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.

I have issues with this section of the resolution. This basically says that my legal system can say whatever I wish is a "miscarriage of justice" and simply renders the remainder of the resolution powerless except in regards to the "low limit on the number of such retrials." This resolution will be hard pressed to actually present a significant barrier to defendant harassment if such a broad scope is given to individual nations to define their own "miscarriages of justice." We cannot simply assume the best out of every nation in regards to it's legal system.

Given this, Hexitus lobbies for a no passage on this resolution until such a time that decent parameters are set in place to safeguard the rights of defendents.

[Hirota]

In spite of me and my regional delegate feeling we can submit a superior proposal (OOC: He's a lawyer IRL) if given enough time, this proposal offers the best solution that has been offered thus far.

FOR

[Tedoka]

I, Raghnailt Johnston, World Assembly Delegate of Tedoka, says YEA to this proposal. We believe that this is an appropriate and adequate replacement to the repealed Double Jeopardy Prohibition. The Kingdom also hopes that if passed, this will not be repealed in the future unless it has been found to have an inherent and utterly serious flaw.

The People and the King have spoken.

[Dagguerro]

We cannot simply assume the best out of every nation in regards to it's legal system.

"Reasonable nation" principle. *shrug*

Not to mention good faith compliance means thats EXACTLY what you have to assume.

[Lord Absinthe]

The Democratic Republic of Lord Absinthe will be voting for this resolution.

We feel it is a good piece of legislation, the way our nation conducts re-trails falls in line with this resolution, and will allow us the freedom to continue to allow a fair legal system to our citizens.

[Opaloka]

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.

With respect you are free to make the punishment for purjury & other pervertions of justice as serious as you wish. As to the issue of criminals getting away with a crime if they are career criminals which most are there will be plenty of other opportunities to catch them. If the incident is a one-off then really it hardly matters, the justice system can neither reform nor deter in such cases.

The threat to freedom of allowing the state to harass through multiple trials is what is at issue here. This bill allows just that.

[Merfurian]

ooh! ooh! Look at this!

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=180146

Quelesh is up to her tricks again...!

[Halteria]

Halteria supports this resolution, as it provides needed flexibility to fit varying judicial systems while protecting the rights of defendants.

[Bald Brummies]

I, Lt. Col. Kojak Slaphead III, will vote YES on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Bald Brummies. This is much better than the legislation that bombed a few days ago.

BALD BRUMMIES!!!!

[Black Hand]

intriguing that it is essentially still Prohibition on double jeopardy just using different words. the dangers of this are that people are being deceived in their voting and being lied to. if we repealed the Prohibition and then voted against it's re-institution why would someone propose the same ideal with a different name unless they wished to deceive us into blindly voting for it?

[Syrkania]

intriguing that it is essentially still Prohibition on double jeopardy just using different words. the dangers of this are that people are being deceived in their voting and being lied to. if we repealed the Prohibition and then voted against it's re-institution why would someone propose the same ideal with a different name unless they wished to deceive us into blindly voting for it?

Well, you could examine earlier in this thread to find out that exact reason, but I suppose not everyone can be bothered.

[Quadrimmina]

This is almost identical to the attempted Double Jeopardy Prohibition, why should we vote for this when we have already voted against its predecessor?

Because this resolution actually addresses the problems with the prior defeated resolution.

[Ossitania]

This is almost identical to the attempted Double Jeopardy Prohibition, why should we vote for this when we have already voted against its predecessor?

Because it's not at all identical?

[Quelesh]

the wording allows for the adaptation of these limitations in a way that can fit the judicial needs and cultures of each unique WA member nations.

In case anyone else is confused by this statement, this is NatSov-speak for "it allows member states to do practically whatever they want and blocks further action on the subject," which is, in general, the only kind of resolution that NatSovers support.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador