[PASSED] Repeal GAR#183 "Defense of Self and Others"

[Normlpeople]

Clover spoke up "My nation strongly believes in self-defense rights, such as castle doctrine and stand-your-ground. Our mandatory weapons ownership and requirements to be armed in public at all times, as well as the sales of the "BFG-69 Organ Grinder", attest to this. We welcome the relief on the judiciary that this repeal will give, and as such, have voted FOR."

[Hirota]

Regretting that resolution #183 relies on the institution of the "judiciary" despite there being no international law requiring the independence of the judiciary, the proper functioning of the judiciary, or even the existence of the judiciary,

Observing that under the terms of the second operative clause a person cannot be prosecuted for using reasonable force yet under the terms of the third operative clause the decision as to whether reasonable force was used or not is reserved to the judiciary,

Believing that this presents a significant barrier to a member state’s prosecution services from initiating prosecutions where the use of reasonable force may be used as a defence in legal proceedings, as the prosecution services themselves are unable to make a determination as to what constitutes reasonable force,

Noting that this is a serious contradiction within resolution #183: an individual cannot be prosecuted for the use of reasonable force yet the determination of whether that individual used reasonable force is a decision reserved to the judiciary,

I disagree this is a reason for a repeal.

The existing legislation grants member states a "margin of discretion" to determine what constitutes reasonable force. In most nations, this would be established through precedent via the legal system. The prosecution shouldn't be determined by themselves to make a determination of what constitues reasonable force - thats a determination for the whole legal system.

It's on this basis I'd argue this is not a strong argument for a repeal, and thus motivates my government to vote against.

[Kalmarsund]

I'm with Hirota.

Res #183 needs clarifying, but as it stands it could equally be read as requiring prosecution, because only the Judiciary has the authority to decide that the use of force was reasonable.

I'd rather we amended the resolution to state clearly whether or not there should be a presumption of prosecution, and if the decision is to be made by the judiciary, that the prosecution should be referring the matter to them, rather than just dismissing it.

Perhaps we should resolve that the prosecution must make an application to the court for a ruling based on prima facie evidence, as to whether a prosecution should be brought?

Konig Phil of Kalmersund

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'd rather we amended the resolution

Not gonna happen.

[Bananaistan]

I am glad this passed. Thanks to everyone who voted in favour.

While I realise that I take a very much literalist "plain meaning rule" type of interpretation that people may not agree with, I prefer legislation with as few ambiguities as possible. Within that context I took the prohibition of prosecution to mean exactly that. In this case enough people agreed.