[PASSED] Multilateral Prosecution Act

[Unibot]

9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes must be appropriately reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA;

We seek clarification on this clause. Does this refer to costs for the defendant to be paid or does this hint at some additional compensation for the ordeal of defending a case.

Whatever the gnomes feel is appropriate. They're honorable beings, we've always put our trust in them.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It would be better to use the term "stateless" rather than "nationless" as it is more common. I accept that the courts topic has been a controversial issue but I personally think that a resolution involving an international court is possible war and international crimes are the topic of the resolution, with a court being an addition to it.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

It would be better to use the term "stateless" rather than "nationless" as it is more common.

Yes, I forget these things some times... thanks.

[Freeoplis]

9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes must be appropriately reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA;

We seek clarification on this clause. Does this refer to costs for the defendant to be paid or does this hint at some additional compensation for the ordeal of defending a case.

Whatever the gnomes feel is appropriate. They're honorable beings, we've always put our trust in them.

On such basis we cannot therefore support such legislation without a more restrictive clause being included.

[Unibot]

9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes must be appropriately reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA;

We seek clarification on this clause. Does this refer to costs for the defendant to be paid or does this hint at some additional compensation for the ordeal of defending a case.

Whatever the gnomes feel is appropriate. They're honorable beings, we've always put our trust in them.

On such basis we cannot therefore support such legislation without a more restrictive clause being included.

Huh? A more restrictive clause would also be restrictive to future legislation.. the gnomes are incorruptible, and your concerns are unprecedented. If you wished to propose a tort reform bill to prevent defendants from suing multilateral efforts for their treatment... we'll that sounds fine and dandy.

[Unibot]

It would be better to use the term "stateless" rather than "nationless" as it is more common.

Yes, I forget these things some times... thanks.

EDIT: I've update this in the most current draft, which is unconveiently located on the first page, second last post.

I will update the first post with the new version soon, once I've finalized some things and agreed with myself that is the direction I wish to take this project heading in.

[Freeoplis]

9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes must be appropriately reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA;

We would be content with a clause worded as such:

-"9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes shall have only their costs in defending their case reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA"

This would exclude any absolute general right compensation but not restrict a separate claim for mistreatment.

[Unibot]

9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes must be appropriately reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA;

We would be content with a clause worded as such:

-"9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes shall have only their costs in defending their case reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA"

This would exclude any absolute general right compensation but not restrict a separate claim for mistreatment.

Actually that would restrict a separate claim for mistreatment without a repeal of this legislation, I'd prefer further legislation on tort reform.

[Freeoplis]

Compensation for the inconvenience of being accused of a crime and having been brought to court is not something we can support. Our own citizens do not have such a right. Their reward for a successful defence is an acquittal and being left to carry on with their lives.

[Unibot]

Our own citizens do not have such a right. Their reward for a successful defence is an acquittal and being left to carry on with their lives.

Fortunately these are not your own citizens, and I hope that you remember that.

[Freeoplis]

Our own citizens do not have such a right. Their reward for a successful defence is an acquittal and being left to carry on with their lives.

Fortunately these are not your own citizens, and I hope that you remember that.

We appreciate the honored Ambassador's point. We shall review our stance but as our own citizens do not enjoy such a right under our domestic law we will have to give the issue much thought.

[Quelesh]

OOC: To briefly add my thoughts about the "WA police" controversy, in RL, corrections department employees acting as guards in prisons are not considered "police." Their job is to provide security at the detention facility. And no one would call a judge presiding over a criminal trial a police officer.

9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes must be appropriately reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA;

We would be content with a clause worded as such:

-"9. Declares that all defendants found innocent of all or some of their accused crimes shall have only their costs in defending their case reimbursed by the World Assembly, at the judicious discretion of the ICA"

This would exclude any absolute general right compensation but not restrict a separate claim for mistreatment.

We would not oppose reasonable compensation for wrongfully accused defendants. (Note that Quelesian citizens acquitted of crimes do not necessarily have the right to be compensated, though they can file a civil suit if they have been wrongfully imprisoned or subject to frivolous criminal charges; however, as the esteemed ambassador from Unibot has pointed out, these are not our citizens.)

Perhaps, though, the phrase "or some" should be stricken from the above clause. Imagine a person convicted of mass murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, though acquitted of a much less serious ancillary charge, being compensated for the minor charge while serving life in prison for mass murder.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: To briefly add my thoughts about the "WA police" controversy, in RL, corrections department employees acting as guards in prisons are not considered "police." Their job is to provide security at the detention facility. And no one would call a judge presiding over a criminal trial a police officer.

OOC: The rule isn't about police officers, it's about policing, active enforcement of the law and punishing those that transgress.

[Unibot]

OOC: To briefly add my thoughts about the "WA police" controversy, in RL, corrections department employees acting as guards in prisons are not considered "police." Their job is to provide security at the detention facility. And no one would call a judge presiding over a criminal trial a police officer.

OOC: The rule isn't about police officers, it's about policing, active enforcement of the law and punishing those that transgress.

OOC: But the FAQ doesn't talk about policing as a concept, it takes about forming 'a WORLD POLICE'.

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

"Army", "SWAT" and "Police"... not "Policing".. "Police", that implies police officers.

[Glen-Rhodes]

"Army", "SWAT" and "Police"... not "Policing".. "Police", that implies police officers.

OOC: Truly enlightening! When I first joined, I wanted to create the World Assembly Transgression Tracking and Punishment Committee, which is made up of transgression trackers and punishment givers. Since that rule apparently only applies to police officers, I should have no trouble passing that resolution!

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

"Army", "SWAT" and "Police"... not "Policing".. "Police", that implies police officers.

OOC: Truly enlightening! When I first joined, I wanted to create the World Assembly Transgression Tracking and Punishment Committee, which is made up of transgression trackers and punishment givers. Since that rule apparently only applies to police officers, I should have no trouble passing that resolution!

OOC: Not enlightening, enough, however.

IC: Okay Mr. Castro, let us scrutinize the Rights and Duties of WA States...

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

This clause recognizes that the WA Member States have the authority to engage in wars, but that the World Assembly will remain neutral in such affairs. As such .. it outlaws participation in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

Isn't it a lil' bit of a stretch of the imagination to go from remaining neutrality in war [thus resulting in] ----> no courthouse for international justice in the circumstances of stateless people.

Though, I am alas not a representative of Frisbeeteria, I would intrepret that line as saying...
Neutrality in war [thus resulting in] ----> the outlawing of conflict policing or peacekeeping efforts in war under the WA banner.

Additionally, War is defined as...

Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.

So by that definition, War is technically not raged against stateless peoples, and thus Article 10§ does not even require the World Assembly to maintain neutrality in the circumstance that this proposal hath provided!

[New Buckner]

Ah. Such loopholes I do love when they are brought about.

As to the question of security and re-reimbursement for security:

The act of protecting and providing security, while sometimes is also the duty of police, army, swat, etc. is a separate act in and of itself. It is a defensive act, not offensive. Without a safe and secure place to conduct business, the WA would be unable to function if constantly attacked and threatened by outside influence. A simple example of this is an outside nation attacks the WA Headquarters building. the WA Security Force defends and ensures that the compound is clear. After that, If nations decide to attack the perpetrators of the attack, they are within their rights to, however it will be as an independent nation.

I see no such issue with providing compensation of the host nation for providing security of a trial conducted under this resolution, if the argument of WA Security continues to come into play.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Isn't it a lil' bit of a stretch of the imagination to go from remaining neutrality in war [thus resulting in] ----> no courthouse for international justice in the circumstances of stateless people.

You are conflating war and 'police actions'. When you learn what exactly we're debating about, I will have an answer for your questions. Although, by bringing Rights and Duties of WA States into the equation, I must point out a clause you forgot to emphasize:

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

So, now there is an additional question of violation of WAR#2. If the World Assembly is becoming a criminal court, usurping national courts in the adjudication of criminal cases involving 'stateless' persons within member states, then the World Assembly is not maintaining neutrality in matters of "civil... strife". I suppose that depends on how the Secretariat would define civil strife, though. Might as well add that to their docket.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Isn't it a lil' bit of a stretch of the imagination to go from remaining neutrality in war [thus resulting in] ----> no courthouse for international justice in the circumstances of stateless people.

You are conflating war and 'police actions'. When you learn what exactly we're debating about, I will have an answer for your questions. Although, by bringing Rights and Duties of WA States into the equation, I must point out a clause you forgot to emphasize:

Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.

So, now there is an additional question of violation of WAR#2. If the World Assembly is becoming a criminal court, usurping national courts in the adjudication of criminal cases involving 'stateless' persons within member states, then the World Assembly is not maintaining neutrality in matters of "civil... strife". I suppose that depends on how the Secretariat would define civil strife, though. Might as well add that to their docket.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Pollycock, thats exactly what I was saying! That clause refers to war, civil and international strife is a synonym for war.

How can you honestly jump to the following conclusion?

WHILST WA members may engage in WAR, the WA must remain in neutrality ---> Lets ban the WA from interfering in anything when there is a problem between nations.

More logically...

WHILST WA members may engage in WAR, the WA must remain in neutrality --> the WA is not to pick sides, or be involved in WAR (as defined in the proposal) as one of the consensual parties.

[Krioval]

OOC: Rights and Duties is a strange resolution, in that it legislates on issues gameside. I mean, war is obviously not a "consensual" act from an IC standpoint, but the resolution overall does the NS community a good service. Krioval is very careful (IC) when dealing with Rights and Duties in a legislative context.

[Unibot]

OOC: Rights and Duties is a strange resolution, in that it legislates on issues gameside. I mean, war is obviously not a "consensual" act from an IC standpoint, but the resolution overall does the NS community a good service. Krioval is very careful (IC) when dealing with Rights and Duties in a legislative context.

OOC: Right, Krioval.. I wrote a re-draft to compliment some of the problems you brought up yesterday. Its on the first page, second last post. Your comments would be more than welcome..

[Glen-Rhodes]

WHILST WA members may engage in WAR, the WA must remain in neutrality --> the WA is not to pick sides, or be involved in WAR (as defined in the proposal) as one of the consensual parties.

You are incorrect. The World Assembly is prevented from "commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner". That is far more than war. Detaining and funding the incarceration of individuals is clearly organizing and even more clearly 'otherwise participating' in police actions. That is not even debatable. Whether the prosecution of crimes qualifies as civil strife is still up for debate, however.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Unibot]

WHILST WA members may engage in WAR, the WA must remain in neutrality --> the WA is not to pick sides, or be involved in WAR (as defined in the proposal) as one of the consensual parties.

You are incorrect. The World Assembly is prevented from "commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner". That is far more than war. Detaining and funding the incarceration of individuals is clearly organizing and even more clearly 'otherwise participating' in police actions. That is not even debatable. Whether the prosecution of crimes qualifies as civil strife is still up for debate, however.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

No, that is an extension of the clause, it makes absolutely no sense to jump from neutrality in war to convicting stateless people.

"Armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner" has EVERYTHING to do with war, that is what Article 10§ begins with addressing, and that is what Article 10§ finishes with addressing.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: the ban on WA Armies & WA Police exists because they would need to be RPed, and people would then quite probably 'godmode their actions' unless the Mods (who have enough to do already) asumed the sole authority to do that RP; whether that factor would apply in the case of these courts & detention centres would therefore seem to be the applicable question...

Incidentally, can we please have a clarification that it is only those defendants who might be acquitted on charges brought under this law -- rather than all defendants acquitted on any charges whatsoever, under national laws as well as WA ones -- who would be entitled to claim compensation from the WA's funds?

[Grays Harbor]

We fail to see any legitimate purpose behind this. A special court for nationless people? Why? Should any person of any nationality, or lack thereof, commit a crime within the Kingdom, the trials shall be held by Crown Courts, not by some outside court which has dubious jurisdiction. We also view the "no capital punishment" clause to be a dangerous "first step" in outlawing all capital punishment.