[PASSED] Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes

[Frisbeeteria]

Ban on Statutory Limitations for Heinous Crimes
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

Recognizing the moral depravity of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace,

Recalling this Assembly's prior commitments to the prosecution of perpetrators of such crimes,

Emphasizing that the effective protection of human rights by this Assembly necessitates that there be no statutory limitations on prosecution of perpetrators of such crimes,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines a statutory limitation as any limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime, with the understanding that this includes, but is not limited to, limitations imposed by administrative regulation, judicial order, or legislative statute;
2. Prohibits member states, whether acting individually or collectively through World Assembly resolution, from applying a statutory limitation to any crime explicitly or implicitly recognized under World Assembly law as:
   
   1. a war crime,
   2. a crime against humanity, or
   3. a crime against peace.

[Christian Democrats]

We will support this proposal. Our only recommendation, at the moment, is that the prohibition be broadened to include the World Assembly itself in addition to its individual member states and their subdivisions.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Full support. No issues with the current text."

[Imperium Anglorum]

We have no real objections to the proposed text.

[United Massachusetts]

Support.

[Greifenburg]

"Greifenburg will support this notion."

[Aclion]

Opposed. Consider that;

1. Statutory limitations are put in place in part to ensure that innocent defendants will still have access to exonerating evidence.
2. Politically motivated prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity are commonplace, and protecting the innocent is not a high priority.
3. Conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity rightly carry the most extreme penalties nations offer; often death.

[Auralia]

We will support this proposal. Our only recommendation, at the moment, is that the prohibition be broadened to include the World Assembly itself in addition to its individual member states and their subdivisions.

This is now clarified.

Statutory limitations are put in place in part to ensure that innocent defendants will still have access to exonerating evidence.

As time passes, both incriminating and exonerating evidence become less accessible, so I don't find this argument particularly compelling.

Politically motivated prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity are commonplace, and protecting the innocent is not a high priority.

Politically motivated prosecutions often occur for many crimes, not merely war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nonetheless, most jurisdictions do not employ statutory limitations for crimes less serious than war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as murder, kidnapping, or even forgery.

Conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity rightly carry the most extreme penalties nations offer; often death.

Again, this is true for many serious crimes that are not subject to a statute of limitations.

Ultimately, due process protections have to be carefully designed to avoid convicting innocent people while still ensuring that justice is done in most cases. On balance, we -- along with most other nations -- believe that statutory limitations for serious crimes allow criminals to go free far more often than they prevent mistaken convictions.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Our Delegation is happy to support this fine effort.

OOC: Unfortunately, I can't guarantee that you'll get a ton of support from TWP, but best of luck anyway.

[Lexicor]

Remy: "We"
Jean-Luc: "Shall"
Remy & Jean-Luc, harmonizing now: "Support!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I would try some other title though. This one seems a bit too dry.

[Auralia]

OOC: I would try some other title though. This one seems a bit too dry.

((OOC: Any suggestions? Personally, I have no objection to dry titles. Frankly, I would prefer the name of the equivalent real-life treaty, which is "Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity", but unfortunately that's too long.))

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

The Second Roman Empire after the complete observation by our team of experts who help me agree absolutely to support the proposal. The project has excellent articles that will certainly reduce or not extinguish any kind of torture or surplus in the criminal-state relationship that we will fully support it.

Madam Giulia Maccini,
WA Representative of Roma.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Having reread the definition, it seems to us that member states aren't allowed to stipulate that the defendant in these cases must still be alive. Are we reading it correctly?

[Sanctaria]

Neville: Having reread the definition, it seems to us that member states aren't allowed to stipulate that the defendant in these cases must still be alive. Are we reading it correctly?

I don't speak for the author, but there is nothing in this piece of legislation that I can read that would prevent your nation, or any nation, from stipulating in further pieces of legislation that all defendants in criminal (or indeed civil) cases must be alive.

This legislation simply wishes to enforce the, wholly correct, notion that crimes against humanity should not have a statute of limitations.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Having reread the definition, it seems to us that member states aren't allowed to stipulate that the defendant in these cases must still be alive. Are we reading it correctly?

I don't speak for the author, but there is nothing in this piece of legislation that I can read that would prevent your nation, or any nation, from stipulating in further pieces of legislation that all defendants in criminal (or indeed civil) cases must be alive.

This legislation simply wishes to enforce the, wholly correct, notion that crimes against humanity should not have a statute of limitations.

Neville: Wouldn't a stipulation that the defendant be alive be an example of 'a limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime'?

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't speak for the author, but there is nothing in this piece of legislation that I can read that would prevent your nation, or any nation, from stipulating in further pieces of legislation that all defendants in criminal (or indeed civil) cases must be alive.

This legislation simply wishes to enforce the, wholly correct, notion that crimes against humanity should not have a statute of limitations.

Neville: Wouldn't a stipulation that the defendant be alive be an example of 'a limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime'?

"I can't imagine what system would do this, but Fairness in Criminal Trials require the accused be able to face the accusor. I don't see how a dead person could do that, so it rather seems covered."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Wouldn't a stipulation that the defendant be alive be an example of 'a limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime'?

"I can't imagine what system would do this, but Fairness in Criminal Trials require the accused be able to face the accusor. I don't see how a dead person could do that, so it rather seems covered."

Neville: I've read Fairness in Criminal Trials. I can't see where it requires that the accused should be able to face their accuser.

[Sanctaria]

Wouldn't a stipulation that the defendant be alive be an example of 'a limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime'?

No, it would not. Under no reading of this proposal, or mature understanding of what statute of limitations are, would that be a stipulation.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I can't imagine what system would do this, but Fairness in Criminal Trials require the accused be able to face the accusor. I don't see how a dead person could do that, so it rather seems covered."

Neville: I've read Fairness in Criminal Trials. I can't see where it requires that the accused should be able to face their accuser.

"Huh. It appears I mixed up GAR#13 and GAR#37. My apologies."

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

The Bible Baptist Republic has no objection to this proposal and agrees that there are crimes so heinous that perpetrators should not be given an opportunity to run out a clock.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: I've read Fairness in Criminal Trials. I can't see where it requires that the accused should be able to face their accuser.

"Huh. It appears I mixed up GAR#13 and GAR#37. My apologies."

OOC: I decided to check out GA #13, only to realise that it was repealed. Curse you.

Wouldn't a stipulation that the defendant be alive be an example of 'a limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime'?

No, it would not. Under no reading of this proposal, or mature understanding of what statute of limitations are, would that be a stipulation.

Neville: The law does what the law says. We contend that under a literal reading of the proposal, our nation is not allowed to mandate that defendants in cases concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity should be alive.

[Deropia]

No, it would not. Under no reading of this proposal, or mature understanding of what statute of limitations are, would that be a stipulation.

Neville: The law does what the law says. We contend that under a literal reading of the proposal, our nation is not allowed to mandate that defendants in cases concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity should be alive.

"I would have to agree with the delegation from Sanctaria on this one, since the proposal text states..."

Defines a statutory limitation as a limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime

"It would seem to me that wither or not you place a deceased person on trial has less to do with a statute of limitations and more to do with wither or not your criminal justice system allows trials in absentia. Since a deceased person obviously can't attend court proceedings you could decline to prosecute based on that fact rather than the amount of time that has elapsed since the alleged offense."

EDIT: Grammatical changes.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: The law does what the law says. We contend that under a literal reading of the proposal, our nation is not allowed to mandate that defendants in cases concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity should be alive.

"I would have to agree with the delegation from Sanctaria on this one, since the proposal text states..."

Defines a statutory limitation as a limitation on the period of time following the commission of a crime that the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators may be prosecuted for that crime

"It would seem to me that wither or not you place a deceased person on trial has less to do with a statute of limitations, but wither or not your criminal justice system allows trials in absentia since a deceased person obviously can't attend court proceedings you could decline to prosecute based on that fact rather than the amount of time that has elapsed since the alleged offense."

Neville: That seems acceptable to us. In that case, we pledge our support for this proposal.

[Bears Armed]

"It would seem to me that wither or not you place a deceased person on trial has less to do with a statute of limitations and more to do with wither or not your criminal justice system allows trials in absentia. Since a deceased person obviously can't attend court proceedings you could decline to prosecute based on that fact rather than the amount of time that has elapsed since the alleged offense."

"Our homeland's legal system does allow for the prosecution of ghosts, under certain circumstances. Such trials do not happen verrry often -- maybeso only once or twice per octade, across the whole country -- but they are a real thing."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.