NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

Postby Mousebumples » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:05 pm

AT VOTE!
Your vote IN FAVOR would be greatly appreciated!


If you're interested in what sort of Habeas Corpus proposal could follow a successful repeal of this flawed resolution, please check out Sanctaria's draft here. I'm sure he will be willing to take additional suggestions and/or critiques through, at minimum, the conclusion of this repeal's voting period.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of protecting individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

REALIZES, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may risk the safety and prosperity of WA member nations; for example:

  1. Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize otherwise non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.

    1. Government-provided child protective services would be severely limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period, due to shortcomings in GAR#19, Child Protection Act, in combination with GAR#190. This limit would apply to, for example, children who are removed from their homes due to suspicions of parental/guardian abuse.
    2. Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.
    3. Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.
  2. There are no exceptions granted for Clauses 1 & 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”

    1. Some suspects may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime. This process may take longer than the maximum time allowed.
    2. Some crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may be especially complicated, which would require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed. Such a circumstance is outlawed.
DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

SPECIFIES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution. Therefore, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited, such that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days in the absence of criminal suspicion. As a result:
  1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective. This 6 hour limit prevents WA member nations from providing effective treatment to these individuals.
  2. An individual cannot be “medical(ly) quarantine(d)” for more than 6 hours. This negates the quarantining efforts as, even with appropriate treatment, individuals will typically remain contagious after such a short period of time.
NOTES that Clause 12 unintentionally bans all medical quarantines for infections that are not at risk of causing a pandemic but do have the potential to cause widespread harm within a limited geographic area, even though such quarantines may be in the best interests of overall public health.

HOPES that an improved version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.


Habeas Corpus Act wrote:The World Assembly,

ALARMED by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals;

DISTURBED by the continued detention of individuals after being cleared of wrongdoing or after serving their criminal sentences;

RESOLVED to prevent such practices and to grant relief to individuals being unjustly detained;

hereby MANDATES the following, subject to any limitations existing in prior international law:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that criminal offense unless, in accordance with international law, (1) the individual's acquittal has been lawfully vacated and (2) the detention is for the purpose of a lawful retrial on the same charge;

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense;

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;

11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and

12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of protecting individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

REALIZES, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity of WA member nations, which specifically include:

  1. The limitations of Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize what may otherwise be non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.

    1. Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.
    2. Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.
  2. There are no exceptions granted for Clauses 1 and 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”

    1. Some suspects may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime. This process may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.
    2. Some crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may be especially complicated, which would require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed. Such a circumstance is outlawed under this resolution.
  3. Clause 3 does not prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges, which may be employed as an intimidation tactic.

DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

SPECIFIES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution. Therefore, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited, such that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days in the absence of criminal suspicion. As a result:
  1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective. This 6 hour limit prevents WA member nations from providing effective treatment to these individuals.
  2. An individual cannot be “medical(ly) quarantine(d)” for more than 6 hours. This negates the quarantining efforts as, even with appropriate treatment, individuals will typically remain contagious after such a short period of time.

NOTES that Clause 12 unintentionally bans all medical quarantines for infections that are not at risk of causing a pandemic but do have the potential to cause widespread harm within a limited geographic area, even though such quarantines may be in the best interests of overall public health.

HOPES that an improved version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.

Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of protecting individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may interfere with ensuring the safety and prosperity of WA member nations, which specifically include:
  1. The limitations of Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize what may otherwise be non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
    1. Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.
    2. Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to expelling them from their nation.
  2. There are no exceptions for Clauses 1 and 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”
    1. Some suspected individuals may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime, which may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.
    2. Some crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may be especially complicated, which would require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed. Such a circumstance is outlawed under this resolution.
  3. Clause 3 does not prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges, which may be employed as an intimidation tactic.
DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment for criminal offenses that are only punishable by a fine, which may require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution. Therefore, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but they are limited, such that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days in the absence of criminal charges. As a result:
  1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective, and this 6 hour limit prevents WA member nations from providing effective treatment.
  2. An individual cannot be “medical(ly) quarantine(d)” for more than 6 hours, thus negating the quarantining efforts, as this is an insufficient length of time for an individual to no longer be contagious when dealing with infectious pathogens.
NOTES that Clause 12 unintentionally bans all medical quarantines that may be in the best interests of overall public health for infections that are not at risk of causing a pandemic but have the potential of causing widespread harm within a limited geographic area.

HOPES that an improved version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.

Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the intent of the author to protect individuals from unreasonable detainment practices within WA member nations;

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may result in any number of difficulties with regards to ensuring the safety and prosperity within WA member nations, which include these specific shortcomings:
  1. The limitations of Clause 1 essentially require WA member nations to criminalize what may otherwise be non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
    1. Detainment of inebriated and/or intoxicated individuals would be limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period in nations who do not criminalize public intoxication. Holding such individuals for the duration of their intoxication, for the purposes of public safety, will likely be limited to one occasion per week, which may be insufficient for those who frequently imbibe.
    2. The limitations on administrative detainment of illegal immigrants may not allow WA member nations to determine where such individuals originated from prior to expelling them from their nation.
  2. There are no exceptions for Clauses 1 and 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”
    1. Some suspects may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime. Such a process may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.
    2. Some crimes may be especially heinous, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, and may require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed.
  3. Clause 3 does not prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges; this tactic may be employed by some WA member nations for intimidation.
DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment criminal offenses that are only punishable with a fine. This would create more work for individual police forces as they seek to prosecute such crimes and/or would require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following problematic line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are only allowed for up to 6 hours in a 7 day period due to the time restrictions listed within this resolution.

HOPES that a more useful and universally applicable version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.

For the record, I'm calling this a "Quick!Repeal" versus an Insta!Repeal ... mostly because of the size of the queue. There are already 2 proposals At Quorum and who knows if anything else will be submitted (and get to quorum) before this one. And, to be honest, I'll probably submit the Double Jeopardy repeal first since that's been Totally-Not-Even-Close-to-Insta, so ... probably a third proposal getting to vote before this one. Still, it is a priority, and I'd love to submit this text as soon as we can get it firm enough for submission.

I'll fully admit to having issues getting the arguments to sound as coherent as I'd like, with the preferred amount of clarity. It's probably because this is a fairly technical resolution-to-be that isn't easily boiled down to simple arguments. I certainly don't want to lose votes due to over-simplification ... but I also don't want to lose votes if the text is too complicated. As always, critiques and suggestions are more than welcome!

Here's the rough draft, and I'm happy to add in additional clauses and/or arguments, should anyone have more they wish to make against the resolution in question.

Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the intent of the author to protect individuals from unreasonable detainment practices within WA member nations;

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may result in any number of difficulties with regards to ensuring the safety and prosperity within WA member nations.

DETAILS the following specific shortcomings:
  1. With regards to Clause 1, nations would be unable to hold those who are inebriated or intoxicated for longer than 6 hours maximum within a 7 day period. This means that those individuals who are habitual offenders would only be able to held on one or two occasions during the course of a given week; however, a greater frequency of detainment may be appropriate in order to prevent the occurrence of crimes such as Battery or Assault. It is highly unlikely that such inebriated individuals would be able to consent to such a procedural lockup, even if it is for the protection of their own well-being;
  2. With regards to Clause 1, nations would be unable to hold illegal immigrants for administrative detention prior to deportation for longer than 6 hours maximum within a 7 day period. This limited period of time is likely insufficient to allow WA member nations to determine where such individuals originated from so they could be returned to such a location as a part of the deportation process. Forcing nations to make illegal immigration into a crime would then require WA member nations to continue to hold such illegals within their prison system when they could otherwise be expelled from their lands;
  3. With regards to Clauses 1 and 2, no exception is made for "special circumstances." Such circumstances may include matters of public safety, which may require longer than 6 hours to resolve. These clauses also do not allow for a longer detention/investigation process for more involved criminal activities, such as terrorism;
  4. With regards to Clause 3, there is no mechanism within this resolution which would prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges, which may be employed by some WA member nations as an intimidation tactic.
  5. With regards to Clause 6, detainment would not be allowed for any criminal offense that would only result in a fine, which would create more work for individual police forces as they seek to prosecute such crimes;
  6. With regards to Clause 9, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients” is not prohibited, but due to the poor wording of the text, such endeavors are still subject to the time limits listed in Clauses 1 and 2. Such limits may understandably be insufficient to appropriately determine if certain individuals merit such a detainment, which may result in WA member nations rushing the evaluation process to fit within the overly strict time limits.
  7. With regards to Clause 12, “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited, but due to the poor wording of the text, such medical emergencies would still be subject to the 6-hours within 7 days time limit, per Clause 1, as such detentions would likely be suspicionless in nature. (I will probably find a way to combine this clause and the one above it since it's the same "poor wording of the text" that causes such an issue. However, my original draft had them separated, and I'll need to play with wording a bit to ensure the meaning and implications of the issue are clear.)
  8. The time periods listed in the resolution's text are largely based off the now-repealed GAR#67 Habeas Corpus and may be wholly inappropriate for some WA member nations due to the varied lifespans within the WA multiverse. Detaining an individual for 14% of a 30-day lifespan is inhumane; limiting detainment to only 96 hours for those that may live hundreds or thousands of years is inconsequential. (This is something that could potentially be scrapped, as I'm not sure how effective it is, as an argument. Thoughts on this clause, specifically, are more than welcome.)
HOPES that a less micromanaging variation of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly;

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.


This is quite possibly over the character limit - although, to be honest, I haven't checked as I expect this will undergo more than a few revisions prior to submission. As always, comments and suggestions are more than welcome. I'm sure that many of us may disagree as to how important some of these objections are, but I feel that these are important concerns that need to be rectified with a repeal of this soon-to-be-resolution.


Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Last edited by Flibbleites on Fri May 04, 2012 10:44 am, edited 14 times in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:41 pm

Fully support a Quick!Repeal. Will make suggestions on wording as soon as I am not on a Pink Bunny Cola high.... wheeeee!

Image
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:08 pm

I know I'm examining a repeal which I will, regardless, support, but it still needs to be done.

Mousebumples wrote:
DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may result in any number of difficulties with regards to ensuring the safety and prosperity within WA member nations.


Was always going to be a problem regardless on how they were coded, even if it was written to allow nations to decide their own limits. So that will always be a sour point.

Mousebumples wrote:
DETAILS the following specific shortcomings:
  1. With regards to Clause 1, nations would be unable to hold those who are inebriated or intoxicated for longer than 6 hours maximum within a 7 day period. This means that those individuals who are habitual offenders would only be able to held on one or two occasions during the course of a given week; however, a greater frequency of detainment may be appropriate in order to prevent the occurrence of crimes such as Battery or Assault. It is highly unlikely that such inebriated individuals would be able to consent to such a procedural lockup, even if it is for the protection of their own well-being;
  2. With regards to Clause 1, nations would be unable to hold illegal immigrants for administrative detention prior to deportation for longer than 6 hours maximum within a 7 day period. This limited period of time is likely insufficient to allow WA member nations to determine where such individuals originated from so they could be returned to such a location as a part of the deportation process. Forcing nations to make illegal immigration into a crime would then require WA member nations to continue to hold such illegals within their prison system when they could otherwise be expelled from their lands;
  3. With regards to Clauses 1 and 2, no exception is made for "special circumstances." Such circumstances may include matters of public safety, which may require longer than 6 hours to resolve. These clauses also do not allow for a longer detention/investigation process for more involved criminal activities, such as terrorism;
  4. With regards to Clause 3, there is no mechanism within this resolution which would prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges, which may be employed by some WA member nations as an intimidation tactic.
  5. With regards to Clause 6, detainment would not be allowed for any criminal offense that would only result in a fine, which would create more work for individual police forces as they seek to prosecute such crimes;
  6. With regards to Clause 9, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients” is not prohibited, but due to the poor wording of the text, such endeavors are still subject to the time limits listed in Clauses 1 and 2. Such limits may understandably be insufficient to appropriately determine if certain individuals merit such a detainment, which may result in WA member nations rushing the evaluation process to fit within the overly strict time limits.
  7. With regards to Clause 12, “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited, but due to the poor wording of the text, such medical emergencies would still be subject to the 6-hours within 7 days time limit, per Clause 1, as such detentions would likely be suspicionless in nature. (I will probably find a way to combine this clause and the one above it since it's the same "poor wording of the text" that causes such an issue. However, my original draft had them separated, and I'll need to play with wording a bit to ensure the meaning and implications of the issue are clear.)
  8. The time periods listed in the resolution's text are largely based off the now-repealed GAR#67 Habeas Corpus and may be wholly inappropriate for some WA member nations due to the varied lifespans within the WA multiverse. Detaining an individual for 14% of a 30-day lifespan is inhumane; limiting detainment to only 96 hours for those that may live hundreds or thousands of years is inconsequential. (This is something that could potentially be scrapped, as I'm not sure how effective it is, as an argument. Thoughts on this clause, specifically, are more than welcome.)
HOPES that a less micromanaging variation of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly;


Numbered for my benefit (thanks, Mouse):
  1. Goes without saying, kind of. Many would argue that habitual drunkards would eventually break a law of one form or another, and hence be arrested and sent to rehab, but, sadly, it is very possible for a drunk to remain under the criminal radar, especially in nations where intoxication outside of registered establishments isn't a crime. (OOC: And I think it is generally accepted that alcohol-related criminal activity is actually perpetrated by less than 10% of habitual drinkers—don't quote me, though.)
  2. I was a little worried there, but then I read Refugee Protection, and it says nothing about administrative detention. So yes, this means that processing may be restricted to what can be done in six hours. (A problem if you have a boatload of refugees, and I mean "dingy holding three times its volume" boatload.)
  3. Not going to say anything about that there; I was one of the many who already made that obvious.
  4. He never really made that clear, having a second read. It's hard to tell whether it's all charges under the 48-hour law, or each charge for up to 48hrs individually.
  5. Yeah...that's an interesting point there. It would be easy for those with indenture laws that require detention for those who fail to pay what is owed, but for those who don't...
  6. I made a point fairly early in the vote on that. Those last four clauses sounded like a "just to prove", but had no material behind it. So basically it would just end up being a middle finger to the legitimate opponents.
  7. See above.
  8. See point 1.

As I said, I would love to see this replaced with something usable, but if not, then Linard can just revise my nation's existing Habeas Corpus laws to make things usable (which'll be good, because then, if things get especially worrying, he can just exercise Empirical Decision and suspend Habeas Corpus...again.)

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

User avatar
Zaklen
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 443
Founded: Jun 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaklen » Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:55 am

Zaklen stands in support of this repeal. If you add "Habeas Corpus Act" to our legal code, it will make the situation caused by "Double Jeopardy Prohibition" even worse. Yesterday, when someone was acquitted in a murder trial, he immediately stood up and yelled "I did it!" at the top of his lungs. We handled it by arresting him on the spot for what would, under the "Habeas Corpus Act," be a suspicion-less detention.
- Peter Zyvex
Supreme Ruler of Zaklen
______________________________
Religion brings out both the best and the worst in humanity. Obviously, I strive to be an example of it bringing out the best.

User avatar
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 481
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:19 am

Zaklen wrote:Zaklen stands in support of this repeal. If you add "Habeas Corpus Act" to our legal code, it will make the situation caused by "Double Jeopardy Prohibition" even worse. Yesterday, when someone was acquitted in a murder trial, he immediately stood up and yelled "I did it!" at the top of his lungs. We handled it by arresting him on the spot for what would, under the "Habeas Corpus Act," be a suspicion-less detention.


We're suffering much the same situation, lynching has become a major problem, and it's getting difficult to convince the police to stop it happening.
Labour is Freedom, Service is Enslavement.
From the Desk of Ambassador Valentina Ironfoot,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of the Exterior,
Parlaiment House,
12 Revolution Blvd,
Stalliongrad ST19-3BQ,
G.S.R. Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories

New Zepuha wrote:We have voted AGAINST this laudable act.
Khadgar wrote:
Randy F Marsh wrote:
most of the communist parties that are out there are incompatible with communism.


Well "Jack-booted Authoritarian Dick Party" is a tough sell.
⚧I'm a woman.⚧

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:42 am

The Lion and the Committee for the Royal Household is currently in executive session, but Dr. Crick, the outgoing representative, has directed me to state that we stand by this Quick!Repeal.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Ainocra
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1364
Founded: Sep 20, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Ainocra » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:48 am

support
Alcon Enta
Fleet Marshal of Ainocra
Former Foreign Minister and Top Banana of Monkey Island
Former Keeper of the Deshret and Vizier of Osiris
"From far, from eve and morning and yon twelve-winded sky, the stuff of life to knit blew hither: here am I. ...Now--for a breath I tarry nor yet disperse apart--take my hand quick and tell me, what have you in your heart." --Roger Zelazny

User avatar
Moonesy
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Mar 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Moonesy » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:54 am

I am in full support of repeal.....not being able to commit me mentally ill people against their will can have dire results

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:17 pm

Thanks to everyone who has expressed support so far. I was hoping to get this redrafted tonight to potentially submit tomorrow, but that .... obviously didn't happen. However, I'm thinking I'm going to split up the long list into "sections." The numbered list I have now will probably remain, but only consist of arguments having to do with the illogical, arbitrary time limits included in the resolution's text.

I'll probably split off the Clause 3 & 6 arguments into separate clauses/phrases. And, I think that the whole "and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:" debacle deserves a section all its own ... Especially since I'm now fairly confident that while the items that follow are expressly ALLOWED (i.e. not prohibited) they are still LIMITED by the aforementioned clauses due to poor wording choices.

Of course, any additional arguments are more than welcome, as are any suggestions on how to better argue the shortcomings of this resolution.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Snefaldia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 771
Founded: Dec 05, 2006
Father Knows Best State

Postby Snefaldia » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:48 pm

The States-Federation will gladly support this repeal.

Nemo Taranton
etc.
Welcome to Snefaldia!

Ideological Bulwark #68

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:03 am

Mousebumples wrote:Thanks to everyone who has expressed support so far. I was hoping to get this redrafted tonight to potentially submit tomorrow, but that .... obviously didn't happen. However, I'm thinking I'm going to split up the long list into "sections." The numbered list I have now will probably remain, but only consist of arguments having to do with the illogical, arbitrary time limits included in the resolution's text.

I'll probably split off the Clause 3 & 6 arguments into separate clauses/phrases. And, I think that the whole "and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:" debacle deserves a section all its own ... Especially since I'm now fairly confident that while the items that follow are expressly ALLOWED (i.e. not prohibited) they are still LIMITED by the aforementioned clauses due to poor wording choices.

Of course, any additional arguments are more than welcome, as are any suggestions on how to better argue the shortcomings of this resolution.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

I'm going to assume you read Quelesh's latest response, right. For the benefit of those assembled, I shall quote direct from the records:
Quelesh wrote:Thank you to everyone who helped this resolution pass with over 75% of the vote! This is long overdue.

Damanucus wrote:Ah, no. This may be your resolution, but your message regarding that part of the resolution is as vague as it comes. I hate having to refer back to something I said before, for fear of doing one of the things I hate most—argumentum ad nauseum—but I feel I must:

Now, you ask me once upon a time why my formatting is superior to yours. It's simple: it's unambiguous. Yours is vague, so much so that all of us opponents think it's as superfluous as, well, an extra wheel on a car. There are no extra conditions regarding these points; they just exist, seemingly without context.

Now, do you want to ask me again why my formatting is more superior to yours? Although, given that there is less than three hours left in voting, and your act is going to pass with little contest, I can barely see you doing it, and instead using the time to gloat over the fact that you passed another resolution, despite fairly audible protests to the contrary.


The wording of the CLARIFIES section is not vague at all. It is very explicit: "nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted..." Period. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment, or necessary medical quarantines, or anything else in the CLARIFIES section. Nothing could be more clear. It baffles me how anyone could think that this resolution prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, when the resolution explicitly says that it does not.

Mousebumples wrote:I"m not saying that people need to be dismissed from any involuntary psychiatric commitment after 6 hours. I'm saying that they have 6 hours to determine if an individual needs to be committed. (Provided, of course, that there's no crime to speak of, otherwise) I can't speak for other member nations, but psychiatric evaluations (prior to psychiatric commitment) often happen at the police station as soon as a licensed psychiatrist is available to perform the evaluation. Sometimes the psychiatrists are unable to arrive immediately to perform the evaluation and some evaluations take longer if they are not as clear cut of a case. We are not in the practice of committing people for such a purpose and then going, "Just kidding, you shouldn't have been committed at all, but we had to rush things because of this terrible resolution that will be on the books in a few hours." Apparently, we may have to consider getting into that line of work, however, in the short term.

The involuntary commitment of the mentally ill is absolutely allowed. However, the evaluation process that may be necessary, leading up to that involuntary commitment is severely curtailed by the limitations of this proposal.


Is your nation in the habit of forcibly locking people up against their will, as a prelude to their involuntary psychiatric institutionalization, without even having a damn good reason to think that they're not only mentally ill but so mentally ill as to be genuinely dangerous? If your nation has a good enough reason to believe that a person is so mentally ill as to make her a genuine danger to the public, good enough to justify sending people to forcibly drag her to a locked room against her will, then surely it has a good enough reason to consider her "mentally ill" for the purposes of clause 9 of this resolution. If you don't have a reason to consider her "mentally ill" at all, much less so mentally ill as to constitute a danger requiring her to be locked up, then why are you locking her up in the first place?

Mousebumples wrote:EDIT: Actually, after further consideration, I'm fairly confident that the Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment (IPC), as listed by this proposal, would be limited to the 6 hour time limit. (Provided, of course, that there's no crime to speak of, otherwise) After all, there's nothing outlawing such a commitment, but the time limit standards set by the proposal would still apply due to the lack of any clause that exempts the IPC from such criteria. It's not illegal - certainly not, since the clause in question specifically allows for IPC. However, it doesn't "RESERVE the right for legislation on such matters" in future proposals. It doesn't SPECIFY that the items that follow shall not be subject to the time limits. I shall have to update my arguments accordingly, now ...


This resolution cannot be interpreted as prohibiting any involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients. Your argument is that if a patient is involuntarily institutionalized, then once the six hour mark has been reached, this resolution prohibits her continued involuntary psychiatric commitment. But this resolution cannot prohibit her continued involuntary psychiatric commitment, because nothing in this resolution can be interpreted as doing so, because the resolution explicitly says as much.

The explicit denotation of the resolution text counters your argument.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

As I'm sure you can all read, the Clarifies section was pipped (by myself and Nikolas, above all else) for being superfluous, a claim which Alexandria failed to credit. As such (and obviously), the repeal should note the fact that Clauses 9 to 12 are such, and as such details that they are still subject to the time limits of Clause 1.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Last edited by Damanucus on Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:01 am

Damanucus wrote:As I'm sure you can all read, the Clarifies section was pipped (by myself and Nikolas, above all else) for being superfluous, a claim which Alexandria failed to credit. As such (and obviously), the repeal should note the fact that Clauses 9 to 12 are such, and as such details that they are still subject to the time limits of Clause 1.

And technically Clause 2, as well, should there be a crime involved. I would expect that some WA member nations may decide that certain individuals may be better off receiving mental health assistance rather than being put through the process of a criminal trial that they may not fully comprehend, depending on the nature and severity of their mental illness.

But, yes, that is something I am planning to rectify, going forward, with this draft. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Ambassador from Quelesh for their continued arguing of point, which caused me to take an even closer look at the precise wording of that clause and thereby realize the additional shortcomings of the text that I had originally failed to recognize.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:56 pm

This may show that I'm a bear of very little brain...but I could never understand the problems caused by GAR #190. This does not mean that I am being ignorant, but because the text is a bit dense and I'm not willing to read all the way through to try to work out the problems of GAR #190. I would rather have someone explain it to me please.

I'd be inclined to support this Repeal, just becauseI have a slight hatred for Ms Yadoru (Qualesh's excuse for an "ambassador"), who has a "rose-tinted" view of the world which doesn't reflect reality.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:23 pm

Merfurian wrote:This may show that I'm a bear of very little brain...but I could never understand the problems caused by GAR #190. This does not mean that I am being ignorant, but because the text is a bit dense and I'm not willing to read all the way through to try to work out the problems of GAR #190. I would rather have someone explain it to me please.

I'd be inclined to support this Repeal, just becauseI have a slight hatred for Ms Yadoru (Qualesh's excuse for an "ambassador"), who has a "rose-tinted" view of the world which doesn't reflect reality.

That's, honestly, a big part of the problem. The resolution is geared towards WA member nations who have legal/justice systems that fit with what the Queleshian ambassador views as "appropriate." Many of her counter-arguments involve saying, "If you're doing it THIS way, that's terrible because of X." And, again, the fact that the repeal text doesn't make the issues clear is a big problem with my repeal text as presently written. Hopefully the redraft will make it clearer.

I'm happy to further illustrate the issue for you, but - for now - I'm going to hold off, in hopes that I can use you as a "test subject" on the new repeal draft. Most WA member nations do not visit the forums, so I need to make sure that the repeal text really explains HOW and WHY the resolution is a problem as is. After I get caught up on the various queries and concerns on the 3 repeal drafts I have floating about, I'll get going on that.

Thanks for the (tentative) support!
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7198
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:25 pm

Mousebumples wrote:After I get caught up on the various queries and concerns on the 3 repeal drafts I have floating about, I'll get going on that.


I sincerely hope you'll be prioritising this repeal.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:28 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:After I get caught up on the various queries and concerns on the 3 repeal drafts I have floating about, I'll get going on that.


I sincerely hope you'll be prioritising this repeal.

My current plan is to submit all 3, likely, within the next week or so. (I could hold off longer on FiCT since it's not as much of a priority, but I enjoy being able to combine TG campaigns since it saves me time.) I am not planning to take an eternity to draft this repeal; however, I firmly believe in doing things right the first time, and I don't want to rush the repeal draft and have it fail At Vote.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7198
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:30 pm

Mousebumples wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
I sincerely hope you'll be prioritising this repeal.

My current plan is to submit all 3, likely, within the next week or so. (I could hold off longer on FiCT since it's not as much of a priority, but I enjoy being able to combine TG campaigns since it saves me time.) I am not planning to take an eternity to draft this repeal; however, I firmly believe in doing things right the first time, and I don't want to rush the repeal draft and have it fail At Vote.


That's fine, but I'd appreciate a heads up when submitting this; I'd like to ensure my replacement draft is all ready.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:34 pm

Updated draft!

Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the intent of the author to protect individuals from unreasonable detainment practices within WA member nations;

DOCUMENTS, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may result in any number of difficulties with regards to ensuring the safety and prosperity within WA member nations, which include these specific shortcomings:
  1. The limitations of Clause 1 essentially require WA member nations to criminalize what may otherwise be non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.
    1. Detainment of inebriated and/or intoxicated individuals would be limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period in nations who do not criminalize public intoxication. Holding such individuals for the duration of their intoxication, for the purposes of public safety, will likely be limited to one occasion per week, which may be insufficient for those who frequently imbibe.
    2. The limitations on administrative detainment of illegal immigrants may not allow WA member nations to determine where such individuals originated from prior to expelling them from their nation.
  2. There are no exceptions for Clauses 1 and 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”
    1. Some suspects may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime. Such a process may take longer than the maximum of 96 hours allowed by this resolution.
    2. Some crimes may be especially heinous, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, and may require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed.
  3. Clause 3 does not prevent the temporary detainment of an individual on multiple occasions for the same or similar charges; this tactic may be employed by some WA member nations for intimidation.
DETAILS that Clause 6 outlaws any detainment criminal offenses that are only punishable with a fine. This would create more work for individual police forces as they seek to prosecute such crimes and/or would require WA member nations to change their penal code to include the possibility of jail time for such offenses.

QUOTES the following problematic line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are only allowed for up to 6 hours in a 7 day period due to the time restrictions listed within this resolution.

HOPES that a more useful and universally applicable version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.


Given my utter dissatisfaction with the original repeal text, this is a VAST improvement, in my mind. Of course, critiques and queries are more than welcome. I hope this is much more accessible and explicit as to the specific problems with the resolution in question.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhrat
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Last edited by Mousebumples on Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Damanucus
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1699
Founded: Dec 10, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Damanucus » Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:10 pm

Looks good to me. If there is anything else I can find in the resolution that you can use, you'll be the first to know.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:03 am

Mousebumples wrote:
Merfurian wrote:This may show that I'm a bear of very little brain...but I could never understand the problems caused by GAR #190. This does not mean that I am being ignorant, but because the text is a bit dense and I'm not willing to read all the way through to try to work out the problems of GAR #190. I would rather have someone explain it to me please.

I'd be inclined to support this Repeal, just becauseI have a slight hatred for Ms Yadoru (Qualesh's excuse for an "ambassador"), who has a "rose-tinted" view of the world which doesn't reflect reality.

That's, honestly, a big part of the problem. The resolution is geared towards WA member nations who have legal/justice systems that fit with what the Queleshian ambassador views as "appropriate." Many of her counter-arguments involve saying, "If you're doing it THIS way, that's terrible because of X." And, again, the fact that the repeal text doesn't make the issues clear is a big problem with my repeal text as presently written. Hopefully the redraft will make it clearer.

I'm happy to further illustrate the issue for you, but - for now - I'm going to hold off, in hopes that I can use you as a "test subject" on the new repeal draft. Most WA member nations do not visit the forums, so I need to make sure that the repeal text really explains HOW and WHY the resolution is a problem as is. After I get caught up on the various queries and concerns on the 3 repeal drafts I have floating about, I'll get going on that.

Thanks for the (tentative) support!


The new text makes sense to me.

Klause Uliyan
etc
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 481
Founded: Jan 21, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:13 am

Oh yes, this is much clearer, specifically quoting the CLARIFIES section is a masterstroke for gaining lemming-power. It has my full support.

Ambassador D. Ironhoof,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs.
Labour is Freedom, Service is Enslavement.
From the Desk of Ambassador Valentina Ironfoot,
Stalliongrad Office of Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of the Exterior,
Parlaiment House,
12 Revolution Blvd,
Stalliongrad ST19-3BQ,
G.S.R. Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories

New Zepuha wrote:We have voted AGAINST this laudable act.
Khadgar wrote:
Randy F Marsh wrote:
most of the communist parties that are out there are incompatible with communism.


Well "Jack-booted Authoritarian Dick Party" is a tough sell.
⚧I'm a woman.⚧

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:02 am

Damanucus wrote:Looks good to me. If there is anything else I can find in the resolution that you can use, you'll be the first to know.

Appreciated, as always - thanks!

Merfurian wrote:The new text makes sense to me.

Glad to hear it. Thanks again for your willingness to serve as my "test subject" on this repeal. :)

Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories wrote:Oh yes, this is much clearer, specifically quoting the CLARIFIES section is a masterstroke for gaining lemming-power. It has my full support.

I wasn't sure if I'd have the character space, initially, to do such quoting, but I definitely have the room, which is nice. I could quote other sections as well, but I don't know that that would add anything else to the proposal. Anyhow, thanks for your support!

Of course, further critiques and comments are more than welcome!
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:34 am

Mousebumples wrote:
Merfurian wrote:The new text makes sense to me.

Glad to hear it. Thanks again for your willingness to serve as my "test subject" on this repeal. :)



Being as I am your "test subject", there is still one slight problem with the text:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following [...]

What does that point actually mean? I read the following paragraph - this one:
REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are only allowed for up to 6 hours in a 7 day period due to the time restrictions listed within this resolution.


- and I became even more confused! Please explain what the problems are surrounding the first set of quoted text ("clarifies that..."), and please explain the arguments propogated in the "realizes that the aforementioned phrasing" segment are.

Klause Uliyan
Chief Ambassador and Test Subject
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9010
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:35 am

Glen-Rhodes finds that the Habeas Corpus Act is more reminiscent of domestic-level legislation or judicial requirements. It contains many arbitrary time restrictions. It also delves into issues that aren't commonly understood to deal with the writ of habeas corpus. Article 7 is the closest thing to the actual writ itself. The rest may deal with due process rights, but not necessarily habeas corpus, and there is no reason for the World Assembly to be dictating due process rights with this kind of specificity.

While we do not necessarily agree with all of the arguments put forth in this repeal, Glen-Rhodes does support the overall repeal campaign. Furthermore, we suggest that the World Assembly establish the writ of habeas corpus throughout all member states, but also create a human rights court that can adjudicate on whether or not a state's implementation of the writ is acceptable under modern democratic principles.

- Dr. B. Castro

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8409
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:25 am

Merfurian wrote:
Being as I am your "test subject", there is still one slight problem with the text:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following [...]

What does that point actually mean? I read the following paragraph - this one:
REALIZES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution, which means “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are only allowed for up to 6 hours in a 7 day period due to the time restrictions listed within this resolution.

-
- and I became even more confused! Please explain what the problems are surrounding the first set of quoted text ("clarifies that..."), and please explain the arguments propogated in the "realizes that the aforementioned phrasing" segment are.

Klause Uliyan
Chief Ambassador and Test Subject

Okay, let me try to explain this, and then maybe you can help me figure out if there's a better way to word things to make this point within the repeal text.

The resolution itself (in part) reads as follows:
1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

...

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:
8. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;
9. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;
10. The practice of double jeopardy or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on that topic;
11. The detention of prisoners of war in accordance with international law; and
12. Medical quarantines necessary to prevent a pandemic caused by an infectious pathogen.

Now, let's look at the first line:
and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

I've underlined and bolded the most "important" word in this clause, in my mind. Due to the presence of this word in the phrase, all of the following listed items (all 5 of them) are legal. This means that your nation can place individuals into voluntary protective custody, may involuntarily commit individuals for psychiatric treatment, may detain prisoners of war, and may quarantine individuals due to a pandemic. It also doesn't outlaw double jeopardy, but since that doesn't have much to do with "time limits" (and, currently, is already covered under a different WA resolution), I'm pretty much going to ignore that one.

However, the only thing the resolution says is that those things are NOT PROHIBITED. Let's make believe that this resolution was still in the drafting phase. What if the clause I quoted before read as follows, instead:
and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting or otherwise limiting any of the following:

How do those extra 3 words change things? Fairly significantly, I'd think. As the resolution is currently written, the time limits in Clauses 1 and 2 DO APPLY to the items that follow the clause. That means that involuntary psychiatric commitment and medical quarantine - in the absence of any sort of criminal act - can only last for a maximum time limit of 6 hours in 7 days. (Understandably, both of those situations would be "necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained," which is why the limit is 2+4 versus the regular 2 mentioned in Clause 1.)

I'm fairly certain that the Ambassador from Quelesh intended the meaning in the amended phrase. However, as I am quite fond of saying, "The law IS what the law SAYS." The resolution does not say that the following list of things are not affected by the terms and limits of the resolution in question. It only states that they are NOT PROHIBITED. Full stop, the end. That's it.

What's the point of having someone be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility if you only have 6 hours (per 7 day period) to get them medicated and hopefully consenting to the commitment process for their own well-being and treatment?

What's the point of instituting a medical quarantine - for an infectious pandemic - if you're only able to hold people for 6 hours (per 7 day period) ? That's not enough time to stop a person with STREP THROAT or PINK EYE from being contagious - let alone an individual with a (likely) more serious medical condition.

I have the character space, so I'm happy to elaborate further with regards to that clause, if you have specific suggestions that you think would help to spell things out a bit better. Please, if you have any suggestions (or, of course, if anything is still not clear), let me know.

Thanks again,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads