[ABANDONED] The Treatment of those accused Serious Offences,

[Kenmoria]

[OOC: I'm sorry, are kids usually charged with criminal offenses after these scuffles? This seems like useless nitpicking, seeing as playground scuffles, AFAIK, aren't usually considered crimes.]

They would be under this proposal.

(OOC: The definition only applies to a crime involving one of the four list items. It must be a crime involving the injuring of multiple people.)

[Jebslund]

[OOC: I'm sorry, are kids usually charged with criminal offenses after these scuffles? This seems like useless nitpicking, seeing as playground scuffles, AFAIK, aren't usually considered crimes.]

They would be under this proposal.

[OOC: No, they wouldn't, unless they'd already have been charged with a crime.

2. Further Defines a serious crime as a crime which implicates the accused in one or more of the following events:

c. The injury of more than two people,

The underlined words mean somebody has to be being accused of a crime for this to take effect. In other words, if no police report is being filed, there is no crime in the legal sense. Unless those kids would already have been accused of a crime, this proposal isn't suddenly making a playground scuffle a criminal offense.]

[Bears Armed]

OOC
As currently written, wouldn't this even allow the accused to invoke their right of anonymity against the legal system itself, thus making trials effectively impossible?

[Heraswed]

OOC
As currently written, wouldn't this even allow the accused to invoke their right of anonymity against the legal system itself, thus making trials effectively impossible?

An interesting idea, I'll try to clarify it in the resolution.

[Kenmoria]

“Define ‘sexual violation’; that sounds like a very vague and overly poetic term to use in a clarifying clause. I suggest putting in some clearer and more direct language.”

[Alyrria]

“Alyrria is opposed. We do not believe that lives are irreparably ruined by being found not guilty of crimes, except perhaps in corrupt capitalist nations. And, even then, such instances are limited to a small handful of highly-publicized cases.”

[Kenmoria]

“Alyrria is opposed. We do not believe that lives are irreparably ruined by being found not guilty of crimes, except perhaps in corrupt capitalist nations. And, even then, such instances are limited to a small handful of highly-publicized cases.”

“Surely anything which concerns a violation of human rights, oftentimes the right to be innocent until declared guilt in the eyes of the public, is worth addressing, even if it only happens on one or two occasions?”

[Heraswed]

"I'm adding a preambulatory clause, lauding the GA's efforts to preserve the rights of those accused of crimes, I believe there are some. What resolutions should I link?"

[Kenmoria]

"I'm adding a preambulatory clause, lauding the GA's efforts to preserve the rights of those accused of crimes, I believe there are some. What resolutions should I link?"

“I don’t think there is a specific need to mention past resolutions, although giving a list of topics covered would be nice, for example, the rights of people facing trial, the rights of those imprisoned, and the rights of individuals released from prison.”

(OOC: If you do decide to mention past ones, go ahead, but don’t include actual [url] links unless it is to the actual GA page.)

[Heraswed]

"I'm adding a preambulatory clause, lauding the GA's efforts to preserve the rights of those accused of crimes, I believe there are some. What resolutions should I link?"

“I don’t think there is a specific need to mention past resolutions, although giving a list of topics covered would be nice, for example, the rights of people facing trial, the rights of those imprisoned, and the rights of individuals released from prison.”

(OOC: If you do decide to mention past ones, go ahead, but don’t include actual [url] links unless it is to the actual GA page.)

"I thank you for your suggestion."

[Araraukar]

“Surely anything which concerns a violation of human rights, oftentimes the right to be innocent until declared guilt in the eyes of the public, is worth addressing, even if it only happens on one or two occasions?”

"A simple question, a simple answer: no. If it only happens once or twice, it doesn't need the full force of a WA resolution, and furthermore there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from going to the media to accuse someone of something without making it official by reporting it to the law enforcement. You cannot stomp down on the press completely, the WA has already seen to that, nor can you make people shut up completely unless they're trying to rouse people into violence, the WA has seen to that as well, and unless you have a magic wand or some device that might as well be a magic wand, you can't literally force people's opinions about someone to go one way or another. So, again, for the very few occasions when an actual police report would be made, rather than the media being used to crucify someone - you can say you suspect someone of doing something bad, and let the media to do the rest - if your nation lacks the laws to do something about it, establish them in your nation and leave the WA out of it."

[Tinfect]

“Surely anything which concerns a violation of human rights, oftentimes the right to be innocent until declared guilt in the eyes of the public, is worth addressing, even if it only happens on one or two occasions?”

"A simple question, a simple answer: no. If it only happens once or twice, it doesn't need the full force of a WA resolution, and furthermore there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from going to the media to accuse someone of something without making it official by reporting it to the law enforcement. You cannot stomp down on the press completely, the WA has already seen to that, nor can you make people shut up completely unless they're trying to rouse people into violence, the WA has seen to that as well, and unless you have a magic wand or some device that might as well be a magic wand, you can't literally force people's opinions about someone to go one way or another. So, again, for the very few occasions when an actual police report would be made, rather than the media being used to crucify someone - you can say you suspect someone of doing something bad, and let the media to do the rest - if your nation lacks the laws to do something about it, establish them in your nation and leave the WA out of it."

"The Imperium is agreed," said Feren, who then stepped out from behind the Araraukarian delegation, "If your Government allows news organizations to make grand shows of what should otherwise be legal proceedings, that is your concern alone, and certainly not grounds for international legislation, especially one with such... bizarre mandates."

[Araraukar]

"The Imperium is agreed," said Feren, who then stepped out from behind the Araraukarian delegation

Johan started. "Don't sneak up on people like that!" At least it was just one of them this time. The people from the ultra-militaristic nations made him slightly uncomfortable, and the weird triumvirate that Tinfect had going on, was even more unnerving - didn't their various parts of the government manage to agree even enough to just send just one person to represent the whole? There were days he really missed Markhov - the man was stodgy as hell but still more, well, human than these newer people.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium is agreed," said Feren, who then stepped out from behind the Araraukarian delegation

Johan started. "Don't sneak up on people like that!" At least it was just one of them this time. The people from the ultra-militaristic nations made him slightly uncomfortable, and the weird triumvirate that Tinfect had going on, was even more unnerving - didn't their various parts of the government manage to agree even enough to just send just one person to represent the whole? There were days he really missed Markhov - the man was stodgy as hell but still more, well, human than these newer people.

OOC:
Now, remember that you asked for this...
IC:

As if on cue, Markhov stepped out from behind Feren - quite a feat, given that he was over a head taller than the representative of Civil Oversight, - "Representative, do discover where, exactly, the Military representative has gone. Preferably before an international incident."

Feren's expression fell immediately; he slowly turned around, acknowledged the Diplomatic Overseer with a quick nod, then after a moment's hesitation, quickly exited the chamber.

"As for the... legislation at hand, the Imperium is opposed entirely. We have no interest in allowing the World Assembly any more interference over the Imperial legal system than it currently maintains; and, of course, it already has far too much. The specific contents of the draft are as irrelevant as they are... weak."

[Araraukar]

*snip*

"I take it that How To Sneak Up On People is something they teach to all diplomats in the Imperium?" Johan asked with a grin. He had to admit it was much less unnerving when it happened to other people.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Steph seethes jealously at the obvious personal cloaking technology being flaunted so brazenly by the Imperial delegation, then pulls herself together to make her extremely important official statement before the assembled delegates in the chamber.

"Yeah. Opposed."

She goes back to glaring at Markhov, trying and totally failing to be in any way subtle about it. Just how compact can they get that shit, anyway???

[Tinfect]

"I take it that How To Sneak Up On People is something they teach to all diplomats in the Imperium?" Johan asked with a grin. He had to admit it was much less unnerving when it happened to other people.

"I haven't the slightest idea what you mean, Ambassador," he said, managing to maintain a look of stoic innocence. "It is good to be back, in any case, however briefly it may be."

Steph seethes jealously at the obvious personal cloaking technology being flaunted so brazenly by the Imperial delegation, then pulls herself together to make her extremely important official statement before the assembled delegates in the chamber.

"Yeah. Opposed."

She goes back to glaring at Markhov, trying and totally failing to be in any way subtle about it. Just how compact can they get that shit, anyway???

Markhov takes notice while scanning the room, returning her glare with a quizzical expression. "Is... there some concern, Ambassador?" There was a pause. "Perhaps you, - the both of you, - should join me in the bar? It would perhaps be best to leave the chamber to those who have more to say."

[Kenmoria]

“You have two clause 2s.”

[Heraswed]

“You have two clause 2s.”

"Ah, a classic mistake, I've moved to rectify it. If no-one wishes to further continue our discussion, the proposal will be submitted at or after 22:00 (GMT)" The proposal will now remain for the foreseeable future.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Iulia rubbed her temples a few times as she reread the proposal text. "Pardon, but would the honorable ambassador please explain how they envision a trial proceeding should the accused invoke the anonymity provided by this proposal, while simultaneously following Resolution #37? Let us set the scene. The case is The City of Letitia vs. Redacted, concerning the murder of Iulius Ceasar. Redacted has exercised their right to anonymity. The public and press have taken their seats, since Resolution 37 provides only one ground to exclude them, which is not implicated in this case. Presumably, then, the accused will not be present in the room, and has foregone any right they may have to testify, and affirmatively refuses to do so as that would by necessity reveal their identity. All of the advocates, judges, and witnesses will need to say "Redacted" or "the accused" or some other witty but oblique reference to the person without revealing their identity, and the prosecutor will somehow have to establish the identity of the accused without eliciting a direct identification from, or any information that would reveal the identity of the accused from any witness. And they have committed a crime if anyone slips up once during what could potentially be rather long proceedings. Do we follow you correctly? In what universe is it going to be possible to conduct criminal matters in this way?"

[Kenmoria]

Iulia rubbed her temples a few times as she reread the proposal text. "Pardon, but would the honorable ambassador please explain how they envision a trial proceeding should the accused invoke the anonymity provided by this proposal, while simultaneously following Resolution #37? Let us set the scene. The case is The City of Letitia vs. Redacted, concerning the murder of Iulius Ceasar. Redacted has exercised their right to anonymity. The public and press have taken their seats, since Resolution 37 provides only one ground to exclude them, which is not implicated in this case. Presumably, then, the accused will not be present in the room, and has foregone any right they may have to testify, and affirmatively refuses to do so as that would by necessity reveal their identity. All of the advocates, judges, and witnesses will need to say "Redacted" or "the accused" or some other witty but oblique reference to the person without revealing their identity, and the prosecutor will somehow have to establish the identity of the accused without eliciting a direct identification from, or any information that would reveal the identity of the accused from any witness. And they have committed a crime if anyone slips up once during what could potentially be rather long proceedings. Do we follow you correctly? In what universe is it going to be possible to conduct criminal matters in this way?"

(OOC: Oh, that was not something I considered, and I should probably have checked for contradiction of existing law about trials when I first gave feedback. Unless the author can somehow put in the preamble some way that trials under the condition of anonymity will be open and transparent, which doesn’t look likely, abandoning this proposal may be the only option. Alternatively, you could try repealing GA #037, but that will be a lot of work.)

[Heraswed]

Iulia rubbed her temples a few times as she reread the proposal text. "Pardon, but would the honorable ambassador please explain how they envision a trial proceeding should the accused invoke the anonymity provided by this proposal, while simultaneously following Resolution #37? Let us set the scene. The case is The City of Letitia vs. Redacted, concerning the murder of Iulius Ceasar. Redacted has exercised their right to anonymity. The public and press have taken their seats, since Resolution 37 provides only one ground to exclude them, which is not implicated in this case. Presumably, then, the accused will not be present in the room, and has foregone any right they may have to testify, and affirmatively refuses to do so as that would by necessity reveal their identity. All of the advocates, judges, and witnesses will need to say "Redacted" or "the accused" or some other witty but oblique reference to the person without revealing their identity, and the prosecutor will somehow have to establish the identity of the accused without eliciting a direct identification from, or any information that would reveal the identity of the accused from any witness. And they have committed a crime if anyone slips up once during what could potentially be rather long proceedings. Do we follow you correctly? In what universe is it going to be possible to conduct criminal matters in this way?"

"Reading #37, I see the issue you're attempting to highlight, however, the clause merely calls for proceedings to be 'open and transparent', without any definition of what this means. This essentially means that any member nation can define what 'open and transparent' means for their purposes. In short, we can disregard it. Meanwhile, I should perhaps clarify that, under anonymity, the identity of the accused should not be made available to the general public, those witnesses and others to whom the identity of the accused is pertinent may be aware, but sworn to secrecy."
OOC: I might add more later but my laptop is about to run out of charge.

[Araraukar]

"Reading #37, I see the issue you're attempting to highlight, however, the clause merely calls for proceedings to be 'open and transparent', without any definition of what this means. This essentially means that any member nation can define what 'open and transparent' means for their purposes. In short, we can disregard it."

"How can you disregard it? I can't imagine how any kind of trial with the level of secrecy you wish attached would in any way be "open and transparent" in even the most dishonest reading of the words I can think of, would still satisfy the necessity to obey existing resolutions in good faith."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Reading #37, I see the issue you're attempting to highlight, however, the clause merely calls for proceedings to be 'open and transparent', without any definition of what this means. This essentially means that any member nation can define what 'open and transparent' means for their purposes. In short, we can disregard it. Meanwhile, I should perhaps clarify that, under anonymity, the identity of the accused should not be made available to the general public, those witnesses and others to whom the identity of the accused is pertinent may be aware, but sworn to secrecy."
OOC: I might add more later but my laptop is about to run out of charge.

"Ambassador, I suggest you read the resolution carefully. The entire clause makes clear what 'open and transparent' means. We will bold the relevant portion for you that clarifies the meaning:"

REQUIRES that evidence-giving, any addressing of the trial adjudicators by either the prosecution or defence, and any procedural or legal directives made by the trial director shall be open and transparent, excepting that individual evidence-giving may be done with the public excluded if the trial director agrees that openness would present a risk to national security;

By defining the bolded exception, the resolution establishes a baseline that open and transparent necessarily means the public has a virtually unlimited right to be present, as they may only be excluded from specific evidence giving, and only if it would risk national security. They cannot be excluded merely on grounds the evidence would reveal the identity of the accused. What do you plan on doing? Swear the entire courtroom to secrecy on a daily basis? Re-administer the secrecy oath constantly every time a person enters or leaves the room?

Therefore, our question stands. How, in the name of Iustitia most revered, are we supposed to hold a trial in front of the general public without revealing the identity of the accused?

[Heraswed]

"Reading #37, I see the issue you're attempting to highlight, however, the clause merely calls for proceedings to be 'open and transparent', without any definition of what this means. This essentially means that any member nation can define what 'open and transparent' means for their purposes. In short, we can disregard it. Meanwhile, I should perhaps clarify that, under anonymity, the identity of the accused should not be made available to the general public, those witnesses and others to whom the identity of the accused is pertinent may be aware, but sworn to secrecy."
OOC: I might add more later but my laptop is about to run out of charge.

"Ambassador, I suggest you read the resolution carefully. The entire clause makes clear what 'open and transparent' means. We will bold the relevant portion for you that clarifies the meaning:"

REQUIRES that evidence-giving, any addressing of the trial adjudicators by either the prosecution or defence, and any procedural or legal directives made by the trial director shall be open and transparent, excepting that individual evidence-giving may be done with the public excluded if the trial director agrees that openness would present a risk to national security;

By defining the bolded exception, the resolution establishes a baseline that open and transparent necessarily means the public has a virtually unlimited right to be present, as they may only be excluded from specific evidence giving, and only if it would risk national security. They cannot be excluded merely on grounds the evidence would reveal the identity of the accused. What do you plan on doing? Swear the entire courtroom to secrecy on a daily basis? Re-administer the secrecy oath constantly every time a person enters or leaves the room?

Therefore, our question stands. How, in the name of Iustitia most revered, are we supposed to hold a trial in front of the general public without revealing the identity of the accused?

"Very well, I assume you've seen the many documentaries produced about various criminal cases of the past? These often feature witness testimonies, either reproduced by actors, or delivered from a position such that their identity is concealed. All of these are options, reproducible in the courtroom."