NationStates

Uan aa Boa wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:“Relevancy,” as it pertains to evidence, is the tendency of evidence to make an element of a crime more likely than not.

I find this unclear. You probably mean that evidence is relevant if it allows the court to form a clearer view of the likelihood that a crime was committed by the accused, but I'm not sure, and since the proposal also discussed rates of reoffending - which is the likelihood of crime in a different context - it has the potential to be ambiguous. I'm not sure what you mean by the "tendency of evidence" either. It makes it unclear whether the definition applies to the singular specific piece of evidence before the court or to a more general type or category of evidence.

"I am not sure I agree, but I am open to clarification, ambassador. Evidence is relevant if it makes the existence or nonexistence of an element of a crime more likely than not. Which is to say that testimonial evidence of the sky being blue has no bearing on whether somebody engaged in unprivileged physical conduct for an assault case."

Also, with the introduction of "more likely than not" are you suggesting that the requirement for evidence should be concerned with the balance of probabilities as opposed to reasonable doubt?

"Not at all, simply that evidence must actually go to prove the elements of a crime, even in a minute manner, to be relevant. The standard of proof remains beyond a reasonable doubt. Or whatever a nation uses for criminal cases, I suppose."

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think member nations are required to employ trial by jury. If I'm right about that then mandatory clauses that have to apply to all nations should not assume the existence of a jury.

"You are correct, ambassador, nations are not required, but are heavily entreated, to use juries in criminal trials. However, I disagree that this assumes the presence of a jury. As noted before with the delegation from Araraukar, any motions in limne must take place outside the presence of a jury. If there is no jury, there is no risk that a motion in limne is in their presence. Since this does not require the use of a jury, any presupposition is harmless."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I am not sure I agree, but I am open to clarification, ambassador. Evidence is relevant if it makes the existence or nonexistence of an element of a crime more likely than not. Which is to say that testimonial evidence of the sky being blue has no bearing on whether somebody engaged in unprivileged physical conduct for an assault case."

"... evidence must actually go to prove the elements of a crime, even in a minute manner, to be relevant."

This second definition already removes the unhelpful reference to a tendency and is better for that reason. There remains a difference between the two sentences quoted above, however. In order to be relevant, does evidence have to "make the crime more likely than not" or merely "prove the crime in a minute matter"?

Obviously I understand that the blueness of the sky is not relevant to an assault trial, just as I understand that a person's past sexual behaviour is irrelevant to their giving or withholding consent to a sexual act in one particular instance. I think we all know what relevant means, and the closer your definition of the word for the purposes of this proposal is to that commonly shared understanding, the less potential for ambiguity there will be. No dictionary I have to hand attempts to define relevance in terms of tendencies or likelihoods.

Uan aa Boa wrote:This second definition already removes the unhelpful reference to a tendency and is better for that reason.

"Excellent to hear, ambassador!"

There remains a difference between the two sentences quoted above, however. In order to be relevant, does evidence have to "make the crime more likely than not" or merely "prove the crime in a minute matter"?

"The evidence need not prove any element of the crime, or only slam-dunk cases would ever make it past motions in limne. The evidence needs only contribute in some way, because evidence can be, and often is, cumulative."

Obviously I understand that the blueness of the sky is not relevant to an assault trial, just as I understand that a person's past sexual behaviour is irrelevant to their giving or withholding consent to a sexual act in one particular instance. I think we all know what relevant means, and the closer your definition of the word for the purposes of this proposal is to that commonly shared understanding, the less potential for ambiguity there will be. No dictionary I have to hand attempts to define relevance in terms of tendencies or likelihoods.

"Have you tried a legal dictionary, ambassador? That may well be a useful first step. Context implies a specialized use of relevant in this draft."

American Pere Housh wrote:"Well then we will abstain if it comes to a vote."

"Ambassador, as far as I can tell, this translates roughly to 'We got called out for not doing our job, but don't want to admit it. We're abstaining because voting for proves that we didn't do our job.' You want to correct me if I'm wrong?

"I swear, the many ambassadors from the Confederation rarely have anything of value to add during drafting, and debate with them seems more a matter of babying egos than making rational arguments."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I swear, the many ambassadors from the Confederation rarely have anything of value to add during drafting, and debate with them seems more a matter of babying egos than making rational arguments."

'Ambassador, no matter how much you may disagree with the opinions the Honourable Ambassador from America Pere Housh provides, and though they may lack sound reasoning, surely there is no reason why we can't remain amicable in our discourse and civil in our debate? That said, I will be imitating the Ambassador from America Pere Housh and abstaining from the vote. However, I will commend you on the quality of this resolution, and do assure you that nation of Heraswed shares in your sympathies on this issue and I wish to notify you that the Heraswedian government plans to table a resolution to the Grand Consulate, the contents of which echo the words of this resolution. We wish you well in this endeavour and look forward to working with yourselves and the other Honourable Ambassadors in the near future.'

(OOC: Would it be possible to improve the formatting on the ‘Member states may allow the admission of other evidence [...] particularized to discrete events’ section? I understand that you were originally on mobile, but that shouldn’t be a concern after so long.)

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Would it be possible to improve the formatting on the ‘Member states may allow the admission of other evidence [...] particularized to discrete events’ section? I understand that you were originally on mobile, but that shouldn’t be a concern after so long.)

OOC: That is a deliberately tabulated list with a continuation following the tabulation. It indicates that the tabulated parts are not the end of the list and the following, normally space lines beneath modify the tabulated sections.

OOC: A question or two. You're giving the accuser the immunity of having the evidence of, say, them abusing their dog from being used as evidence to avoid prejudice the way you see it, right? But not the accused? And you're giving the accuser the right to gave their name removed from court documents afterwards, even if the accusation was found ungrounded, while not giving the accused the same right? Even if they were a minor?

Araraukar wrote:OOC: A question or two. You're giving the accuser the immunity of having the evidence of, say, them abusing their dog from being used as evidence to avoid prejudice the way you see it, right? But not the accused?

"No, ambassador. I'm not doing any of that."

And you're giving the accuser the right to gave their name removed from court documents afterwards, even if the accusation was found ungrounded, while not giving the accused the same right? Even if they were a minor?

"Correct. If only because proceedings against defendants are organized by party name, and there is a vested organizational interest in the state not redacting every proceeding. You'll notice I did not remove the right. Nations are welcome to so legislate, or not, as they see fit."

OOC: Ok, just checking.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Ok, just checking.

"Honestly, I would be extremely skeptical of any legal system that allowed a defendant to submit evidence that a rape victim abused animals. It has nothing to do, whatsoever, with whether or not unprivileged sexual interaction occurred."

The United States of Joe Biden Land support this resolution, and the Governor's chambers, House of Representatives, Biden Senate and Military House will be passing legislation of our own version of this act!

We approve of the intents of this Draft. Hope to see it come to vote at some point

"Looking over old files, soliciting responses."

"We'd prefer if the final clause were reversed: protect the victim's identity unless they waive their right to anonymity.

"Otherwise, support.

"Actually regarding anonymity, would this be a good place to guarantee a victim's anonymity even in respect of allegations not brought to trial?"

OOC: I believe the practice this side of the pond is anonymity for life on all aspects from complaint to trial.

“Could the definition of relevancy be expanded to include ‘more or less likely’, so evidence that disproves the accusation is also considered relevant.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Could the definition of relevancy be expanded to include ‘more or less likely’, so evidence that disproves the accusation is also considered relevant.”

"Evidence that disproves the accusation is evidence that makes a fact more likely: that the accusation is false."

Unless and until this legislation improves the protections of the accused from false allegations, the Most Serene Republic is curious how any international body can consider itself civilized by legitimizing a return to witch trial justice. Where is the time honored reinforcement of innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Kaiserholt wrote:Unless and until this legislation improves the protections of the accused from false allegations, the Most Serene Republic is curious how any international body can consider itself civilized by legitimizing a return to witch trial justice. Where is the time honored reinforcement of innocent until PROVEN guilty?

“Have a look GA #194 ‘Treatment of Inmates’, clause 2. Innocence before trial has already been done, and isn’t the point of this proposal anyway.”

Separatist Peoples wrote:

American Pere Housh wrote:"Well then we will abstain if it comes to a vote."

"Ambassador, as far as I can tell, this translates roughly to 'We got called out for not doing our job, but don't want to admit it. We're abstaining because voting for proves that we didn't do our job.' You want to correct me if I'm wrong?

"I swear, the many ambassadors from the Confederation rarely have anything of value to add during drafting, and debate with them seems more a matter of babying egos than making rational arguments."

"Ad hominem attacks ain't gonna work Mr. Ambassador. President Jones asked me to abstain and that is how I will vote."

Kaiserholt wrote:Unless and until this legislation improves the protections of the accused from false allegations, the Most Serene Republic is curious how any international body can consider itself civilized by legitimizing a return to witch trial justice. Where is the time honored reinforcement of innocent until PROVEN guilty?

"Your Excellency, considering this is dealing with rules of evidence, and not presumptions of guilt, it isn't anywhere in the proposal. And it really has no place in a proposal written and intended to focus on an extremely narrow band of criminal justice reform. You should consider the advice that I am about to give the ambassador from American Pere Housh."

American Pere Housh wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ambassador, as far as I can tell, this translates roughly to 'We got called out for not doing our job, but don't want to admit it. We're abstaining because voting for proves that we didn't do our job.' You want to correct me if I'm wrong?

"I swear, the many ambassadors from the Confederation rarely have anything of value to add during drafting, and debate with them seems more a matter of babying egos than making rational arguments."

"Ad hominem attacks ain't gonna work Mr. Ambassador. President Jones asked me to abstain and that is how I will vote."

"I had not realized that the definition of an ad homenim attack had changed, ambassador. I merely pointed out that your transparent face-saving tactic was a transparent face-saving tactic, and went on to observe that, in my experience, representatives from the Confederation have never provided a single observation of value in the drafting process in these chambers. An ad homenim attack is only a fallacy when it substitutes for an argument.

"It strikes me that the American Pere Housh delegation is in violation of GAR#122. Fortunately, I detect nothing malicious about the violation; it appears to be entirely negligent."

OOC: The recent controversy in NSW over similar legislation may be worth looking into.

"I have grave concerns about this proposal. It has never been the case under Havenic common law that bad character evidence can be put before the jury: such things almost always prejudice the jury away from a neutral perspective. We will therefore have no choice but to vote against an otherwise honourable piece of legislation."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"I have grave concerns about this proposal. It has never been the case under Havenic common law that bad character evidence can be put before the jury: such things almost always prejudice the jury away from a neutral perspective. We will therefore have no choice but to vote against an otherwise honourable piece of legislation."

“Ambassador, bad character evidence is not forced upon member states to legalise. It is prohibited for them to admit evidence regarding the victim’s past sexual behaviours in most cases, but it is not mandated for them to accept the evidence in the case that it is allowed.”