Denathor wrote:The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC: I am not sure this is intentional, but as per this provision, any self-defense that results in killing the aggressor might be criminalised, even if the killing is 'necessary to ensure removal of the threat'? I agree that it might be reasonable to subject those cases to the higher eveidentiary burdens mentioned; however, allowing to criminalise all cases in which an aggressor is killed (not even intentionally) goes against the spirit of proportionality expressed by other provisions in this draft, and the Believing clause of the preamble.
OOC: The gist of the Clause 2 exceptions is that the total immunity provided by the defence of "self-defence" might not extend to those cases if a jury decides that the force used was unreasonable according to the laws standards that Clause 3 compels nations to create. It doesn’t necessarily mean that those cases must be prosecuted, it’s just a safeguard so you can’t kill someone, claim self-defence and walk away without charges. The case can be examined first to determine if the killing was justified. This is what is meant byIn either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation
OOC: I thought that was the intention, yes, but, however, I feel this is not the way it is worded at the moment.
The provision reads: Mandates that the act of reasonable self-defence shall not be criminalized [...] except in cases where the aggressor is killed. This leaves it possible for nations to completely criminalise any acts of self-defense where the aggressor is killed, without having to determine whether the use of force in general and the killing in particular were justified.
Requires that before self-defense is used, a person must make all possible attempts to avoid conflict, such as through alerting a security officer or retreating from the aggressor,
Oh I just love how this discussion is making all the points that have historically been made in jurisprudence. The 'avoid conflict or retreat bit' actually led to such wonderful tenements, which still hold true today in th RL legal system in which I am educated, that 'Lawfullsness need not yield to unlawfulness' and 'A person cannot be expected to flee disresputably'. While I agree with those, I acknowlegde that others might be of another opinion.