[Abandoned] Reasonable Self-Defence Act

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: (Back on mobile, sorry for answer brevity.) That's because in RL judges are given considerable leeway in how to apply national laws and international ones don't have the force of law unless ratified. In NS that doesn't work, with WA law being absolute, no wiggle room given.

Regardless of that, given that nations are allowed some leeway in what is lawful and what isn't, this doesn't read as Strong, but Significant instead.

And you can expect Araraukar to find every possible wiggle room inch to strangle this out of existence in IC. But that's just RP and shouldn't have any effect on proposal text as such.

OOC: But even in NS, if a resolution allows for one thing (legitimate defense of others) and not another (defense of others when the defender thinks they are in the right, but they are [objectively]not), judges are not forced to accept the other as legal defense. I would say the problem you describe was much more relevant when the 'perceived threat' was still part of the proposal, since then in fact everyone taking part could have claimed self-defense. With the proposal text at hand, which only allows for defense against [objectively] acts of unlawful violence, I do not see the threat so much.

I cannot comment on the strenghth, but your reasoning seems sound.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Regardless of that, given that nations are allowed some leeway in what is lawful and what isn't, this doesn't read as Strong, but Significant instead.

I cannot comment on the strenghth, but your reasoning seems sound.

FWIW, I would agree with a "Significant" rather than "Strong" civil rights strength. I realize that the difference between the strengths is very subjective, especially the line between Significant and Strong. In my view, Strong proposals should affect society at large or have an extremely broad scope, and they should have minimal exceptions that do not permit the exercise of discretion. The law does contain hard mandates for nations, so it's not a Mild proposal in my view. But given that the scope of this proposal is relatively narrow - limited to defining a defense to criminal charges - and given that the law permits nations to narrow the scope of the defense considerably through "set limits on behaviour that may be considered reasonable for a defence" I think Significant is probably the right strength.

[Denathor]

OOC: Looking at where the draft is now and how it compares to the standards, I agree that it’s now closer to Significant than it is to Strong. I’ve changed the strength accordingly.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Reasonable is the ultimate weasel word in a WA proposal. This has too many "reasonables". Therefore, it's mild IMO. There's much wiggle room for nations to escape the requirements.

Regarding the meat and bones of the content:

The definition of aggressor. If A attacks B, and B attacks back. Both are now aggressors. C acting in defence of either party is an aggressor if C does anything more than merely restraining one or the other. Which one of these, if any, is an act of unlawful violence? If a nation declares all violence to be unlawful, couldn't they prosecute all parties for affray?

The definition of act of reasonable defence. Reasonably believed by whom?

Clause 3 refers to "either of the previous cases". What are these previous cases? Also re: clause 3. What is a criminal complaint? In many RL jurisdictions, police/prosecutors can act without receiving a complaint if they witness or otherwise receive evidence of crimes. Pressing charges as such may not be a thing everywhere. Again referring to back to A v B v C, a police officer happening upon them reasonably defending/attacking each other could reasonably arrest all three for affray.

Given 4(ii), what's the point?

[Denathor]

OOC: Reasonable is the ultimate weasel word in a WA proposal. This has too many "reasonables". Therefore, it's mild IMO. There's much wiggle room for nations to escape the requirements.

OOC: You are correct in this regard, I think there’s been too much compromising so far in the process. I’m going to have to take a good look at this draft in the morning to see how I’m going to proceed.

[The Yellow Monkey]

OOC: Reasonable is the ultimate weasel word in a WA proposal. This has too many "reasonables". Therefore, it's mild IMO. There's much wiggle room for nations to escape the requirements.

OOC: You are correct in this regard, I think there’s been too much compromising so far in the process. I’m going to have to take a good look at this draft in the morning to see how I’m going to proceed.

I don't think this is very good advice, given the proliferation of the "reasonable person" standard in actual human affairs and law. "Reasonable" is not a weasel word, it is not misleading or ambiguous, and it has a solid meaning the same way "good faith" and "ill-tempered" and "blue" do. Sure, these are abstract concepts. Sure, we can never be 100% sure that others perceive them the same way we do. But they do have an objective readily-understandable meaning. "Reasonable" expresses flexibility to context and considerations of the circumstances.

Also, the word currently appears only one operative time in the proposal: it appropriately shows up within the definition of an "act of reasonable defense." You have not overused the term.

That said, Bananaistan's main contributions to international law include repealing a former, longstanding selfdefense law on the grounds that reasonableness is too hard of a standard for nations to interpret meaningfully. While I strongly disagree with that position, it is apparently appealing to many voting nations. So maybe listen to him and try to re-write. Although I suspect you will have trouble in no small part because, as already stated, self-defense is such a highly contextual principle that it requires resort to our common understanding of the abstract concept of reasonableness. Without using it, I suspect you will find your law hamfisted and too blunt to capture the nuance required for legislation on self-defense.

Bear in mind that, in real life legal systems, a reasonableness standard is not only meaningful but actually desirable in laws dealing with highly circumstance-specific situations. It really would be a shame for the WA, with all its high-mindedness, to get hung up on something so simple as a legal standard uniformly adopted in the real world.

As to his point about the definition of "aggressor," he does have a point there. I'm sure you meant the aggressor to be the person who first resorts to unjustifiable or unlawful violence. But at present the definition is too broad.

One last point: I am really sad to see that your experience together with the advice you are now receiving is beginning to sour you on compromise. That's a damn shame.

[Denathor]

-snip-

When I get some time tonight, I’m going to go over the draft and see what can be rewritten.

As to his point about the definition of "aggressor," he does have a point there. I'm sure you meant the aggressor to be the person who first resorts to unjustifiable or unlawful violence. But at present the definition is too broad.

Yes, this was my mistake that I’ll correct in a future version.

One last point: I am really sad to see that your experience together with the advice you are now receiving is beginning to sour you on compromise. That's a damn shame.

Perhaps I worded this poorly. I more meant that I agreed that parts of it that I’ve watered down may have gotten away from my original intentions with the draft. But if I can find no better way to word them, then I will keep the approach I used and let the cards fall as they may if/when I submit it.

[Denathor]

OOC post.

The definition of aggressor. If A attacks B, and B attacks back. Both are now aggressors. C acting in defence of either party is an aggressor if C does anything more than merely restraining one or the other. Which one of these, if any, is an act of unlawful violence? If a nation declares all violence to be unlawful, couldn't they prosecute all parties for affray?

The problem begins with the definition, which is a massive mistake on my part. It should be something like "who attempts to do unlawful physical harm to another person." Once this is clarified, B is no longer an aggressor in that scenario. At this point, C interfering on anyone’s behalf would likely not qualify them for protection, unless B's actions meet the exceptions of Clause 2. And yes, the nation could do that if the use of violence is considered unreasonable, and thus unlawful. It’s the risk you take for resorting to violence, even if you think it’s lawful.

The definition of act of reasonable defence. Reasonably believed by whom?

The judiciary of a nation. I suppose it’s not clear by that definition, so I’ll fix that. As a note, if they’re horribly corrupt or have terrible standards for what is reasonable, there’s nothing I can do. I’m not trying to legislate a perfect judicial system.

Clause 3 refers to "either of the previous cases". What are these previous cases?

Formatting error that references a previous version of the draft. I’ll fix it.

Also re: clause 3. What is a criminal complaint? In many RL jurisdictions, police/prosecutors can act without receiving a complaint if they witness or otherwise receive evidence of crimes. Pressing charges as such may not be a thing everywhere.

Got it from here, but your point is well taken and I’ll look at changing the wording.

Again referring to back to A v B v C, a police officer happening upon them reasonably defending/attacking each other could reasonably arrest all three for affray.

Everything I’ve seen for affray says that it only counts for unlawful acts of violence. An act of violence/force that is reasonable defence is not unlawful, according to this draft. So while an officer could arrest them, there’d be no crime to charge someone who uses reasonable defence.

Given 4(ii), what's the point?

Originally it was supposed to be part of the draft, but I had significant opposition to the idea of it being mandatory, so I made it optional. Essentially, nations can say something like:
"We want people to try to contact the police before acting in defence."
And thus for an act of force to be considered reasonable, someone would have to call the police first. Nations don’t have to set these requirements, but they can choose to.

If your fundamental argument against this is that you disagree with my use of the term "reasonable," my hands are tied. At the end of the day, there will be significantly more nations voting against this if I don’t give nations any sovereignty. I’m not going to define what is reasonable and what isn’t because there’s too many cases and contexts to have a blanket definition that always works.

[Araraukar]

So while an officer could arrest them, there’d be no crime to charge someone who uses reasonable defence.

OOC: Not for the crime of the violence, but I can think of many others. Disturbance of peace comes to mind as an obvious choice for a nation wishing to punish you for the violence without punishing you for the violence. Like I said, in IC Araraukar's going to strangle this out of existence (and I'm not stupid enough to give you all the loopholes until it's been passed) if given half a chance, but unless you go to such extremes that you'll likely fail to pass it simply for being too extreme, you can never block all the loopholes, nor should you try.

"Reasonable" is a weaselword when it comes to GA proposals, because the nations in IC are rarely even as reasonable as RL nations, and everyone can tell some examples of their own RL nation on how unreasonable even they can be.

[The Yellow Monkey]

"Reasonable" is a weaselword when it comes to GA proposals, because the nations in IC are rarely even as reasonable as RL nations, and everyone can tell some examples of their own RL nation on how unreasonable even they can be.

There's some truth in this: free from the constraints of reality, people can imagine their nations doing all sorts of crazy things, and they can even imagine those things to all be "reasonable" within the imaginary world they've imagined.

That doesn't actually make "reasonable" a weaselword, of course, anymore than I am actually a gold statue of a monkey.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: What’s reasonable and unreasonable can vary widely from society to society, in different communities within society, and over the course of time. The word is anathema to any author who wants to establish a hard and fast right in a GA proposal. It leaves a wide open ambiguity for nations to exploit. Thus it is a weasel word.

@ Denathor, I’ll reply properly to your reply to me when I have time later.

[Denathor]

OOC: Bump. Made some small changes but nothing significant yet. This draft still isn’t dead!

[Denathor]

Bump again. Not sure if Bananaistan forgot about this, but if there’s no further comments, I’d like to move it along soon.

[Bananaistan]

Bump again. Not sure if Bananaistan forgot about this, but if there’s no further comments, I’d like to move it along soon.

OOC: Sorry, I had forgotten.

I don't want to labour the point about "reasonable" so I won't. The greater issue is that, as far as I can see, 4ii guts the whole thing. It would appear that nations could virtually abolish the entire right to self defence you want to set up here.

Leaving aside those two issues, would you consider splitting the proposal into two separate parts? Say establish that a person can use reasonable force to defend him/herself. This is easy to write. The stuff about defending others is not so easy to write and not at all clearcut, EG a third party arriving at a fight has no idea who started it or who was the aggressor.

[Denathor]

The greater issue is that, as far as I can see, 4ii guts the whole thing. It would appear that nations could virtually abolish the entire right to self defence you want to set up here.

OOC: I think you’re right about that. The idea was good but as written it’s too easy exploit. I’ll remove it.

Leaving aside those two issues, would you consider splitting the proposal into two separate parts? Say establish that a person can use reasonable force to defend him/herself. This is easy to write. The stuff about defending others is not so easy to write and not at all clearcut, EG a third party arriving at a fight has no idea who started it or who was the aggressor.

You are hardly the first to raise this issue. At this point, I think it might be best just to remove the stuff on defence of others and just focus on self-defence. That might make it easier to pass assuming it gets to vote.

[Excidium Planetis]

Cornelia Schultz, holding a rubber chicken and seemingly covered in human blood that may or may not be hers, enters the drafting chamber out of breath. She remains unable to stop herself from reviewing the contents of the proposal at hand, despite being apparently exhausted from a recent life or death struggle that took place just outside of WAHQ nullifier range.

Hereby:

1. Defines
   
   1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do unlawful physical harm to another person,
   2. the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force reasonably believed by the judiciary of a nation to be necessary to protect any person from an act of unlawful violence,
2. Mandates that the act of reasonable defence shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens than other affirmative defences, unless the aggressor is severely or critically injured or killed,

"As written, this proposal makes no distinction on who is applying the 'act of reasonable defence' or even to whom. It doesn't mention the defined term 'aggressor' until the final clause, so the 'act of reasonable defence' defined here is entirely unrelated to the presence or absence of any aggressors. This would lead me to believe that preemptive uses of force could justified by this proposal, or even retributive if it could be argued that such retribution would serve to protect any person from harm. I'm not sure if this was your intent in writing this proposal, but I'm not sure that what amounts to a promotion of vigilantism will go over well with many nations.

"In fact, it actually means that bystanders could intervene to protect an aggressor and could not be charged if there was reason to believe that the aggressor was in danger of an unlawful act of violence. Not sure how often that would come up."

[Denathor]

Cornelia Schultz, holding a rubber chicken and seemingly covered in human blood that may or may not be hers, enters the drafting chamber out of breath. She remains unable to stop herself from reviewing the contents of the proposal at hand, despite being apparently exhausted from a recent life or death struggle that took place just outside of WAHQ nullifier range.

Hereby:

1. Defines
   
   1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do unlawful physical harm to another person,
   2. the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force reasonably believed by the judiciary of a nation to be necessary to protect any person from an act of unlawful violence,
2. Mandates that the act of reasonable defence shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens than other affirmative defences, unless the aggressor is severely or critically injured or killed,

"As written, this proposal makes no distinction on who is applying the 'act of reasonable defence' or even to whom. It doesn't mention the defined term 'aggressor' until the final clause, so the 'act of reasonable defence' defined here is entirely unrelated to the presence or absence of any aggressors. This would lead me to believe that preemptive uses of force could justified by this proposal, or even retributive if it could be argued that such retribution would serve to protect any person from harm. I'm not sure if this was your intent in writing this proposal, but I'm not sure that what amounts to a promotion of vigilantism will go over well with many nations.

"In fact, it actually means that bystanders could intervene to protect an aggressor and could not be charged if there was reason to believe that the aggressor was in danger of an unlawful act of violence. Not sure how often that would come up."

Callahan nods.

"Similar concerns have been raised in regard to the defence of others that I hoped this draft would provide. However, I think that it’s become too much of a contentious point, so I’ll be simplifying it."

OOC: I’ll be doing a bit of rewriting to shift the focus of the draft to solely self-defence. I’ll also play with some wording to see if I can address the concerns about the use of the word "reasonable." Hopefully the edits will be up tomorrow.

[Denathor]

Callahan places his new draft on the table of the chamber and rises to speak.

"Ladies, gentlemen, and all other members of this distinguished assembly, I am bringing forth a new draft with several changes, not in the least a new focus solely on the right of self-defence. Therefore, I feel that I should explain how the process would be carried out according to my intention of how the draft is written:

1. The person is confronted with an act of unlawful violence by an aggressor and chooses to defend themselves.
2. If the aggressor is not seriously or critically injured or killed, this is considered an act of reasonable defence and the person cannot be charged with any crime related to the act of reasonable defence.
3. If the aggressor is seriously/critically injured or killed, then an investigation would have to take place before any charges were laid. If the investigation determines that the use of force was unreasonable, then charges may be laid at the discretion of the nation. If it’s determined that it was reasonable, then no charges may be laid.

This, I hope, will serve as a clarification for those who were uneasy about the previous versions of this draft."

Callahan takes his seat again and prepares for the inevitable bloodbath.

[Denathor]

OOC: Bump. If there’s no comments for another week, I’ll move it onto last call.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: judiciaries dont lay charges. Executive branches do.

[Denathor]

Fixed.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I maintain there are issues with this, but cant do intensive typing on a keyboard for a bit yet. If I heal enough to type em out, great. If you end up submitting first, sucks for me. I have concerns regarding the shifting burdens of proof.

[Denathor]

Ooc: I maintain there are issues with this, but cant do intensive typing on a keyboard for a bit yet. If I heal enough to type em out, great. If you end up submitting first, sucks for me. I have concerns regarding the shifting burdens of proof.

OOC: If there are issues, I’m not submitting it. I’ve got no experience with law, so I’ll consider all advice I get.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Defines... a "critical injury" as an injury that results in either a temporary or permanent loss of use or function of a limb or organ... a "serious injury" as an injury or combination of injuries that endanger the life of a person,

As far as I can see you currently don't actually use "serious injury" anywhere in the law which makes me wonder why you defined it. Anyway, there's no good reason not to combine these concepts into a single definition of "critical injury." I suggest:

Defines... a "critical injury" as an injury that results in loss of use or function of a limb or organ, or that endangers the life of a person

I simplified your definition a bit there because too many "ors" make me sea sick. (Get it? Rowboat pun!) Feel free to add them back in if you feel they added something meaningful which is lost without them.

Mandates that the act of reasonable defence of oneself shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens than other affirmative defences, unless the aggressor is severely orcritically injured or killed,

I don't like the last bit. In the sad situation where you are forced to kill someone because, in context, that was the force required to protect yourself from that aggressor, I don't know why you would lose the defense or be subjected to a greater evidentiary burden. You've already baked the context of the situation and a requirement that the force be "necessary" for self-protection into the definition of self-defense. A person who resorts to lethal force should have the same burden of proving that doing so was was necessary for self protection as anyone else claiming self defense. It may be that meeting the burden will be harder, but that doesn't mean the burden itself is more onerous it just recognizes the reality that lethal force will seldom be "necessary" except in desperate circumstances.

Further mandates that if the aggressor is severely orcritically injured or killed, charges may only be laid after an investigation by the nation determines that the use of force went beyond what is considered reasonable by the laws of the nation,

Consider removing this entirely. Even if the "aggressor" suffers only a series of mild shin bruises and some hurt feelings, Member Nations should be permitted to bring charges against the "defender" if the use of force went beyond what is reasonable.

Example: A snot-nosed toddler stumbles toward an adult who is reasonably afraid of germs. The adult could walk away but decides to stand his ground and kick the toddler in the chest, resulting in an abrasion which does not break the skin and an extremely sad kiddo. Okay to bring charges?

Permits nations to pass legislation to set limits on behaviour that may be considered reasonable for a defence, such as forbidding lethal force unless it is clear that the aggressor intends to cause death, forbidding certain types of weapons to be used in the act of reasonable defence, or forbidding further force to be used after the aggressor has been incapacitated.

I do wonder to what extent this exception swallows the rule.

Could I "set limits on behavior that may be considered reasonable for a defence" to the extent of prohibiting any use of defensive force unless the person has already attempted all possible means of escape?

Could I "set limits on behavior that may be considered reasonable for a defence" to the extent of prohibiting any use of defensive force unless the person has already attempted, lets say at least twice, to call law enforcement for help?

Could I "set limits on behavior that may be considered reasonable for a defence" to the extent of prohibiting any use of defensive force unless the person has affirmatively warned the aggressor, in writing, that further aggression will be met with defensive force?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: yellow monkey addressed my burden of proof concerns rather artfully, so dont hold off on account of me anymore.