[DRAFT] Repeal GA#37 (Fairness in Criminal Trials)

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

APPLAUDING the noble intention of GA #37 in establishing the right to a fair trial and ancillary rights.

NOTING the need for the maintenance of good order and discipline in the military requires a different set of rights be afforded to defendants than in the system of civilian justice.

CONCERNED that GA #37 makes no distinction between military and civilian justice nor exceptions for extraordinary circumstances such as the imposition of martial law.

HORRIFIED that GA #37 does not require the provision of government-funded public defender services, instead only mandating "governmental or charitable mechanisms."

RECOGNIZING that just privately-operated charitable services may prove insufficient to provide counsel free of charge to all those financially incapable of retaining legal assistance.

CONVINCED that charitable services should only supplement government-provided public defender services.

NOTING that the universal right to counsel is may be compromised if a nation does not set up government-funded public defender services, which GA #37 does not mandate.

RECOMMENDING a replacement resolution be passed remedying these issues.

HEREBY repeals GA #37.

This is my first WA proposal; I welcome any criticism or suggestions you guys have!

Edits:

Following line struck: BELIEVING that abrogation of certain civil rights such as the right to a fair trial may be necessary in certain times of general civil disorder or threats to national sovereignty or territorial integrity such as periods of rebellion or invasion.

[Barfleur]

BELIEVING that abrogation of certain civil rights such as the right to a fair trial is necessary in certain times of general civil disorder or threats to national sovereignty or territorial integrity such as periods of rebellion or invasion.

What would the alternative be? Execute without a trial? Release without a trial?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

BELIEVING that abrogation of certain civil rights such as the right to a fair trial is necessary in certain times of general civil disorder or threats to national sovereignty or territorial integrity such as periods of rebellion or invasion.

What would the alternative be? Execute without a trial? Release without a trial?

Usually indefinite detention. For example, in the US Civil War, Confederate sympathizers were often detained without charge for extended periods of time, and habeas corpus was also suspended in some areas of the South in Reconstruction to stamp out the KKK.

[Araraukar]

Usually indefinite detention. For example, in the US Civil War, Confederate sympathizers were often detained without charge for extended periods of time

OOC: So why do you want to remove one of the resolutions that makes that impossible?

[Imperium Anglorum]

A writ of habeas corpus isn't touched on in GA 37; that's why we have Habeas Corpus (viewtopic.php?p=9653153#p9653153).

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

A writ of habeas corpus isn't touched on in GA 37; that's why we have Habeas Corpus (viewtopic.php?p=9653153#p9653153).

I know-I'm just pointing out cases in which indefinite detention was used as a tool to suppress civil unrest.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Usually indefinite detention. For example, in the US Civil War, Confederate sympathizers were often detained without charge for extended periods of time

OOC: So why do you want to remove one of the resolutions that makes that impossible?

My point is that the abrogation of the right to a fair trial is at times necessary in the course of military conflict.

[Liberimery]

OOC: So why do you want to remove one of the resolutions that makes that impossible?

My point is that the abrogation of the right to a fair trial is at times necessary in the course of military conflict.

As someone who grew up in one of the boarder states where this happened, I can tell you over 160 years ago it still gets talked about almost exclusively as a stain on Lincoln’s Presidential record. Lincoln violated the Constitution on this matter. Rights are not suspended in hardship because they are not the government’s’s to Suspended at will.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

My point is that the abrogation of the right to a fair trial is at times necessary in the course of military conflict.

As someone who grew up in one of the boarder states where this happened, I can tell you over 160 years ago it still gets talked about almost exclusively as a stain on Lincoln’s Presidential record. Lincoln violated the Constitution on this matter. Rights are not suspended in hardship because they are not the government’s’s to Suspended at will.

The Constitution explicitly provides for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of "rebellion or invasion." What Lincoln did was indeed ruled unconstitutional, but only because he had not gotten congressional approval, since Congress could not be called into session because of the genuine military threat to DC at the time. Congress later did approve a bill absolving Lincoln and his subordinates of legal responsibility and approving the suspension of habeas corpus.

Another example of a time in which certain rights were rightly suspended was Defense Regulation 18B, allowing for the indefinite internment of Oswald Mosely, leader of the British Union of Fascists during WWII, who despite his fascist agitation didn't actually do anything that he could be charged for, and allowed for easier internment of elements of the IRA who launched a sabotage campaign.

The point is, no exceptions at all is impractical. Nations should have some discretion to suspend certain rights when absolutely necessary.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: What happened in the American Civil War is, at best, tenuously related to GAR#37. Let us not deviate into the land of General.

OOC: So why do you want to remove one of the resolutions that makes that impossible?

My point is that the abrogation of the right to a fair trial is at times necessary in the course of military conflict.

"It may be useful, ambassador. But it is not necessary."

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

OOC: What happened in the American Civil War is, at best, tenuously related to GAR#37. Let us not deviate into the land of General.

My point is that the abrogation of the right to a fair trial is at times necessary in the course of military conflict.

"It may be useful, ambassador. But it is not necessary."

The controversial line has been struck.

[American Pere Housh]

"Yeah but no Mr. Ambassador. This proposal would never pass a WA vote. It is enshrined in our Constitution that Sapient Being whether human or non human have a right to a fair and impartial trial. You won't get support from the Galactic Republic."

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

"Yeah but no Mr. Ambassador. This proposal would never pass a WA vote. It is enshrined in our Constitution that Sapient Being whether human or non human have a right to a fair and impartial trial. You won't get support from the Galactic Republic."

APPLAUDING the noble intention of GA #37 in establishing the right to a fair trial and ancillary rights.
...
RECOMMENDING a replacement resolution be passed remedying these issues.

[Kenmoria]

“You have two arguments here. The first of these I simply do not accept on a personal level; justice is not something that ought to occur when it is convenient, and criminal trials should not be made unfair in any circumstances.

The second is based around a lack of guarantee in GA #37 to governmental services. Here, I do not see the issue. If charitable services are unable to provide for individuals in a member state, then the government must step in. This seems to be a very workable system. For a proposal to mandate either a governmental or charitable system would be micromanagement.”

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

“You have two arguments here. The first of these I simply do not accept on a personal level; justice is not something that ought to occur when it is convenient, and criminal trials should not be made unfair in any circumstances.

The second is based around a lack of guarantee in GA #37 to governmental services. Here, I do not see the issue. If charitable services are unable to provide for individuals in a member state, then the government must step in. This seems to be a very workable system. For a proposal to mandate either a governmental or charitable system would be micromanagement.”

The original line from GA #37 is "FURTHER INSISTS that governmental or charitable mechanisms be set up to provide such representation to those accused otherwise unable to afford it," the only implicit reference to the universal right to counsel in the resolution. As the line is, nations have no obligation to step in even if charitable mechanisms are insufficient, essentially a loophole to get out of ensuring universal right to counsel.

[Daves Computer]

OOC: This a great start. However, I only think this repeal has a chance of passing if a sufficient replacement bill is proposed. Otherwise, many of GAR#37's achievements such as offering necessary accommodations to the accused such as translators and requiring competent officials to lead trials may go unprotected for a long time. Unless there is a quick repeal and replace that offers the protections of GAR#37 and rectifies the issues you assert in the repeal, I highly doubt this repeal will make it.

[Kenmoria]

“You have two arguments here. The first of these I simply do not accept on a personal level; justice is not something that ought to occur when it is convenient, and criminal trials should not be made unfair in any circumstances.

The second is based around a lack of guarantee in GA #37 to governmental services. Here, I do not see the issue. If charitable services are unable to provide for individuals in a member state, then the government must step in. This seems to be a very workable system. For a proposal to mandate either a governmental or charitable system would be micromanagement.”

The original line from GA #37 is "FURTHER INSISTS that governmental or charitable mechanisms be set up to provide such representation to those accused otherwise unable to afford it," the only implicit reference to the universal right to counsel in the resolution. As the line is, nations have no obligation to step in even if charitable mechanisms are insufficient, essentially a loophole to get out of ensuring universal right to counsel.

(OOC: I read that clause as meaning that the accused must be provided representation if unable to afford it, either through governmental or through charitable means. However, your interpretation does also seem reasonable, where it is possible for only charitable mechanisms to be in place and therefore for a defendant to be provided with no legal representation.

In this case, I do not see a repeal as being the correct answer. In a case where there is a gap in legislation, the most appropriate response is to fill that gap with a resolution, which can be done without needing a repeal.)

[Daves Computer]

The original line from GA #37 is "FURTHER INSISTS that governmental or charitable mechanisms be set up to provide such representation to those accused otherwise unable to afford it," the only implicit reference to the universal right to counsel in the resolution. As the line is, nations have no obligation to step in even if charitable mechanisms are insufficient, essentially a loophole to get out of ensuring universal right to counsel.

(OOC: I read that clause as meaning that the accused must be provided representation if unable to afford it, either through governmental or through charitable means. However, your interpretation does also seem reasonable, where it is possible for only charitable mechanisms to be in place and therefore for a defendant to be provided with no legal representation.

In this case, I do not see a repeal as being the correct answer. In a case where there is a gap in legislation, the most appropriate response is to fill that gap with a resolution, which can be done without needing a repeal.)

OOC: Out of curiosity, how favorable has the WA been to people making legislation that aims specifically to fill small gaps in prior proposals? Would people rather see a repeal and replace, or does the WA tend lean towards people making proposals that, while may be small or insignificant on their own, can fill in these gaps without conflicting with the house of cards rule?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I read that clause as meaning that the accused must be provided representation if unable to afford it, either through governmental or through charitable means. However, your interpretation does also seem reasonable, where it is possible for only charitable mechanisms to be in place and therefore for a defendant to be provided with no legal representation.

In this case, I do not see a repeal as being the correct answer. In a case where there is a gap in legislation, the most appropriate response is to fill that gap with a resolution, which can be done without needing a repeal.)

OOC: Out of curiosity, how favorable has the WA been to people making legislation that aims specifically to fill small gaps in prior proposals? Would people rather see a repeal and replace, or does the WA tend lean towards people making proposals that, while may be small or insignificant on their own, can fill in these gaps without conflicting with the house of cards rule?

(OOC: I’ve seen both happen with varying amounts of success, but the general feeling is that unnecessary proposals don’t really need to be created. If a topic can be accurately legislated on with just one proposal to fill a loophole, then there isn’t much need for a repeal to take place. Repeals do still happen in this circumstance, especially if the prior resolution would be awkward to avoid, but a separate piece of legislation works just as well, if not better.)

[Daves Computer]

OOC: Out of curiosity, how favorable has the WA been to people making legislation that aims specifically to fill small gaps in prior proposals? Would people rather see a repeal and replace, or does the WA tend lean towards people making proposals that, while may be small or insignificant on their own, can fill in these gaps without conflicting with the house of cards rule?

(OOC: I’ve seen both happen with varying amounts of success, but the general feeling is that unnecessary proposals don’t really need to be created. If a topic can be accurately legislated on with just one proposal to fill a loophole, then there isn’t much need for a repeal to take place. Repeals do still happen in this circumstance, especially if the prior resolution would be awkward to avoid, but a separate piece of legislation works just as well, if not better.)

OOC: Cool, thank you. Definitely something to remember for future instances. :¬)

[Stellonia]

"Is there a replacement proposal?"

[Daves Computer]

"Is there a replacement proposal?"

OOC: As of right now, there is no replacement. The author is, however, recommending in his proposal that someone else step in to write one. Because we don't presently have a replacement lined up, this means we'll be left without a proper replacement indefinitely if this repeal were to pass.

[Stellonia]

"Is there a replacement proposal?"

OOC: As of right now, there is no replacement. The author is, however, recommending in his proposal that someone else step in to write one. Because we don't presently have a replacement lined up, this means we'll be left without a proper replacement indefinitely if this repeal were to pass.

OOC: I could work on a proposal then. I should have a first draft within the next hour.

[Daves Computer]

OOC: As of right now, there is no replacement. The author is, however, recommending in his proposal that someone else step in to write one. Because we don't presently have a replacement lined up, this means we'll be left without a proper replacement indefinitely if this repeal were to pass.

OOC: I could work on a proposal then. I should have a first draft within the next hour.

OOC: I believe the only point of contention with GAR#37 is the level of charitable services member states are required to offer to the accused. Like Kenmoria said, determining specifics like that might infringe on micromanagement of nations. But if it is your prerogative to rectify what the author of the repeal finds issue with, it might be best to do as Kenmoria advises and, "when there is a gap in legislation, the most appropriate response is to fill that gap with a resolution, which can be done without needing a repeal."

[Stellonia]

OOC: I could work on a proposal then. I should have a first draft within the next hour.

OOC: I believe the only point of contention with GAR#37 is the level of charitable services member states are required to offer to the accused. Like Kenmoria said, determining specifics like that might infringe on micromanagement of nations. But if it is your prerogative to rectify what the author of the repeal finds issue with, it might be best to do as Kenmoria advises and, "when there is a gap in legislation, the most appropriate response is to fill that gap with a resolution, which can be done without needing a repeal."

OOC: I have written a proposal to outright replace GA#37, but I might write a narrower proposal that builds upon GA#37 as well.