(Draft) Universal Jury

[Nova Caeli]

This proposal proposes that:
-every nation shall use juries to create a verdict on court trials
-that they shall be picked out of the accused asociates since they know the person and a background on him/her
-that the judge shall not choose whether the person is guilty or not in any case
-that the jury shall be made up of 15 people
I am open to improvements and the such
I believe juries important as to create the most fair trial possible, that is what the WA should support to create the most fair trial possible and juries are the only way to create that verdict wise. There is no alterior motives, no agenda and no corruption.

[Kryozerkia]

You would do well to review existing resolutions.

resolution #37: Fairness in Criminal Trials
resolution #62: For the Detained and Convicted
resolution #67: Habeas Corpus
resolution #79: Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws

Since these all cover the right to a fair trial, pre-trial detainment conditions and various other legal rights.

[Nova Caeli]

true and I apoligize if proposals mentionaed here have already become resolutions, yet reading the resolutions so far I see that some things have not covered in detail all of the things which I present here, I believe that those proposals presented here that are not resolutions should become legal since all are neccessary for law and justice to exist.

[Kryozerkia]

From resolution #37:

REQUIRES that such trials be directed impartially by someone competent in the area of law concerned;

REQUIRES further that such trials be adjudicated impartially by person or persons competent to understand the proceedings;

COMMENDS to the consideration of member nations a jury of the accused's peers as such trial adjudicators;

Fairness in Criminal Trials already has a provision to allow for juries as one such option for trials. So, at this point, what exactly does your proposal accomplish other than needless micromanagement? Further, your proposal does not have an indicated category, nor does it substantiate how a jury is truly fairer than a small panel of judges versed in all aspects of substantive law.

[Philimbesi]

I must rise in opposition to this draft as it would rule my nations time honored tradition of flipping a coin to decide innocence or guilt.

[Nova Caeli]

the reason being as juries go they are not corrupted they do not have power which comes with jobs of judges or council, and for hte flip a coin that is quite barbaric yet you can keep your coin if you let all the jurers flip the coin and the majority whether its heads or tails decideds (I am joking) but juries bring the people into the decision I believe it extremeley important that the people decide as much as possible and a way of doing that in law is juries the non corrupted, observant truth of 15 people what more could you ask for?

[Eireann Fae]

the reason being as juries go they are not corrupted they do not have power which comes with jobs of judges or council, and for hte flip a coin that is quite barbaric yet you can keep your coin if you let all the jurers flip the coin and the majority whether its heads or tails decideds (I am joking) but juries bring the people into the decision I believe it extremeley important that the people decide as much as possible and a way of doing that in law is juries the non corrupted, observant truth of 15 people what more could you ask for?

"I would ask for honest," Rowan blushes a little at this, considering she had just lied to another Ambassador moments ago, but quickly recovers. "...educated, reputable people to decide my fate if I were charged with a crime. People can often be malicious and spiteful, and just very mean in general. Judges are at least expected to be reasonably impartial as they carry out their duties. A jury consists of random people pulled off the street, and while the liars, I mean lawyers, both get to interview the jurors, this is no guarantee of competence or impartiality. I've seen a lot more random hateful people than I have hateful judges. Many in this room..." She mutters that last bit under her breath.

[Nova Caeli]

yes their expected to but there no way of telling if they are at least with juries they are temporary not to mention its not one random person pulled of the street its 15 obviously giving you a very sound chance of being innocent or guilty

[Nova Caeli]

and if the judge i corrupt, prejudiced or has an agenda if he convicts you there is only one person no other opinions and since they are judges no one stops it since they are 'appointed' to this job while a jury with 15 members has far more than one opinion and so much more fair

[Monikian WA Mission]

We suspect that this idea is likely un-actionable as there are already four resolutions on the books dealing with criminal proceedings most notably GAR#37. Further we fail to see how a jury composed of random persons who may or may not know excrement from Vegemite as far as the law is concerned is inherently fairer than allowing a professional judge or panel of judges make the determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not to mention that a jury composed of random people even if screened by council by both sides of the trial--the plaintiff or state, and the defense--would completely eliminate prejudicial persons from being seated on a jury. For an example racial or religious bigotry on the part of a jury has rendered injustice rather than justice.

and if the judge i corrupt, prejudiced or has an agenda if he convicts you there is only one person no other opinions and since they are judges no one stops it since they are 'appointed' to this job while a jury with 15 members has far more than one opinion and so much more fair

And what is to stop jurors from being corrupted or from having agendas of their own. Provided that trials are in compliance with GAR#37 I have no problem with how any nation decides to conduct their criminal trials. Monkiah uses a judge system as we feel this works best.

[Nova Caeli]

and whats to stop judges from being rascist? giving a single man too much power ends in further corruption I would rather have 5 rascists and 10 not rascist in a jury making verdict on a black man then one rascist creating a verdict for a black man

[Monikian WA Mission]

Well the fact that they are employed by the state, and can be dismissed for racial bigotry being employed in their reasoning--which in most reasonable nations would be written out in the court records. It is much easier to detect a judge who uses racism in her judgments as she would consistently convict more persons of the hated race than any other race. Whereas with a jury, their reasoning for their votes is known only by the jurors in most cases. Therefore, if a conviction is based on racial or religious bigotry its much harder to spot.

Also judges are not necessarily men. In my nation for example males rarely take up such positions--preferring to grow vegetables and have babies instead. Not every WA nation is patriarchal.

Finally I still think that it will be extremely difficult to write a proposal on this topic without contradicting at least one of the four resolutions dealing with criminal law. Though if you want to debate the jury system vs. some other system...I suggest taking that to General.

[Nova Caeli]

well perhaps if the proposed jurer must fill out a form and a comment from an associate as to filter out the bigots and rascists and ge to the good honest people who should be part of government in as many ways possible, yes it is true that judges are easier to be picked out but at what cost all those cases he passed verdict on? at least with a jury I highly doubt that every single case at least one person shall be a rascist wako

[Nova Caeli]

this is now a proposal for the GA so I ask any delegates reading this to approve this as to further democracy and develop the legal system
thanks,

[Grays Harbor]

this is now a proposal for the GA so I ask any delegates reading this to approve this as to further democracy and develop the legal system
thanks,

Seriously? We hate to sound rude here, but this is perhaps, among all other badly thought out proposals we have seen over the years, right up there in the Top 5 of "Badly thought out ideas". How is this in any stretch of an extremely fertile and warped imagination anything the WA should even come close to regulating? How? Seriously? How?

[Monikian WA Mission]

Also it may please the Ambassador to know that in the Corridors other Ambassadors are already joking about the proposal, and I even heard one say it was an ideological ban.

[Nova Caeli]

yes I do know but I dont mind think what they will I dont mind

[Osthia]

I applaud your intent on this matter, but unfortunately, it seems that there already are WA laws in effect with the concerns you have. Yes, there will be the occasional judge or jury who act out of hate, but we, unfortunately, know as well as anyone else that we can not please everyone.

[Flibbleites]

this is now a proposal for the GA so I ask any delegates reading this to approve this as to further democracy and develop the legal system
thanks,

Let me give you some advice from a successful resolution author, writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint. Your proposal wasn't even being drafted for 8 hours before you submitted, and typically a proposals that become Resolutions are in the drafting stage for about a week. And let's face it, it's not like there's a massive number of people trying to write a proposal on this topic, heck had you not been in such a rush to submit you could have managed to have everything spelled correctly.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Nova Caeli]

thanks for the advice but I mean you can debate the need for Universal Juries but there is not much that can be changed in a proposal to create them, I mean it is quie a simple idea for a proposal you could certainly debate on it but revisions I would not think needed for a proposal of this sort, it virtually is just the basics to creating univeral jury I mean theres no two ways around it thats why it might look as if I am being hasty but I dont think I am sure debate more on it but theres only a few ways you can saw 15 citizens of the nation choose verdict in the court (and as for the spelling I apologise I will be more observant of wat i wrotee )

[Grays Harbor]

That sounds pretty arrogant that you believe "the only way to write this is my way".

[Nova Caeli]

thats not what I said I just said that I mean there is only a few ways you could change a proposal of a universal jury, I didnt say my way is the best just that it is quite a yes or no subject the idea simple that all juries are universal, consists of 15 people, etc.

[Grays Harbor]

No, they are not, and you would do well to listen to those who have considerably more experience crafting resolutions. As it stands currently, I must say that you have completely alienated at least one long-time delegate through your inability or unwillingness to take advise. You may want to look to that.

[Philimbesi]

Why 15, why not 9 or 5 or 3?

[Nova Caeli]

well obviously an odd number so there is no chance of same amount of votes on both side, and 15 I find a number since the more people in the jury the more fairness yet going over 15 I would imagine to be bit too much and end up taking to much time over deciding the vote