[DRAFT] Repeal Resolution #198 “Preventing Multiple Trials”

[Dayadhvam]

General Assembly Resolution #198 “Preventing Multiple Trials” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the General Assembly’s efforts and expertise in the writing of the resolution, as well as the undoubtedly good intentions behind it;

Applauding its utmost importance as a milestone in the advancement of the world’s civil rights;

Concerned, however, by the resolution’s blatant flaws that allow for its undiscriminated exploitation, including but not limited to:

1. The added difficulty in retrying a defendant upon the discovery of new evidence and/or testimony;

2. The vagueness of clause 3(a), allowing nations and/or judicial systems to push for loose regulations with the specific intent of protecting criminals for reasons such as corruption;

3. The restrictive nature of clause 6, hindering the filing of legitimate complaints which may result in individuals not being able to speak out about offences, thereby not giving victims a voice;

Further worried by the proposal’s lack of acknowledgment for the equally probable cases in which the single trial may be unfair, posing another threat to the civil rights of defendants;

Believing that the resolution ultimately hinders the pursuit of justice and helps criminal parties get away with ease, as well as increasing the risk of unfairly convicted innocents;

Desiring a better resolution to support the civil rights of defendants, while also allowing for the proper prosecution of potentially guilty parties;

Hereby repeals and strikes “Preventing Multiple Trials”.

Link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just letting you know that it's customary to provide a link to the target resolution (not necessarily within the proposal, but in the first post) so people can check the bits you claim to be defective, themselves.

[Dayadhvam]

OOC: Just letting you know that it's customary to provide a link to the target resolution (not necessarily within the proposal, but in the first post) so people can check the bits you claim to be defective, themselves.

Thank you very much for informing me, I fixed the post as suggested by adding the link

[Liberimery]

Why should the State, which has more time, resources, and funding be given an unlimited amount of attempts to convict the same person for the same crime? If they fail they can file on the same charges and start anew, costing the accused untold fiscal damages in needing to retain lawyers and exert witnesses to disprove the case. In addition suppose that the accused is well and indeed innocent: how is Justice served if the prosecutor is so fixed on the accused they never look at the criminal who actually did it.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

Why should the State, which has more time, resources, and funding be given an unlimited amount of attempts to convict the same person for the same crime? If they fail they can file on the same charges and start anew, costing the accused untold fiscal damages in needing to retain lawyers and exert witnesses to disprove the case. In addition suppose that the accused is well and indeed innocent: how is Justice served if the prosecutor is so fixed on the accused they never look at the criminal who actually did it.

I think you are missing the point, this is not about cost this repeal is about ensuring proper justice.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why should the State, which has more time, resources, and funding be given an unlimited amount of attempts to convict the same person for the same crime? If they fail they can file on the same charges and start anew, costing the accused untold fiscal damages in needing to retain lawyers and exert witnesses to disprove the case. In addition suppose that the accused is well and indeed innocent: how is Justice served if the prosecutor is so fixed on the accused they never look at the criminal who actually did it.

I think you are missing the point, this is not about cost this repeal is about ensuring proper justice.

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I think you are missing the point, this is not about cost this repeal is about ensuring proper justice.

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

Leo looks up in annoyance. "OR - wonder of wonders, the gods themselves being entirely flabbergasted by such a thing - maybe, just maybe, the poor bastard in the dock is actually not guilty! Enough innocent people are convicted when the state only has one go at it, could you imagine the harm they could do if they got do-overs? Opposed! There is not a damned thing wrong with the resolution as it was enacted. WA law makes it difficult, but not impossible, to conduct retrials - and it should be difficult! This is good law, in which you have not demonstrated a flaw. Barring substantially better arguments, we cannot and will not support this travesty of a repeal."

Leo sits back down at the desk, his leathery face ever so slightly flushed.

...

OOC: I don't see what your Clause 3 is talking about. Nothing in the target makes it harder for victims to come forward. This might fall afoul of the Honest Mistake rule.

[Varanius]

I think you are missing the point, this is not about cost this repeal is about ensuring proper justice.

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

It’s definitely not that black and white. The problem can both be a lack of justice and incompetent prosecutors, but the existence of these prosecutors doesn’t mean provably guilty individuals should be let off the hook because the state missed its only chance

[Dayadhvam]

I think you are missing the point, this is not about cost this repeal is about ensuring proper justice.

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

I'm afraid this is a massive oversimplification of the matter at hand. A phenomenon cannot and will not ever be explained by one and only one cause. Some cases are premeditated in such a way that makes them near impossible to crack with a singular trial, which may be conducted very superficially in its limited time frame, and this is only the most glaring issue. A great number of things may lead to a miscarriage of justice by allowing only one trial to take place. Even assuming that you're fully correct in your statement, it doesn't account for cases in which an irrevocably corrupt government and/or entire judicial system itself may use the vagueness of clause 3(a) to fulfill an agenda or arrest people it deems an obstacle to its ends. I appeal to the coherency of your own thought to recognize that this resolution enables such behaviors.

[Dayadhvam]

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

Leo looks up in annoyance. "OR - wonder of wonders, the gods themselves being entirely flabbergasted by such a thing - maybe, just maybe, the poor bastard in the dock is actually not guilty! Enough innocent people are convicted when the state only has one go at it, could you imagine the harm they could do if they got do-overs? Opposed! There is not a damned thing wrong with the resolution as it was enacted. WA law makes it difficult, but not impossible, to conduct retrials - and it should be difficult! This is good law, in which you have not demonstrated a flaw. Barring substantially better arguments, we cannot and will not support this travesty of a repeal."

Leo sits back down at the desk, his leathery face ever so slightly flushed.

...

OOC: I don't see what your Clause 3 is talking about. Nothing in the target makes it harder for victims to come forward. This might fall afoul of the Honest Mistake rule.

One cannot presume right off the bat that a defendant may be innocent. Make no mistake, I want to advocate for defendants' rights as well, but this is not the right way to go about it, as I am equally worried about dangerous criminals being let off the hook too easily without sufficient trial. I will also have to respectfully disagee with your statement regarding the multiplication of mistakes somehow caused by conducting multiple trials. Multiple trials make for a case that isn't rushed, is explored in-depth in all of its possibilities, with the precise goal of creating a clearer picture of the case at hand so that miscarriages of justice have a smaller likelihood of occurring. Your statement in that regard frankly hits me as a bit disingenuous or even dismissive of the issues that I brought up by use of a phrase that seems reasonable on the surface, while not even nearly going in-depth enough into these issues.

Regarding the issue of Clause 3, I would like to again direct your attention towards Clause 6 of the target resolution, which, quote, "FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial for the purpose of circumventing restrictions on retrials." I have reason to believe this clause will actively hinder the coming forward of victims, who will feel scared of their complaints being deemed unnecessary at best or malignant at worst.

[Araraukar]

"To my knowledge multiple trials are not banned even now, as long as they are on different aspects of the same case. Someone might not be convicted of murder, but could be tried and convicted for attempted murder, instead, or conspiracy to commit murder. Or any number of lesser offences that are all connected to the same case of non-accidental death. It's similar to how you might have a criminal case and a civil case that are from the same event, but are not overlapping. Maybe in the course of the homicide they drove a bus through a cafeteria, and are also getting sued for the damages in a civil case."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

I think you are missing the point, this is not about cost this repeal is about ensuring proper justice.

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

OOC: A lack of justice and incompetence of prosecutors aren't mutually exclusive. That said, opposed to repealing 198.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

<snip>

One cannot presume right off the bat that a defendant may be innocent.

Leo rolls his eyes. "So it's going to be like that, is it? It's news to you, then, that WA law already requires that all accused persons be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. This is one of the cornerstones of a free and fair society, and we will not sit by while the WA retreats like snivelling cowards from defending it, just because some country still can't get violent crime under control without stepping on its people's basic rights."

Make no mistake, I want to advocate for defendants' rights as well, but this is not the right way to go about it, as I am equally worried about dangerous criminals being let off the hook too easily without sufficient trial. I will also have to respectfully disagee with your statement regarding the multiplication of mistakes somehow caused by conducting multiple trials. Multiple trials make for a case that isn't rushed, is explored in-depth in all of its possibilities, with the precise goal of creating a clearer picture of the case at hand so that miscarriages of justice have a smaller likelihood of occurring. Your statement in that regard frankly hits me as a bit disingenuous or even dismissive of the issues that I brought up by use of a phrase that seems reasonable on the surface, while not even nearly going in-depth enough into these issues.

"Mr. Bell hit the nail on the head here, ambassador - if it typically takes your prosecutors more than one trial to convict a guilty person for a single crime using the same facts and witnesses, the issue is with the prosecutors. These things you mention are all easily doable in the process of a single trial by any prosecutorial staff not better suited to another line of work such as gas station attendant. I do in fact dismiss the issues you brought up, because they are not more important than ensuring the freedom of innocent people not to be wrongfully punished. You are advocating for something perilously close to the popular real-time strategy game Real Life™'s 'Franz Kafka' side quest. We will not support it."

Regarding the issue of Clause 3, I would like to again direct your attention towards Clause 6 of the target resolution, which, quote, "FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial for the purpose of circumventing restrictions on retrials." I have reason to believe this clause will actively hinder the coming forward of victims, who will feel scared of their complaints being deemed unnecessary at best or malignant at worst.

OOC: Why, though? How does there only being a single criminal trial disincentivize victims and witnesses to come forward? If anything, multiple trials would do that - "Oh, if they don't convict the first couple of times, I can always come forward later" - while a single trial gives prosecutors motivation to leave no stone unturned seeking out corroborating evidence. Unless you can describe a mechanism by which victims are actually encouraged not to come forward because of that clause, I have to rule that bit illegal for an Honest Mistake.

[Attempted Socialism]

Leo looks up in annoyance. "OR - wonder of wonders, the gods themselves being entirely flabbergasted by such a thing - maybe, just maybe, the poor bastard in the dock is actually not guilty! Enough innocent people are convicted when the state only has one go at it, could you imagine the harm they could do if they got do-overs? Opposed! There is not a damned thing wrong with the resolution as it was enacted. WA law makes it difficult, but not impossible, to conduct retrials - and it should be difficult! This is good law, in which you have not demonstrated a flaw. Barring substantially better arguments, we cannot and will not support this travesty of a repeal."

Leo sits back down at the desk, his leathery face ever so slightly flushed.

...

OOC: I don't see what your Clause 3 is talking about. Nothing in the target makes it harder for victims to come forward. This might fall afoul of the Honest Mistake rule.

One cannot presume right off the bat that a defendant may be innocent. Make no mistake, I want to advocate for defendants' rights as well, but this is not the right way to go about it, as I am equally worried about dangerous criminals being let off the hook too easily without sufficient trial. I will also have to respectfully disagee with your statement regarding the multiplication of mistakes somehow caused by conducting multiple trials. Multiple trials make for a case that isn't rushed, is explored in-depth in all of its possibilities, with the precise goal of creating a clearer picture of the case at hand so that miscarriages of justice have a smaller likelihood of occurring. Your statement in that regard frankly hits me as a bit disingenuous or even dismissive of the issues that I brought up by use of a phrase that seems reasonable on the surface, while not even nearly going in-depth enough into these issues.

Regarding the issue of Clause 3, I would like to again direct your attention towards Clause 6 of the target resolution, which, quote, "FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial for the purpose of circumventing restrictions on retrials." I have reason to believe this clause will actively hinder the coming forward of victims, who will feel scared of their complaints being deemed unnecessary at best or malignant at worst.

"With all due respect, Ambassador, multiple trials on the same crime is, fundamentally, an indictment of the competences of your prosecutors and the clear rush-job they are doing, rather than any issue in the law. If they collected the evidence, took their time and made a commitment to just one trial, perhaps these trials would be better to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. If you need better laws and better prosecutors, universities in the Solidarity Movement offer extensive courses on constitutional law, frameworks of the judiciary and prosecution. I am sure we can enroll some of your citizens in a Ph.D.-programme.
Further, you could perhaps gain from reading clause 6 a bit closer. If there are new victims coming forward, the trial and alleged crime cannot be substantially the same, since the victim is new. If the same victim repeatedly alleges the same crime against the same alleged perpetrator, then the clause will hinder repeat trials, yes. That is for a very good reason, as has been explained to you a few times.
We will never endorse the miscarriage of justice and clear abuse of state power that is multiple trials on the same crime, and we find the few exceptions within the current resolutions to be more than enough for the state to flex its muscles against an alleged criminal."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

It’s definitely not that black and white. The problem can both be a lack of justice and incompetent prosecutors, but the existence of these prosecutors doesn’t mean provably guilty individuals should be let off the hook because the state missed its only chance

"It absolutely is, ambassador. Having the power to try repeatedly to get a conviction to stick sounds great in theory, but in practice it is a tool to abuse and silence a populace. If people are provably guilty, then prosecution ought to be simple. If it is not, perhaps they are not so provably guilty."

"Not allowing the state to retry an individual until they get it right is just, ambassador. If your case cannot succeed on the first pass, the problem is not the lack of justice, but the incompetence of your prosecutors or police."

I'm afraid this is a massive oversimplification of the matter at hand.

"Not by much."

A phenomenon cannot and will not ever be explained by one and only one cause. Some cases are premeditated in such a way that makes them near impossible to crack with a singular trial, which may be conducted very superficially in its limited time frame, and this is only the most glaring issue.

"Ambassador, separating major crimes out to try non-lesser included offenses at a separate trial is not a multiple trial under the meaning of GAR#128. Long trials are an arduous affair, but not worse than sacrificing somebody's liberty on the altar of convenience."

A great number of things may lead to a miscarriage of justice by allowing only one trial to take place.

"Indeed, and a great number of worse abuses will inevitably follow permitting multiple trials."

Even assuming that you're fully correct in your statement,

"I am."

it doesn't account for cases in which an irrevocably corrupt government and/or entire judicial system itself may use the vagueness of clause 3(a) to fulfill an agenda or arrest people it deems an obstacle to its ends.

"While this is a flaw with the resolution, it is not a flaw with a ban on multiple trials."

I appeal to the coherency of your own thought to recognize that this resolution enables such behaviors.

"You may want to look to your own coherency first."

One cannot presume right off the bat that a defendant may be innocent.

"The state must. Otherwise, the accused is forced to prove a negative, and the state needn't offer any proof of their own to convict. This is the problem with prioritizing order over justice, ambassador. It leaves the innocent in the lurch."

[Fuentana]

"With all due respect, Ambassador, multiple trials on the same crime is, fundamentally, an indictment of the competences of your prosecutors and the clear rush-job they are doing, rather than any issue in the law. If they collected the evidence, took their time and made a commitment to just one trial, perhaps these trials would be better to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. If you need better laws and better prosecutors, universities in the Solidarity Movement offer extensive courses on constitutional law, frameworks of the judiciary and prosecution. I am sure we can enroll some of your citizens in a Ph.D.-programme.
Further, you could perhaps gain from reading clause 6 a bit closer. If there are new victims coming forward, the trial and alleged crime cannot be substantially the same, since the victim is new. If the same victim repeatedly alleges the same crime against the same alleged perpetrator, then the clause will hinder repeat trials, yes. That is for a very good reason, as has been explained to you a few times.
We will never endorse the miscarriage of justice and clear abuse of state power that is multiple trials on the same crime, and we find the few exceptions within the current resolutions to be more than enough for the state to flex its muscles against an alleged criminal."

I do not see the logic in stating that "if there are new victims coming forward, the trial and alleged crime cannot be substantially the same, since the victim is new." In cases of sexual abuse—a most heinous crime—the crime is substantially the same, and victims of sexual abuse are not always able to step forward immediately. One must be sensitive to this and allow for a retrial should new victims come forward with additional evidence or insight into the case.

But there are more reasons than this to support this repeal:
1. Retrials allow for rectifying procedural issues in the instance of issues with judge or jury. Anyone with real experience of the legal system knows the level of maneuvering and theatrics that obscure justice, and in the instance of sexual crimes there are tremendous power differentials related to gender that imbalance the pursuit of justice. Such differentials seep into the selection of jurors and the thresholds required for rendering a verdict. In systems where trial by jury is the norm, a hung jury can stalemate the pursuit of justice. Can a fair trial be guaranteed in the case of sexual assault or rape if there is a gender imbalance?

Power differentials are also at work on the part of judges. Though they hold an office associated with nobility, judges are quite fallible and not immune to bias and unbecoming conduct while operating. Is this not one of the reasons why higher courts exist to check against faulty judgment?

2. As stated above, retrials allow for consideration of new evidence that can either exonerate the innocent or finally convict the guilty. This would allow for new DNA evidence, accounting for recantations among key witnesses, and more.

A great number of things may lead to a miscarriage of justice by allowing only one trial to take place.

"Indeed, and a great number of worse abuses will inevitably follow permitting multiple trials."

On the contrary, it is permitting multiple trials that checks against the worst abuses. The court room is too often a stage to be initially exploited. The possibility of a retrial is the best hope for checking against conniving legal and rhetorical maneuvering or sloppy judgment.

Real life examples:

• USA: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2 ... 960371001/
• USA: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/heres ... ifferently
• USA: https://www.innocenceproject.org/paul-h ... r-justice/
• USA: https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/ ... xonerated/
• USA: https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019 ... owers-bail
• UK: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/ju ... -hostility
• AUS: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48537373 - OOC: I disagree with the outcome of this case, but it does demonstrate on both sides what is at stake

[Bananaistan]

OOC: The standard of justice available in any WA compliant member state is well above RL standards as it stands.

Also new victim = new crime. Being found not guilty of raping one person in one instance does not make you immune to prosecution for rape thereafter.

[Separatist Peoples]

I do not see the logic in stating that "if there are new victims coming forward, the trial and alleged crime cannot be substantially the same, since the victim is new." In cases of sexual abuse—a most heinous crime—the crime is substantially the same, and victims of sexual abuse are not always able to step forward immediately. One must be sensitive to this and allow for a retrial should new victims come forward with additional evidence or insight into the case.

"Ambassador, are you under the impression that if you commit multiple murders, you can only be tried for all those murders at once? Or that that creates a preclusive effect on future murders? If there are other victims, you can charge the perpetrator with crimes against those other victims. The target law does not prevent new trials against the same perpetrator for separate crimes."

But there are more reasons than this to support this repeal:
1. Retrials allow for rectifying procedural issues in the instance of issues with judge or jury. Anyone with real experience of the legal system knows the level of maneuvering and theatrics that obscure justice, and in the instance of sexual crimes there are tremendous power differentials related to gender that imbalance the pursuit of justice. Such differentials seep into the selection of jurors and the thresholds required for rendering a verdict. In systems where trial by jury is the norm, a hung jury can stalemate the pursuit of justice. Can a fair trial be guaranteed in the case of sexual assault or rape if there is a gender imbalance?

"This is an issue addressed at jury selection, and is generally an appealable error."

Power differentials are also at work on the part of judges. Though they hold an office associated with nobility, judges are quite fallible and not immune to bias and unbecoming conduct while operating. Is this not one of the reasons why higher courts exist to check against faulty judgment?

"In most legal systems, this is also appealable error."

2. As stated above, retrials allow for consideration of new evidence that can either exonerate the innocent or finally convict the guilty. This would allow for new DNA evidence, accounting for recantations among key witnesses, and more.

"A retrial, strictly speaking, is not a new trial. It is a retrial."

On the contrary, it is permitting multiple trials that checks against the worst abuses. The court room is too often a stage to be initially exploited. The possibility of a retrial is the best hope for checking against conniving legal and rhetorical maneuvering or sloppy judgment.

IC and OOC: Retrials are not new trials procedurally speaking. They are distinct. In the US, a retrial does not violate your 6th amendment rights, nor do appeals. Your argument suggests you don't get that difference.

Your list of examples conflates, incorrectly, the two concepts for which a reasonable interpretation of GAR#198 permits distinction.

[Varanius]

It’s definitely not that black and white. The problem can both be a lack of justice and incompetent prosecutors, but the existence of these prosecutors doesn’t mean provably guilty individuals should be let off the hook because the state missed its only chance

"It absolutely is, ambassador. Having the power to try repeatedly to get a conviction to stick sounds great in theory, but in practice it is a tool to abuse and silence a populace. If people are provably guilty, then prosecution ought to be simple. If it is not, perhaps they are not so provably guilty."

That simply isn’t true. New evidence does come to light, especially with the advancements of forensic sciences. Not to mention the incompetence of police and prosecutors that you mentioned earlier.

[Liberimery]

"To my knowledge multiple trials are not banned even now, as long as they are on different aspects of the same case. Someone might not be convicted of murder, but could be tried and convicted for attempted murder, instead, or conspiracy to commit murder. Or any number of lesser offences that are all connected to the same case of non-accidental death. It's similar to how you might have a criminal case and a civil case that are from the same event, but are not overlapping. Maybe in the course of the homicide they drove a bus through a cafeteria, and are also getting sued for the damages in a civil case."

It depends on the jurisdiction. I know i know in the US, you may not charge what’s called “Lesser and Included” charges for the same criminal event. For example if Bob shoots Alice and steals her purse, Bob can be charged with Murder and Robbery but not Assault with a Deadly Weapon as Assaulting Alice with a fun is part of Murdering Alice.


One of the exceptions to this is the crime of Felony Murder, which is when a person dies as a direct result of a crime where death of the victims was not intended. The prototypical example is when Bob is robbing a bank and when he declares “This is a Stick Up” elderly Alice has a heart attack and dies. Regardless of Bob never intending Alice’s Death, Bob is charged with Felony Murder due to his actions leading to a fatal heart attack.


This isn’t always the case among Common Law jurisdictions (aka The Legal System of most nations that were once part of the British Empire) as I believe Canada does allow lesser and included sentences despite their legal system being similar to the US.

[Araraukar]

It depends on the jurisdiction. ... in the US ... Canada

OOC: I thought it was quite clear that I was not talking about RL but the WA resolutions' minimum requirements, and thus the WA multiversum.

[Attempted Socialism]

"With all due respect, Ambassador, multiple trials on the same crime is, fundamentally, an indictment of the competences of your prosecutors and the clear rush-job they are doing, rather than any issue in the law. If they collected the evidence, took their time and made a commitment to just one trial, perhaps these trials would be better to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. If you need better laws and better prosecutors, universities in the Solidarity Movement offer extensive courses on constitutional law, frameworks of the judiciary and prosecution. I am sure we can enroll some of your citizens in a Ph.D.-programme.
Further, you could perhaps gain from reading clause 6 a bit closer. If there are new victims coming forward, the trial and alleged crime cannot be substantially the same, since the victim is new. If the same victim repeatedly alleges the same crime against the same alleged perpetrator, then the clause will hinder repeat trials, yes. That is for a very good reason, as has been explained to you a few times.
We will never endorse the miscarriage of justice and clear abuse of state power that is multiple trials on the same crime, and we find the few exceptions within the current resolutions to be more than enough for the state to flex its muscles against an alleged criminal."

I do not see the logic in stating that "if there are new victims coming forward, the trial and alleged crime cannot be substantially the same, since the victim is new." In cases of sexual abuse—a most heinous crime—the crime is substantially the same, and victims of sexual abuse are not always able to step forward immediately. One must be sensitive to this and allow for a retrial should new victims come forward with additional evidence or insight into the case.

"Ambassador, I do not quite know what to tell you, except... errrr... to check with your legal staff on this. Your statement is simply not true, unless you deliberately misinterpret the resolution in question and set your own legal system up to fail. In terms of court cases, 'raping victim A', and 'raping victim B' are not and cannot be substantially the same crime, even if everything except the victim is identical, because the crime is the rape of a specific victim, not just committing a rape in general."

But there are more reasons than this to support this repeal:
1. Retrials allow for rectifying procedural issues in the instance of issues with judge or jury. Anyone with real experience of the legal system knows the level of maneuvering and theatrics that obscure justice, and in the instance of sexual crimes there are tremendous power differentials related to gender that imbalance the pursuit of justice. Such differentials seep into the selection of jurors and the thresholds required for rendering a verdict. In systems where trial by jury is the norm, a hung jury can stalemate the pursuit of justice. Can a fair trial be guaranteed in the case of sexual assault or rape if there is a gender imbalance?

Power differentials are also at work on the part of judges. Though they hold an office associated with nobility, judges are quite fallible and not immune to bias and unbecoming conduct while operating. Is this not one of the reasons why higher courts exist to check against faulty judgment?

This is called an appeal, Ambassador. Take the Solidarity Movement, for instance. If there are flaws in the procedure, both the prosecutor and the defendant can appeal solely on those grounds, and have an appellate court try the crime with the same evidence but -- hopefully -- a correct procedure. There is nothing in the targeted resolution that prevents appellate courts. We do not use juries, but most countries that do that we know of, have provisions for appealing or retrying hung juries in some way, fully in compliance with GAR number 198."

2. As stated above, retrials allow for consideration of new evidence that can either exonerate the innocent or finally convict the guilty. This would allow for new DNA evidence, accounting for recantations among key witnesses, and more.

"The resolution does not ban retrials or appeals in the way it appears you think it does. It is preventing the government from, for instance, repeatedly prosecute person A for the rape of person B, until they get a conviction or person A runs out of resources to continue a court battle. In the Solidarity Movement prosecution successes are fairly high because when the government goes to court, we are reasonably sure we have it right, but your example of DNA evidence or key witnesses changing their story would almost always automatically be grounds for a retrial of the original crime, considering the new evidence. This is allowed under the targeted resolution, either because the crime is substantially changed so it is not the same trial under the definition, or, more likely, because not accepting the new evidence would be a significant miscarriage of justice and thus fall under the exception in clause 3-A. I do not try to sound snobbish or elitist, but your responses suggest you have not read the resolution in depth, or that you ought to recheck this with your more legally able staffers in your delegation."

[Godular]

“Fundamentally opposed.”

[Kenmoria]

“I can’t agree with the idea expressed in the ‘believing’ clause, that the target resolution could result in a conviction of the innocent. This simply doesn’t make sense, and seems far more likely with multiple trials than with a single one. Could you explain it? I also agree with other ambassadors when I say that I am currently opposed to this repeal.”

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

It depends on the jurisdiction. I know i know in the US, you may not charge what’s called “Lesser and Included” charges for the same criminal event. For example if Bob shoots Alice and steals her purse, Bob can be charged with Murder and Robbery but not Assault with a Deadly Weapon as Assaulting Alice with a gun is part of Murdering Alice.

This isn’t always the case among Common Law jurisdictions (aka The Legal System of most nations that were once part of the British Empire) as I believe Canada does allow lesser and included sentences despite their legal system being similar to the US.

This is not at all accurate. US criminal procedure absolutely permits the use of lesser included offences, and in fact, affirmatively requires them in some instances (see Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) ). You simply cannot be convicted of both the greater AND lesser offence simultaneously. For example, if I charge Separatist Peoples with murder, he has an absolute right to have the jury instructed as to the lesser included offences of manslaughter, negligent homicide, and possibly various other variants depending on how the statutes are. If the jury returns the verdict for murder, then it is true they cannot return a verdict for manslaughter at the same time. However, if they decide he is not guilty of murder, they are free to convict him of manslaughter instead. This is basic criminal procedure you can pick up from any good text on the matter. Some states (California) even affirmatively require the instruction for lesser included offences for EVERY charge where there is evidence the defendant is only guilty of the lesser.

Also, for the record, Assault with a Deadly Weapon is not a lesser included offence to murder. The elements of the assault with a deadly weapon are not contained within the elements of murder (think logically, it is possible to commit murder without committing assault with a deadly weapon).


For the proposal itself, I share the same grounds as Separatist Peoples and Sierra Lyricalia for opposing the repeal.