[PASSED] Habeas Corpus

[Gobbannium]

We began the effort to reintroduce this important legislation some months ago, but regrettably failed to note the details of subsequent discussions before our temporary absence. We do, however, recall the promise of an Ennish Shandy should its passage not require too many submissions. We therefore present the following for the dissection and possibly amusement of the assembled delegations:

Habeas Corpus

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

DESIROUS that the due process of law not be side-stepped by detention without trial,

CONCERNED that individuals can be harassed by repeated accusations that have been disproven in law,

AWARE of the need to balance the requirements of legal systems with the rights of the individual,

MANDATES the following:

1) That no person may be held against their will without being charged with or officially suspected of a criminal offence for more than two hours in any one week without full legal authorisation for such detention. Such authorisation may extend the period of detention to at most twenty four hours in any one week.

2) Full legal authorisation for detention without reason can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct some form of trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.

3) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for more than forty eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence. Time during which judicial authorities are not active (such as weekends or public holidays) to a maximum of ninety six hours shall not be counted to this period; in other words, a person may be held for up to 144 hours provided that the judicial authorities are available for no more than 48 of those hours.

4) That a person so charged must be informed of the formal charge immediately.

5) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for which they have been previously held on suspicion without full legal authorisation for such re-detention.

6) Full legal authorisation for re-detention on suspicion can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation, and who are presented with evidence that the suspicions against the individual are materially stronger than was the case for the previous detention.

7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial.

8) Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.

There are a number of obvious flaws in this draft; there is no forbiddance on detaining a person without suspicion, or re-detaining them after release, for example. While we have ideas for remedying these lacks, we would appreciate the opinions of our fellow ambassadors before advancing them.

[Stash Kroh]

OOC: After re-reading 1984 for the thousandth time...

IC: Ambassador, I must express my opinion on the fear of nations using these proposals such as this fine body of work, and the lesser-so, For the Detained and Convicted, and the Right to Fair Trial as excuses as to why formal law is not a viable route of policing moral integrity anymore.

Just the other day, I heard of a nation with no formal laws, abducting their citizens and imprisoning and torturing them.

Do you think at any point in time, that your copy of Habeas Corpus will help those poor citizens? Or is the WA better left just serving those detained under formalized laws? I'm just curious...

[Glomeland]

A fine start to a much needed resolution which Glomeland will be proud to support.

As for holding persons without suspicion, perhaps the person should have the right to petition a court after a reasonable amount of time, after which he must either be declared a suspect, charged, or released from custody.

Allow me to consult my legal adviser on the re-detaining them immediately after release problem. In Glomeland such an event would automatically trigger the involvement of a magistrate. I'm sure there is a remedy which would be acceptable on an international level.

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

[Gobbannium]

Ambassador, I must express my opinion on the fear of nations using these proposals such as this fine body of work, and the lesser-so, For the Detained and Convicted, and the Right to Fair Trial as excuses as to why formal law is not a viable route of policing moral integrity anymore.

We are much of the opinion that formal law never has been a viable route of policing moral integrity, which is itself simply the cultural codification of the tyranny of the majority. Properly, formal law steers a middle path between the excesses of moral rectitude and moral dissolution, neither of which are inherently desirable. But to continue...

Just the other day, I heard of a nation with no formal laws, abducting their citizens and imprisoning and torturing them.

Do you think at any point in time, that your copy of Habeas Corpus will help those poor citizens? Or is the WA better left just serving those detained under formalized laws? I'm just curious...

Emphatically, yes, asserting that the nation in question is a member of the WA. The draft as it stands will not, for reasons we have already noted, but once the loopholes concerning detention without suspicion and re-detention are plugged, we are confident that such actions on the part of a government would become unequivocally illegal in international law.

The nation with no formal laws would then be in an awkward position of being unable to detain anyone, having no legal means of doing so, but we personally cannot see that as a bad thing.

As for holding persons without suspicion, perhaps the person should have the right to petition a court after a reasonable amount of time, after which he must either be declared a suspect, charged, or released from custody.

While we were thinking in terms of banning detention without suspicion entirely, perhaps there are situations in which permitting the police to detain someone for interview would be reasonable. If so, we would think the necessary period to be a very small number of hours, and there should be no need to involve the courts.

Allow me to consult my legal adviser on the re-detaining them immediately after release problem. In Glomeland such an event would automatically trigger the involvement of a magistrate. I'm sure there is a remedy which would be acceptable on an international level.

We were thinking along similar lines, of requiring the police to demonstrate that new evidence materially strengthened their suspicions. It should be possible to cast that into language non-prejudicial to the nature of local legal systems.

[Glomeland]

While we were thinking in terms of banning detention without suspicion entirely, perhaps there are situations in which permitting the police to detain someone for interview would be reasonable. If so, we would think the necessary period to be a very small number of hours, and there should be no need to involve the courts.

There are situations where the police might have cause to detain a person who is not under suspicion of a crime. As you mentioned they might need to interview a person who wasn't actually suspected of a crime. There is also protective custody, which is practiced in some nations. When I mentioned petitioning a court I was thinking in terms of Glomeland where magistrates are plentiful and easily accessible from any police station (in fact we may have too many magistrates for our own good). That might not be the case in all legal systems though. Actually in Glomeland persons cannot be held against their will for more than 2 hours without being charged or at least declared a suspect. I think a limit of a few hours would be reasonable.

We were thinking along similar lines, of requiring the police to demonstrate that new evidence materially strengthened their suspicions. It should be possible to cast that into language non-prejudicial to the nature of local legal systems.

I think that would be a sensible requirement. If the police had to present new evidence to a court in order to immediately re-detain a person it would eliminate the majority of those type of detentions.

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
The Republic of Glomeland

[Gobbannium]

We have updated the draft in accordance with debate. We imagine that it would be possible to condense (for example) the clauses concerning authorisation, but see no point in doing so unless the space is actually required.

May we invite further comments on accuracy and omissions?

[Carbandia]

Could at least spell Habeas Corpus right..(this has been a OOC post)

[Gobbannium]

OOC: whoops! I do know better than that...

[Enn]

A new proposal? Let's have a look at it... Well, it does seem a might familiar, but there's a lot of things that have changed since I was last around. I applaud the actions of the representative from Gobbanium, and can promise them a crate of fresh Ennish Shandies, provided this gets up in fewer attempts than the original UN version.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for the Triumvirate of Enn

[Sionis Prioratus]

[Enn]

Hey, this thing took about 12 submissions, over several months, to reach quorum in the days of the UN. I'm sure we're all hoping it takes less time here at the WA. Will certainly not need anywhere near as many endorsements, that's for sure.

[Gobbannium]

Hey, this thing took about 12 submissions, over several months, to reach quorum in the days of the UN. I'm sure we're all hoping it takes less time here at the WA. Will certainly not need anywhere near as many endorsements, that's for sure.

We suspect the representative of Sionis Prioratus of facetiousness. Since we do not have the longevity of service in the predecessor chamber to this to recall the travails of the previous Habeas Corpus legislation, we are certain that they do not.

The proffered crate of Ennish Shandies is certainly a powerful motivator, and we thank the greatly respected ambassador for her blessing on this effort.

[Gobbannium]

We have added a limit to authorized detention without suspicion and submitted the proposal for a trial run. Comments will still be very much appreciated.

[Gobbannium]

Somewhat unexpectedly, this has made quorum. We would therefore be grateful if anyone noting any "showstoppers" could point them out now, while we still have a chance to withdraw.

[Unibot]

Congratulations Ambassador on making quorum,

Its a little more articulate than my shit-for-brains can hand, so I doubt I could find a problem with the proposal even if one existed. Nevertheless, I applaud the proposal's goals, and am truly inspired by your dedication to vetting a solid proposal.

I'll see if I can't nudge my comatose delegate to endorse it so you'll have one more cushion endorsement for quorum.

Yours
Commander Zhilidgo

[Golgoglot]

Pending the influx of discussion that is sure to follow once this resolution goes to vote, but noting that our legal system would already in compliance and noting also that the accused still retain the rights of a law-abiding citizen, and hoping that other nations will follow this example, Golgoglot is anticipating a vote for this resolution.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We're holding our breath for this one, Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Master of the Red Hounds, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum... but you actually hit the right target this time, which is rather amazing. So we cast our vote FOR.

Yours etc, etc, ad infinitum...

[The Halseyist Faction]

The Halseyist Faction is further dismayed at yet further attempts by the demoncracies and socalist states of the world to take away our divine mandate to do as we wish with our populace. It points out again, that several states within the World Assembly, are openly supportive and relient on dictatorial pratices, to which the population accepts and trusts in, and resents the World Assemblies constant attempts to inflict 'rights' upon citizens who neither want nor require them.

Furthermore, it holds this legislation in contempt, for the simple reason that it belives the WA will be in no way about to police or support this measure. Demanding the removal of biological weapons is one thing, and easily attended to by inspectors, but is the World Assembly so deluded as to think it can actually enforce international law upon every arrest of every citizen in every World Assembly nation?

I am certain that the writers of this legislation belive strongly in 'happiness' and 'freedom' and otherwise a posative outlook on life. But it is the Halseyist Factions judgement that they are living in a soapbubble dreamland, and that this legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.

We encourage all other members of this assembly to vote against such wasteful legislation, and encourage them to come up with something more productive and reasonable, that benifits the World Assembly and the commication of nations within it, and smites those who choose to remain outside.

[Miars]

As the representative of the Corporations of Miars, we greatly disapprove of this fine piece of paper. We find this a contradiction to our culture laws that allow my employers their power ov... I mean the government the power to govern respective each person. Besides everyone in our state is employed by one of our companies. And the companies themselves deliver Justice to rule breakers. Our Justice system fine and We will vote against this.

Good Day
-Representative Metzger

[Golgoglot]

-snip-

I do believe that you need to brush up on your WA history, esteemed ambassador. In particular, one Resolution #62, "For the Detained and Convicted", which touches upon a closely related matter.

And there is, after all, a category of resolutions dedicated solely to "improv[ing] worldwide human and civil rights". Perhaps, if you disagree with the WA's methods, you should leave.


Let it be known that Golgolglot has officially voted for this resolution, and we greatly anticipate its success.


[OOC: And it looks like there might be some overlap between #62 and this one... or is it just me?]

[Noordeinde]

"Mister Chairman, Honorable Ambassadors, though we agree on multiple parts of the proposed resolution, like the part of formaly informing someone on what charge he or she is held in police custody, we still vote against this resolution!"

"Noordeinde is a Liberal Country and though we agree on many resolutions of the WA we feel that it goes a step to far if the World Assembly would interfere to much with our National Legal and Law Enforcement branch, if it would monitor each and every arrest. A second point we disagree with are the limits on hours to keep someone in custody."

" We disagree on this point because some people are a real danger to themselves or society or have commited such a cruel crime, like murder or rape, or are being held on suspicioun of those crimes that we feel it's better for him/her and society to keep that person in custody during the investigation untill he or she is proven innocent or guilty."

"Last but not least we do still fully support Resolution 62# and feel that this Resolution is unneccesary. Thank you.

Ambassador Gallagher said, and he sat down back in his chair.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The Grand Puerto Rican Palti of Buffett and Colbert regrettably cannot support this noble intentioned piece of legislation. It is too broad of a subject to be covered in a resolution this... refined.

Sincerely,

Stephen Jims
Ambassador

[Alsted]

To: All World Assembly ("WA") Nations
From: The United States of Alsted ("TUSA"), WA Delegate, Europe
Re: Habeas Corpus WA Resolution
Date: October 12, 2009

Europe enthusiastically supports this resolution and TUSA, on its behalf, casts 250+ votes in favor of this greatest writ - the most efficient safeguard of individual liberty.

[Enn]

" We disagree on this point because some people are a real danger to themselves or society or have commited such a cruel crime, like murder or rape, or are being held on suspicioun of those crimes that we feel it's better for him/her and society to keep that person in custody during the investigation untill he or she is proven innocent or guilty."

Then charge them. Habeas Corpus has absolutely nothing to do with bail laws. What it means is that if you're holding someone in custody, they much be charged with an offence.

Oh, and on the topic of rights... We have rights. Every person has rights. Governments don't grant rights, they don't remove them, they certainly don't [/i]inflict[/i] them open people. Neither does the WA. What governments, and the WA, can do is recognise rights that already exist, or choose not to recognise those rights.
Rights come from people, not from governments. Despite what some governments like to think. The state is not me.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

OOC: Yep, I definitely remember these debates from the UN version. Always good to see the same old arguments being trotted out again.

[The Halseyist Faction]

The Halseyist Faction notes the prior piece of legislation, and fought and voted against that one as well. If the honourable ambassidor would care to examine the records, he will find a veritable tirade upon our behalf against the motion, and we shall issue as many as is required to get nations to force their own misconceptions of laws and rights upon us.

To the gentleman who insists that people just 'Have' rights, that is utter codswallop. We are but creatures in the world, the spider, the bee, nor the gelatenous cube, have no 'rights' when they were born, or summoned into existance by the throw of the dice. Rights are a human creation, and they belong with society. Government oversees society, and the Halseyist Faction government notes that it's citizens have no rights.

Thusly, the contious attempts of this assembly to inconvience the lives of those members of the one True Church of Admiral Halsey, but enforcing incomptent and unessicarily legislation, designed only to inflict their view of an ideal world on everyone else, are neither desired, nor appreciated. This, Sir, is a step too far, and I continue to challenge anyone to come up with a reasonable sane, and inexpensive method of enforcing this legislation on any country, or individual.