NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:01 am

A sincere thank you to all the delegates who brought this proposal to quorum!

Convict Appellate Rights

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Ossitania


The World Assembly,

CONSCIOUS of the possibility of innocents being wrongfully convicted of crimes which they did not commit,

BELIEVING that anyone wrongfully convicted of a crime should have a chance to appeal that conviction,

Hereby

DEFINES "convict" as a person who has been declared criminally responsible for one or more illegal acts,

DECLARES that all member-states shall create a legal mechanism by which convicts may appeal their conviction,

REQUIRES member-states to allow such appeals when one or more of the following is true;

  • evidence has emerged that was previously unavailable which suggests the conviction was factually false,
  • it can be shown that proper legal procedure was not followed in the course of the trial,
  • there is reason to believe that the court decided a question of law incorrectly,
  • there is compelling evidence suggesting improper bias on the part of the judge or jury,

PLACES the duty of deciding whether there are sufficiently compelling grounds for an appeal with the judiciary,

PROHIBITS the limitation or restriction of the right of convicts to appeal their convictions based on time passed since conviction,

AFFIRMS the right of member-states to grant broader appellate rights than those mandated by this resolution and to place a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge.
Last edited by Kryozerkia on Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:04 pm, edited 35 times in total.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:31 am

Ossitania wrote:STIPULATES that appeals may only be made as a result of the emergence of evidence which was not presented at the previous trial and which suggests that the previous ruling was false

So our appellate courts would be disallowed from reviewing cases on other grounds? :blink:
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:48 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Ossitania wrote:STIPULATES that appeals may only be made as a result of the emergence of evidence which was not presented at the previous trial and which suggests that the previous ruling was false

So our appellate courts would be disallowed from reviewing cases on other grounds? :blink:


This is a first draft that was made early in the morning while the author was suffering from sleep deprivation and addled by a retrospectively ill-advised cocktail of medication. It would be more constructive if the good gentleman from Christian Democrats would simply state what changes he believes should be made instead of reacting with confusion that changes that were never suggested have not been made.

Presumably he is speaking of appeals motivated by evidence suggesting bias in the previous trial or procedural irregularities. We will amend the clause to include these as grounds for appeal - we will add these forthwith, but, before we do, are there any other grounds that the Christian Democrat delegation (or any other delegation for that matter) thinks should be included.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:19 pm

Suggestion:
STIPULATES that, at minimum, appeals must be allowed on the following grounds: . . .

This would give member states a little more freedom.

Also, I'd add a clause specifying that this proposal applies only to trials for major crimes. Suggestion:
SPECIFIES that this resolution protects a right to appeal only if the someone has been sentenced to (1) pay a fine of more than one-fifth his annual income, (2) more than one year in prison, (3) corporal punishment, or (4) death,

CLARIFIES that the preceding clause does not prevent member states from having more liberal appeals laws

It'd be annoying to have drawn out legal proceedings for things such as traffic tickets.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:33 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Suggestion:
STIPULATES that, at minimum, appeals must be allowed on the following grounds: . . .

This would give member states a little more freedom.

Also, I'd add a clause specifying that this proposal applies only to trials for major crimes. Suggestion:
SPECIFIES that this resolution protects a right to appeal only if the someone has been sentenced to (1) pay a fine of more than one-fifth his annual income, (2) more than one year in prison, (3) corporal punishment, or (4) death,

CLARIFIES that the preceding clause does not prevent member states from having more liberal appeals laws

It'd be annoying to have drawn out legal proceedings for things such as traffic tickets.


We will not limit the right to appeal and certainly not with arbitrarily defined limits such as those given by your delegation. In addition, your suggested edit to the STIPULATES clause is preposterous - it would essentially give carte blanche for the state to set its own, potentially absurd, criteria for appeal on both sides, resulting in an imbalanced appeals system.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:59 pm

Then, I can't support this proposal. It greatly would reduce the capacity of member states to maintain at least some sort of individuality in their legal systems. Besides affirming broad principles of justice, the General Assembly should not dictate the specific procedural aspects of the judiciaries of member states.

For one thing, your clause limiting appeals would prevent appellate courts from considering questions of law (e.g., the constitutionality of a particular law or the constitutionality of how that law has been applied).
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1623
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Goobergunchia » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:16 pm

We believe that the draft proposal's language does not require member nations to accept appeals on any of the listed grounds. We suggest the addition of language to more precisely require appeals, for instance:

STIPULATES that appeals may only be made if and only if one or more of the following is true;:


We also share some of the concerns expressed by the ambassador from Christian Democrats regarding the scope of questions that appellate courts may consider, especially since the current draft proposal would apply to both civil and criminal cases. We suggest the addition of the following additional bullet point in the stipulation:

  • there is reason to believe that the court decided a question of law incorrectly,


We are also concerned that the draft proposal would limit appeals from intermediate courts, or from panels of certain courts to said court sitting en banc, due to its reliance on trial activity, but our counsel has not fully reviewed this issue yet.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:45 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Then, I can't support this proposal. It greatly would reduce the capacity of member states to maintain at least some sort of individuality in their legal systems. Besides affirming broad principles of justice, the General Assembly should not dictate the specific procedural aspects of the judiciaries of member states.


And that is why I specifically left the exact details of the "mechanism" created by member-states to their decision. I can't understand how you can accuse me of dictating specific procedural aspects of judiciaries while asking me to put arbitrary limits on appellation.

Christian Democrats wrote:For one thing, your clause limiting appeals would prevent appellate courts from considering questions of law (e.g., the constitutionality of a particular law or the constitutionality of how that law has been applied).


Then why didn't you just say that when I asked for other grounds you would consider valid to lodge an appeal?


Goobergunchia wrote:We believe that the draft proposal's language does not require member nations to accept appeals on any of the listed grounds. We suggest the addition of language to more precisely require appeals, for instance:

STIPULATES that appeals may only be made if and only if one or more of the following is true;:


We also share some of the concerns expressed by the ambassador from Christian Democrats regarding the scope of questions that appellate courts may consider, especially since the current draft proposal would apply to both civil and criminal cases. We suggest the addition of the following additional bullet point in the stipulation:

  • there is reason to believe that the court decided a question of law incorrectly,


We are also concerned that the draft proposal would limit appeals from intermediate courts, or from panels of certain courts to said court sitting en banc, due to its reliance on trial activity, but our counsel has not fully reviewed this issue yet.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms


We agree broadly with the suggestions of the good gentlemen from Goobergunchia and will make the suggested changes.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
United Celts
Envoy
 
Posts: 320
Founded: Feb 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby United Celts » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:08 pm

Ambassador Finn Mac Lochlainn takes the podium. "I regret that we can't support this proposal as we've already offered our support for the replacement proposal made by the ambassador from Quelesh. The Kingdom feels that dueling replacement proposals could delay submission and passage of a replacement, an outcome that would be unacceptable given the importance of habeas corpus. I share some of Ambassador Burke's concerns regarding prosecutorial appeal but I also see the points that the ambassador from Quelesh has been making in regard to double jeopardy. Is there no room at all for compromise?"
Cormac Stark

"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:17 pm

United Celts wrote:Ambassador Finn Mac Lochlainn takes the podium. "I regret that we can't support this proposal as we've already offered our support for the replacement proposal made by the ambassador from Quelesh. The Kingdom feels that dueling replacement proposals could delay submission and passage of a replacement, an outcome that would be unacceptable given the importance of habeas corpus. I share some of Ambassador Burke's concerns regarding prosecutorial appeal but I also see the points that the ambassador from Quelesh has been making in regard to double jeopardy. Is there no room at all for compromise?"


Sir, with respect, this is the compromise. The ambassador from Quelesh seeks to prevent double jeopardy by removing any capacity for retrial, even after a decision has been appealed, which is a completely extremist stance that he himself has refused to compromise on. On the other hand, I wish to preserve the protection of citizens from double jeopardy by limiting the grounds for appeal to a few specific cases - beyond these cases, individuals may not be retried for the same alleged criminal acts again. My proposal also seeks to create a fairer and more equal judicial system by giving both parties to a trial the same capacity to appeal and the same limits on that capacity. There are two extreme stances - complete double jeopardy with infinite capacity for retrial and no double jeopardy with no capacity for retrial. My stance is one where all effective preventative measures against double jeopardy are taken without taking away a fair and limited capacity for retrial. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a compromise to me.

Furthermore, if the gentleman from Quelesh were willing to either (a) make the changes I have sought to his own proposal or (b) remove the clauses related to double jeopardy from his resolution and deal with that topic in a separate resolution, there wouldn't need to be any delay at all because in either case, I would support his proposal and the duelling would either be unnecessary (in the case of (a)) or delayed until a later date and made entirely separate from the campaign to replace "Habeas Corpus" (in the case of (b)). Either way, any delays in replacing "Habeas Corpus" will be the fault of the Queleshi delegation for their extremist stance and refusal to compromise.
Last edited by Ossitania on Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:15 pm

Lord Raekevik was visibly annoyed as he started to speak. "The other proposal is micromanaging member states' legal systems and this proposal is micromanaging member states' legal systems. Neither is acceptable! The Queendom's judiciary system allows appeals on any grounds whatsoever to be made from the first level to the intermediary appellate level. Further appeals are allowed for quite a substantial list of reasons, too long a list for me to remember correctly and recite here. We are vehemently opposed to the General Assembly trying to streamline all judiciary systems into a one-size-fits-all 'solution' and we cannot accept any limitation on the right to appeal. Frankly, I am tempted to vote for the repeal and say that no replacement is needed."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:25 pm

Alqania wrote:Lord Raekevik was visibly annoyed as he started to speak. "The other proposal is micromanaging member states' legal systems and this proposal is micromanaging member states' legal systems. Neither is acceptable! The Queendom's judiciary system allows appeals on any grounds whatsoever to be made from the first level to the intermediary appellate level. Further appeals are allowed for quite a substantial list of reasons, too long a list for me to remember correctly and recite here. We are vehemently opposed to the General Assembly trying to streamline all judiciary systems into a one-size-fits-all 'solution' and we cannot accept any limitation on the right to appeal. Frankly, I am tempted to vote for the repeal and say that no replacement is needed."


If the ambassador for Alqania has suggestions as to other grounds which should be considered an acceptable basis for an appeal, we are more than willing to hear him out and add any we may have missed. We are not attempting to micromanage here - the form of the mechanism is a matter for WA states to decide. However, we believe limitations on the grounds for which an appeal may be sought are necessary to prevent double jeopardy and wasting the court's time while at the same time ensuring the right to appeal when such appeals are justified.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:35 pm

Ossitania wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:For one thing, your clause limiting appeals would prevent appellate courts from considering questions of law (e.g., the constitutionality of a particular law or the constitutionality of how that law has been applied).


Then why didn't you just say that when I asked for other grounds you would consider valid to lodge an appeal?

I didn't think of it then. And that's part of the problem. In this proposal, it's quite possible that you'll exclude at least some cases in which appeals should be allowed. This is the reason that this proposal should set only minimum standards. Also, as I've stated, this proposal should apply only to major cases. Furthermore, how often would someone be allowed to appeal? One time? Two times? An unlimited number of times? I suggest adding that every person is entitled to at least one appeal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:42 pm

Ossitania wrote:
Alqania wrote:Lord Raekevik was visibly annoyed as he started to speak. "The other proposal is micromanaging member states' legal systems and this proposal is micromanaging member states' legal systems. Neither is acceptable! The Queendom's judiciary system allows appeals on any grounds whatsoever to be made from the first level to the intermediary appellate level. Further appeals are allowed for quite a substantial list of reasons, too long a list for me to remember correctly and recite here. We are vehemently opposed to the General Assembly trying to streamline all judiciary systems into a one-size-fits-all 'solution' and we cannot accept any limitation on the right to appeal. Frankly, I am tempted to vote for the repeal and say that no replacement is needed."


If the ambassador for Alqania has suggestions as to other grounds which should be considered an acceptable basis for an appeal, we are more than willing to hear him out and add any we may have missed. We are not attempting to micromanage here - the form of the mechanism is a matter for WA states to decide. However, we believe limitations on the grounds for which an appeal may be sought are necessary to prevent double jeopardy and wasting the court's time while at the same time ensuring the right to appeal when such appeals are justified.


"But surely double jeopardy has nothing to do with appeals?", Lord Raekevik asked rhetorically. "I thought my previous statement was explicit enough in that the Queendom will not accept any limitations on the right to appeal. This proposal would remove rights from Alqanian citizens and for that reason alone we would request the Secretariat to remove it due to being illegal for category violation. Even if the Secretariat would disagree with us, we would vehemently oppose this and would seek loopholes to exploit, in the absence of which we would be forced to reconsider our membership."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:45 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
Then why didn't you just say that when I asked for other grounds you would consider valid to lodge an appeal?

I didn't think of it then. And that's part of the problem. In this proposal, it's quite possible that you'll exclude at least some cases in which appeals should be allowed. This is the reason that this proposal should set only minimum standards. Also, as I've stated, this proposal should apply only to major cases. Furthermore, how often would someone be allowed to appeal? One time? Two times? An unlimited number of times? I suggest adding that every person is entitled to at least one appeal.


The proposal, as drafted, already states that the parties may appeal until they run out of higher courts to hear their cases. And there's always a possibility of leaving things out, but that's what the drafting process is for - so that people can point out the things I need to include. I am uncomfortable with creating a floor for appeals without creating a ceiling. Rights that can be abused to the detriment of other people require some sort of limitation.

Alqania wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
If the ambassador for Alqania has suggestions as to other grounds which should be considered an acceptable basis for an appeal, we are more than willing to hear him out and add any we may have missed. We are not attempting to micromanage here - the form of the mechanism is a matter for WA states to decide. However, we believe limitations on the grounds for which an appeal may be sought are necessary to prevent double jeopardy and wasting the court's time while at the same time ensuring the right to appeal when such appeals are justified.


"But surely double jeopardy has nothing to do with appeals?", Lord Raekevik asked rhetorically. "I thought my previous statement was explicit enough in that the Queendom will not accept any limitations on the right to appeal. This proposal would remove rights from Alqanian citizens and for that reason alone we would request the Secretariat to remove it due to being illegal for category violation. Even if the Secretariat would disagree with us, we would vehemently oppose this and would seek loopholes to exploit, in the absence of which we would be forced to reconsider our membership."


If the state appeals an acquittal and the previous ruling is overturned, that is presumably done with the intent to retry the defendant for the crime of which he was acquitted and therefore there must be appropriate limitations made to prevent double jeopardy. There is a reason that this resolution specifically give the right of appeal to both parties. In addition, if it is in the wrong category (and I feel it is not because its stipulations grant a limited right to appeal), I'll just put it in a better category. Ambassador, with all due respect, you cannot really expect us to enshrine the right to an appeal without also ensuring that right is not abused due to the lack of a ceiling, can you?
Last edited by Ossitania on Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:06 pm

1. To be clear, my proposal does not address legal appeals. The anti-double-jeopardy clause of my proposal prevents retrials of an acquitted person, but it says nothing about appeals. Member states could allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal, and they could consider an acquittal to be non-final until such an appeal has been rejected (or failed to be filed). Once a final verdict of not guilty has been rendered, however, a retrial is impossible.

2. Your proposal as worded would actually remove the rights of defendants in every member state to appeal a conviction, something that, even forgetting the double jeopardy issue, is absolutely unacceptable.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:09 pm

Ossitania wrote:he himself... gentleman from Quelesh


Alexandria raises an eyebrow at this and chuckles "Eli, you may be interested to know that I have a vagina. I don't look that masculine, do I? Besides, the pregnant belly should be a dead giveaway."
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7247
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:13 pm

Quelesh wrote:2. Your proposal as worded would actually remove the rights of defendants in every member state to appeal a conviction, something that, even forgetting the double jeopardy issue, is absolutely unacceptable.


Ambassador please. You're damaging your credibility here. Let's be logical at this point. Someone who is convicted cannot just appeal the conviction because (s)he is unhappy with being sent to prison. There has to be a legal reason behind an appeal, which Ambassador Burke puts forward in his proposal; in fact, the Ambassador supplies four such instances. Appeals are usually because a lower court made a mistake on a question of law which, unsurprising, the good author references.

there is reason to believe that the court decided a question of law incorrectly


The Ambassador is scaremongering and presenting falsities. It's not going to work.
Last edited by Sanctaria on Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:25 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Quelesh wrote:2. Your proposal as worded would actually remove the rights of defendants in every member state to appeal a conviction, something that, even forgetting the double jeopardy issue, is absolutely unacceptable.


Ambassador please. You're damaging your credibility here. Let's be logical at this point. Someone who is convicted cannot just appeal the conviction because (s)he is unhappy with being sent to prison. There has to be a legal reason behind an appeal, which Ambassador Burke puts forward in his proposal; in fact, the Ambassador supplies four such instances. Appeals are usually because a lower court made a mistake on a question of law which, unsurprising, the good author references.

there is reason to believe that the court decided a question of law incorrectly


The Ambassador is scaremongering and presenting falsities. It's not going to work.


The proposal as worded prohibits appeals of convictions in all member states that are not on one of the four specifically listed grounds. If this proposal were to pass, people convicted of crimes in Quelesh would have less right to appeal than they do now.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7247
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:33 pm

Quelesh wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:
Ambassador please. You're damaging your credibility here. Let's be logical at this point. Someone who is convicted cannot just appeal the conviction because (s)he is unhappy with being sent to prison. There has to be a legal reason behind an appeal, which Ambassador Burke puts forward in his proposal; in fact, the Ambassador supplies four such instances. Appeals are usually because a lower court made a mistake on a question of law which, unsurprising, the good author references.



The Ambassador is scaremongering and presenting falsities. It's not going to work.


The proposal as worded prohibits appeals of convictions in all member states that are not on one of the four specifically listed grounds. If this proposal were to pass, people convicted of crimes in Quelesh would have less right to appeal than they do now.


Then I question the Queleshi legal system. Like I said, there have to be legal grounds to an appeal. An appeal is saying, most commonly, there was a mistake made on a question of law, which there is provision for in the draft.

Other, less common provisions, are also included in the draft. As I've said elsewhere, I question the Ambassador's familiarity with the subject she is trying to legislate on, which is worrying.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
United Celts
Envoy
 
Posts: 320
Founded: Feb 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby United Celts » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:58 pm

Sanctaria wrote:Other, less common provisions, are also included in the draft. As I've said elsewhere, I question the Ambassador's familiarity with the subject she is trying to legislate on, which is worrying.

"What is truly worrying," said Ambassador Mac Lochlainn, "is that neither the Queleshi replacement proposal nor the Ossitanian proposal appears to be ready for prime time. As Lord Raekevik has pointed out, both proposals micromanage member nations' judiciary systems to an unacceptable degree. Meanwhile, Repeal "Habeas Corpus" sits in queue and any day now there may be no international law protecting the right to habeas corpus. And I'm not sure either of these proposals can pass."

Mac Lochlainn clears his throat before continuing. "With all due respect to the Queleshi ambassador, can we not exclude the double jeopardy provisions from your proposal and bring them up later for the sake of passing a habeas corpus protection of some kind, as the Ossitanian ambassador previously suggested? And if the Queleshi ambassador is still unwilling to even consider compromise, is there no one else who can offer a complete alternative to the proposal she is offering? I would draft such an alternative myself, but I must admit that it's a bit above my paygrade --" Mac Lochlainn pauses and glances at the Queleshi ambassador "--an admission that I wish others had been able to make."
Cormac Stark

"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Cowardly Pacifists
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1439
Founded: Dec 12, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:03 pm

United Celts wrote:With all due respect to the Queleshi ambassador, can we not exclude the double jeopardy provisions from your proposal and bring them up later for the sake of passing a habeas corpus protection of some kind, as the Ossitanian ambassador previously suggested?

I really wanted to stay out of this "who has the better conception of justice" argument, because it's not my fight and both sides are taking extreme positions then refusing to budge. But I'm very inclined to agree with the United Celts on this one. Habeas Corpus is a different thing than Double Jeopardy. I do understand the desire to link them together, but they are inherently different bodies of law. One would need a whole resolution to do justice to either of them (pardon the pun).
Last edited by Cowardly Pacifists on Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top 1% of the World
  • Most Compassionate Citizens
  • Most Eco-Friendly
  • Most Beautiful Environments
  • Longest Average Lifespans
  • Nicest Citizens
  • Most Pacifist
  • Most Rebellious Youth
  • Most Popular Tourist Destinations
  • Best Weather
The Majestic Freeholds of Cowardly Pacifists
Beautiful Lands, Beautiful People.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:06 pm

Quelesh wrote:1. To be clear, my proposal does not address legal appeals. The anti-double-jeopardy clause of my proposal prevents retrials of an acquitted person, but it says nothing about appeals. Member states could allow the prosecution to appeal an acquittal, and they could consider an acquittal to be non-final until such an appeal has been rejected (or failed to be filed). Once a final verdict of not guilty has been rendered, however, a retrial is impossible.


Baloney. Your proposal, in relevant part;

6. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again;


There's nothing about final or non-final acquittals; under your proposal all acquittals are final and it is blatant falsehood to say otherwise.

Quelesh wrote:2. Your proposal as worded would actually remove the rights of defendants in every member state to appeal a conviction, something that, even forgetting the double jeopardy issue, is absolutely unacceptable.


Right, that's what the clause guaranteeing that both parties have the right to appeal does. Obviously.

Quelesh wrote:
Ossitania wrote:he himself... gentleman from Quelesh


Alexandria raises an eyebrow at this and chuckles "Eli, you may be interested to know that I have a vagina. I don't look that masculine, do I? Besides, the pregnant belly should be a dead giveaway."


OOC: > Never signs posts
> Doesn't have name in signature
> Never roleplays in GA threads
> Expects me to know gender of ambassador

:|

Quelesh wrote:The proposal as worded prohibits appeals of convictions in all member states that are not on one of the four specifically listed grounds. If this proposal were to pass, people convicted of crimes in Quelesh would have less right to appeal than they do now.


If the Queleshi ambassador believes there are other grounds on which appeals should be based, she is more than welcome to suggest them and if they are not further anarcho-libertarian bullshit, we will be happy to add them to the draft. We are genuinely baffled as to how the Queleshi delegation can complain about the narrowness of the limitations being placed and not even attempt to suggest how they might be broadened.

United Celts wrote:"What is truly worrying," said Ambassador Mac Lochlainn, "is that neither the Queleshi replacement proposal nor the Ossitanian proposal appears to be ready for prime time. As Lord Raekevik has pointed out, both proposals micromanage member nations' judiciary systems to an unacceptable degree. Meanwhile, Repeal "Habeas Corpus" sits in queue and any day now there may be no international law protecting the right to habeas corpus. And I'm not sure either of these proposals can pass."

Mac Lochlainn clears his throat before continuing. "With all due respect to the Queleshi ambassador, can we not exclude the double jeopardy provisions from your proposal and bring them up later for the sake of passing a habeas corpus protection of some kind, as the Ossitanian ambassador previously suggested? And if the Queleshi ambassador is still unwilling to even consider compromise, is there no one else who can offer a complete alternative to the proposal she is offering? I would draft such an alternative myself, but I must admit that it's a bit above my paygrade --" Mac Lochlainn pauses and glances at the Queleshi ambassador "--an admission that I wish others had been able to make."


If it alleviates the United Celtic ambassador's fears somewhat, there is another Ossitanian proposal in the queue before the repeal, which gives us a good six days to sort this all out. However, we question the notion from the Alqanian delegation that this proposal micromanages - it certainly places both a floor and ceiling on the right to appeal but the mechanisms of appeal are left to member states to develop as best suits their system. It is disingenuous to imply that limiting a right that may be potentially abused is the same as stipulating the exact mechanics and structure of national judicial systems.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7247
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:12 pm

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:
United Celts wrote:With all due respect to the Queleshi ambassador, can we not exclude the double jeopardy provisions from your proposal and bring them up later for the sake of passing a habeas corpus protection of some kind, as the Ossitanian ambassador previously suggested?

I really wanted to stay out of this "who has the better conception of justice" argument, because it's not my fight and both sides are taking extreme positions then refusing to budge. But I'm very inclined to agree with the United Celts on this one. Habeas Corpus is a different thing than Double Jeopardy. I do understand the desire to link them together, but they are inherently different bodies of law. One would need a whole resolution to do justice to either of them (pardon the pun).


This is very true, though it is very understandable why they're all in one resolution. Habeas Corpus of course being a writ moved to determine whether a prisoner is held lawfully or otherwise, and Double Jeopardy enforces the idea that someone cannot be retried on the same grounds for the same offence that they have been cleared of committing; both are procedural and both deal with injustices that can occur.

We have a separate resolution dealing with Fair Trials, so I would encourage the Ambassadors to split the two also.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
United Celts
Envoy
 
Posts: 320
Founded: Feb 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby United Celts » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:24 pm

Ossitania wrote:If it alleviates the United Celtic ambassador's fears somewhat, there is another Ossitanian proposal in the queue before the repeal, which gives us a good six days to sort this all out. However, we question the notion from the Alqanian delegation that this proposal micromanages - it certainly places both a floor and ceiling on the right to appeal but the mechanisms of appeal are left to member states to develop as best suits their system. It is disingenuous to imply that limiting a right that may be potentially abused is the same as stipulating the exact mechanics and structure of national judicial systems.

Ambassador Mac Lochlainn rises, his suit jacket unbuttoned, his shirt slightly untucked, and his tie loosened. "To be honest, I'm not sure who's right at this point. I understand Lord Raekevik's points, the points you've made, Ambassador Burke, and even some of the points made by the Queleshi ambassador. Six days may be enough to iron all this out, but proposals of such magnitude shouldn't be rushed. I think a lot of ambassadors would feel better if the Queleshi ambassador would strip the language related to double jeopardy from her proposal and bring it up separately. It would allow the Assembly to pass a habeas corpus replacement while still giving us the time necessary to iron out details related to double jeopardy, appeals, final acquittals, and the like. But I have the feeling my pleas will fall on deaf ears and so I'll shut up now. Drinks are on me at the Strangers' Bar.

"I should add that my earlier statement that your proposal isn't ready for prime time wasn't meant as criticism, Ambassador Burke. You did after all just introduce it this afternoon and with a little more revision I'm sure it will turn out to be a fine proposal."
Cormac Stark

"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." - Winston Churchill

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads