[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

[Peoples Empire]

As the Lion has indicated elsewhere, we have chosen to split our drafts again, such that they now deal with complimentary aspects of the criminal justice system. This draft now deals solely with appealing criminal convictions.

Constructive comments are appreciated.

I was just wondering if you planed to put any enforcement provisions in this draft, so if nation states do not comply there would be a chance of punishment, and therefore would be more willing to enforce "Criminal Appellate Rights" in there nations.

[Merfurian]

As the Lion has indicated elsewhere, we have chosen to split our drafts again, such that they now deal with complimentary aspects of the criminal justice system. This draft now deals solely with appealing criminal convictions.

Constructive comments are appreciated.

I was just wondering if you planed to put any enforcement provisions in this draft, so if nation states do not comply there would be a chance of punishment, and therefore would be more willing to enforce "Criminal Appellate Rights" in there nations.

Ambassador;

Traditionally, jurisprudence and doctrine has always held that membership of the WA = WA resolutions are automatically enforced in a nation. No need for enforecement clauses.

Dr Klause Uliyan

[Ossitania]

As the Lion has indicated elsewhere, we have chosen to split our drafts again, such that they now deal with complimentary aspects of the criminal justice system. This draft now deals solely with appealing criminal convictions.

Constructive comments are appreciated.

I was just wondering if you planed to put any enforcement provisions in this draft, so if nation states do not comply there would be a chance of punishment, and therefore would be more willing to enforce "Criminal Appellate Rights" in there nations.

It is as the gentleman from Merfurian says; the Compliance Commission ensures enforcement. While it is not uncommon for additional enforcement measures to be introduced where appropriate, I see no compelling reason to do so here.

[Quelesh]

With the removal of the double jeopardy provisions, I can completely support this proposal as currently written, regardless of the outcome of the current double jeopardy fracas.

I would request, though, that the reference to "criminals" be changed to "convicts," or "people who have been convicted of a crime," or something similar. After all, if they've been wrongfully convicted, then they're not really criminals.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Ossitania]

The Quelesian ambassador's correction has been taken on board.

[Auralia]

Do "criminal appeals" include appeals by the prosecution of an acquittal (or a conviction, though that's unlikely)?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Upon consideration, The Imperial Commonwealth of Libraria and Ausitoria would like to announce its support of this proposal.

[Merfurian]

Do "criminal appeals" include appeals by the prosecution of an acquittal (or a conviction, though that's unlikely)?

By my interpretation of the statutory language contained in this Resolution and other jurisprudence of this House, I believe that such an interpretation is correct.

Dr Klause Uliyqn PC
etc

[Auralia]

Do "criminal appeals" include appeals by the prosecution of an acquittal (or a conviction, though that's unlikely)?

By my interpretation of the statutory language contained in this Resolution and other jurisprudence of this House, I believe that such an interpretation is correct.

Dr Klause Uliyqn PC
etc

In that case, this resolution mandates that certain forms of double jeopardy be permitted. I think it would be best if this resolution were limited to criminal appellate rights, not prosecutorial appellate rights.

[Ossitania]

No, this doesn't include prosecutorial appeals, that's the whole reason that the Lion and I resplit our combined proposal. We split the issue along the lines of a criminal court - Moronist Decisions's "Preventing Multiple Trials" covers the prosecution side and this proposal covers the side of the defendant.

EDIT: I've cleaned up the language to clarify this point.

[Auralia]

No, this doesn't include prosecutorial appeals, that's the whole reason that the Lion and I resplit our combined proposal. We split the issue along the lines of a criminal court - Moronist Decisions's "Preventing Multiple Trials" covers the prosecution side and this proposal covers the side of the defendant.

EDIT: I've cleaned up the language to clarify this point.

In that case, we are pleased to offer our support for this proposal.

[Ossitania]

We thank the Auralian gentleman for his support. However, we are holding off on submitting this until there are fewer proposals in the queue, to give this proposal the best chance at getting to quorum. While domestic difficulties (OOC: Illness, familial matters, exam pressures) were part of the reason that our repeal of GA #117 didn't get to quorum, we believe there is at least a bit of approval fatigue and especially repeal fatigue at the moment, so it seems to be in our best interests to let the poor delegates rest for a while.

[Ossitania]

I'm considering a retitle before I submit. Here's my suggestions, others are more than welcome;

• Convict Appellate Rights
• Protecting Innocents Act
• Appellate Rights Convention
• Wrongful Conviction Act
• Appellate Rights Accord

[Ossitania]

I will be submitting this upon the conclusion of the current vote.

[Quelesh]

As I've said before, now that this proposal deals solely with the rights of convicts to appeal their convictions (mandating that appeals be allowed on certain grounds while doing nothing to restrict appeals on other grounds), we can support this proposal at vote.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Alqania]

"Hmm, I think the first list item was meant to say the following", Lord Raekevik speculated.

• evidence has emerged that was previously unavailable which suggests the conviction was factually false,

[Moronist Decisions]

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

There's always a limit to how many times a convict can appeal their sentence though. As written, I fear it may mandate infinite appeals. I would recommend changing this to

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

(thus guaranteeing them at least one appeal)

Otherwise, looks fine by me.

[Ossitania]

"Hmm, I think the first list item was meant to say the following", Lord Raekevik speculated.

• evidence has emerged that was previously unavailable which suggests the conviction was factually false,

We thank the Alqanian gentleman for catching our error.

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

There's always a limit to how many times a convict can appeal their sentence though. As written, I fear it may mandate infinite appeals. I would recommend changing this to

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

(thus guaranteeing them at least one appeal)

Otherwise, looks fine by me.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with at least one appeal. I was thinking, perhaps, of doing something similar to Sanctaria's Habeas Corpus proposal, like this;

"REQUESTS that member-states determine, within their own jurisdiction, a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge"

or possibly expanding the final clause;

"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."

Thoughts?

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would rather see one resolution dealing exclusively with "Rights of the Accused" rather than a piecemeal that the WA seems so apt to support on a resolution-by-resolution basis.

[Alqania]

"Hmm, I think the first list item was meant to say the following", Lord Raekevik speculated.

We thank the Alqanian gentleman for catching our error.

There's always a limit to how many times a convict can appeal their sentence though. As written, I fear it may mandate infinite appeals. I would recommend changing this to



(thus guaranteeing them at least one appeal)

Otherwise, looks fine by me.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with at least one appeal. I was thinking, perhaps, of doing something similar to Sanctaria's Habeas Corpus proposal, like this;

"REQUESTS that member-states determine, within their own jurisdiction, a reasonable ceiling on the number of appeals that a convict may lodge"

or possibly expanding the final clause;

"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."

Thoughts?

"Number of appeals?" Lord Raekevik asked with curiosity. "In the legal system I know, the Alqanian one, an appeal may be made within three weeks after the verdict is given. If there are numerous claims submitted against the same verdict, those are collected and considered together as one appeal. If three weeks have passed without any appeal submitted, then the time is up for appeals, but the case may still be reopened in accordance with Alqanian law and in accordance with the resolution at vote. The situations described in this proposal would all warrant such a reopening. I presume there would be no reason to force a member state to allow a process which is called 'appeal' rather than a process called 'reopening' if the result for the convict remains the same."

[Ossitania]

The Republic of Quadrimmina would rather see one resolution dealing exclusively with "Rights of the Accused" rather than a piecemeal that the WA seems so apt to support on a resolution-by-resolution basis.

Dr. Frick and I had originally presented a combined resolution but reconsidered it and decided that splitting the resolution into two would better ensure that the topics were dealt with adequately. At any rate, this resolution has nothing to do with the accused, this is about the already convicted.

"Number of appeals?" Lord Raekevik asked with curiosity. "In the legal system I know, the Alqanian one, an appeal may be made within three weeks after the verdict is given. If there are numerous claims submitted against the same verdict, those are collected and considered together as one appeal. If three weeks have passed without any appeal submitted, then the time is up for appeals, but the case may still be reopened in accordance with Alqanian law and in accordance with the resolution at vote. The situations described in this proposal would all warrant such a reopening. I presume there would be no reason to force a member state to allow a process which is called 'appeal' rather than a process called 'reopening' if the result for the convict remains the same."

I don't follow, ambassador.

[Alqania]

"Number of appeals?" Lord Raekevik asked with curiosity. "In the legal system I know, the Alqanian one, an appeal may be made within three weeks after the verdict is given. If there are numerous claims submitted against the same verdict, those are collected and considered together as one appeal. If three weeks have passed without any appeal submitted, then the time is up for appeals, but the case may still be reopened in accordance with Alqanian law and in accordance with the resolution at vote. The situations described in this proposal would all warrant such a reopening. I presume there would be no reason to force a member state to allow a process which is called 'appeal' rather than a process called 'reopening' if the result for the convict remains the same."

I don't follow, ambassador.

"A verdict given in an Alqanian District Court may be appealed to the appropriate Appellate Court within three weeks. If three weeks pass without any appeal being submitted, the verdict is considered final and can no longer be appealed. In the circumstances mentioned by this proposal, a case may however be reopened and there is no time limit on how long after the verdict that the case may be reopened and the verdict overturned that way. I guess that instead of reopening cases, other nations may overturn verdicts in trials de novo. Point is, after a verdict is final, it can no longer be appealed and verdicts should be finalised sooner than later."

[Ossitania]

I don't follow, ambassador.

"A verdict given in an Alqanian District Court may be appealed to the appropriate Appellate Court within three weeks. If three weeks pass without any appeal being submitted, the verdict is considered final and can no longer be appealed. In the circumstances mentioned by this proposal, a case may however be reopened and there is no time limit on how long after the verdict that the case may be reopened and the verdict overturned that way. I guess that instead of reopening cases, other nations may overturn verdicts in trials de novo. Point is, after a verdict is final, it can no longer be appealed and verdicts should be finalised sooner than later."

Right, I totally get that. I just don't see how this relates to what's being discussed.

[Moronist Decisions]

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

I can't speak for Alq, but this implies, on second thought, that convicts need to be able to appeal their conviction whenever they feel like it, no matter the fact that (a) the conviction occurred decades ago, or (b) that he's appealed to everyone and his/her grandmother. Maybe replace "convict" with "those convicted of crimes"?

[Auralia]

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

I can't speak for Alq, but this implies, on second thought, that convicts need to be able to appeal their conviction whenever they feel like it, no matter the fact that (a) the conviction occurred decades ago, or (b) that he's appealed to everyone and his/her grandmother. Maybe replace "convict" with "those convicted of crimes"?

How about adding "within a reasonable time frame"?