[PASSED] Preventing Multiple Trials

[Frisbeeteria]

At Vote!


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZING the significant financial and psychological burden that criminal trials cause to innocent defendants.

DEPLORING the practice of trying individuals repeatedly for a single offense without valid justification,

NOTING the potential for governments to use multiple trials as a means of harassing defendants.

SEEKING to create a balance between preventing unjustified multiple trials of individuals while allowing nations to ensure justice through fair retrial,

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1. DEFINES "retrial", for the purpose of this resolution, as a prosecution-initiated re-trial of a defendant after a final verdict was previously passed on a legal case based on substantially the same alleged actions as the previous verdict.

2. OUTLAWS retrials except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand, such as when proper legal procedure was not followed in the course of the previous trial.

3. MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system:
a. Specific circumstances, which qualify as significant miscarriages of justice, under which retrials are allowed.
b. A reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.

4. FORBIDS retrials under all circumstances within a given nation except as allowed under clause 3.

5. REQUIRES defendants to be provided with
(a) Written notification of the decision to seek a retrial and the reasons for doing so; and
(b) the right to appeal, before an impartial judge, the decision to retry the case.

6. 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.

7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall affect a defendant’s right to appeal their conviction or sentence.

Co-Authored by Ossitania

RECOGNIZING the significant financial and psychological burden that befall innocent defendants in criminal trials.

FURTHER NOTING the potential of double jeopardy as a means of harassing defendants.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1. DEFINES "double jeopardy" as a prosecution-initiated trial of a defendant after a verdict was previously passed on a legal case based on substantially the same alleged facts as the previous verdict.

2. OUTLAWS the practice of double jeopardy except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand.

3. FURTHER REQUIRES member nations to specify specific circumstances under which double jeopardy is allowed.

4. MANDATES that a defendant may appeal the decision by the prosecution to retry the case before an impartial judge.

5. STIPULATES that nothing in this resolution shall restrict a defendant’s right to appeal their conviction or sentence.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

DEFINES “double jeopardy” as the re-trial of a defendant for criminal charges associated with the same set of events and facts.

RECOGNIZES the significant financial and psychological burden that befall innocent defendants in criminal trials.

FURTHER NOTES the potential of double jeopardy as a means of harassing defendants.

REQUIRES member nations to specify the circumstances under which the retrial of a defendant may be appropriate.

FORBIDS the retrial of defendants who have been tried for a crime for charges related to substantially the same set of facts unless permitted explicitly by national law as stipulated above.

MANDATES that a defendant may appeal the decision by the prosecution to retry the case before an impartial judge.

STIPULATES that nothing in this resolution shall restrict a defendant’s right to appeal their conviction or sentence.

ALLOWS member nations to place further restrictions on the permissibility of double jeopardy provisions within their borders.

[Merfurian]

I'm happy - it permits trial de novo - at last - so we will keep this Proposal on tab and we will support it as and when.

Dr Klause Uliyan
etc

[Embolalia]

Couldn't a nation specify in its law that retrial is okay in all circumstances, regardless of whether there's any new evidence? That would then fit the exception to OUTLAWS. As I see it, double jeopardy is retrial without either new physical evidence or testimony, or without a substantial question of the legal procedure of the previous trial. I don't mind leaving the question of what constitutes a substantial legal question or substantial new evidence to the nations, but as it stands there doesn't appear to be any even general criteria that need to be met for a nation to allow retrial. "A not-guilty verdict was handed down" is a circumstance in which a nation could allow retrial.

(Also, you define double jeopardy, but then never use the phrase.)

[Peoples Empire]

The draft looks good so far. I hope however that if this passes it stays passed, There are to many resolutions, That after there approved need to be re-written, or are voted down on technicalities.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

What if the nation doesnt have trials?

[Paper Flowers]

What if the nation doesnt have trials?

Then the nation probably isn't in the WA, for to quote GAR #39:

MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence;

It seems to me that if we are mandating that people be brought to trial, we are therefore mandating the existence of such trials.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

[Moronist Decisions]

Couldn't a nation specify in its law that retrial is okay in all circumstances, regardless of whether there's any new evidence? That would then fit the exception to OUTLAWS. As I see it, double jeopardy is retrial without either new physical evidence or testimony, or without a substantial question of the legal procedure of the previous trial. I don't mind leaving the question of what constitutes a substantial legal question or substantial new evidence to the nations, but as it stands there doesn't appear to be any even general criteria that need to be met for a nation to allow retrial. "A not-guilty verdict was handed down" is a circumstance in which a nation could allow retrial.

(Also, you define double jeopardy, but then never use the phrase.)

I tossed out the definition of double jeopardy, and tried to tighten the wording - but would feel that writing a list of approved reasons would tend towards the micromanagement side. One possibility, of course, that I can support is that nations would be required to publish statistics regarding the number of re-trials and the number of acquittals.

I would like to hear what other ambassadors would have to say, however.

[Mousebumples]

Comments, as promised:

RECOGNIZING the significant financial and psychological burden that befall innocent defendants in criminal trials.

FURTHER NOTING the potential of double jeopardy as a means of harassing defendants.

A few questions: Why are you "FURTHER NOTING" if you having done any "NOTING" so far?

Anyhow, I think these might be better suited in reverse order, with a third clause to "tie things up" - a la BELIEVING that the World Assembly should move to protect such individuals from such judicial abuses. ... or something along those lines.

1. DEFINES "double jeopardy" as a prosecution-initiated trial of a defendant after a verdict was previously passed on a legal case based on substantially the same alleged facts as the previous verdict.

"Re-trial" ? And I still maintain that specifying "innocence" in the above definition would make the most sense. I would think "double jeopardy" to change a guilty verdict to a not-guilty verdict would be a (relatively speaking) GOOD THING, if nations elect to move in that direction.

If you're concerned about nations adding convictions in a piecemeal fashion (i.e. one trial for murder, one trial for robbery, one trial for breaking and entering, etc., when they were all the same day/incident) ... I would think an additional clause to cover such a thing would be simplest - rather than trying to shove it into the definition of Double Jeopardy.

2. OUTLAWS the practice of double jeopardy except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand.

You could expand here with something along the lines of such as X, Y, and Z.

3. FURTHER REQUIRES member nations to specify specific circumstances under which double jeopardy is allowed.

I would think saying "will and will not be allowed" really lays everything out. You could also toss in a to best suit the needs of their population and national interests to make it clear that this proposal is not meant to make all judicial systems identical to each other.

Also, you never "REQUIRED" in the first place, so why are you FURTHER REQUIRING?

4. MANDATES that a defendant may appeal the decision by the prosecution to retry the case before an impartial judge.

Would you want to toss in here that the defendant has a right to know WHY the retrial is occurring? (i.e. similar to Habeas Corpus, in how an individual has a right to know why they are being detained; here the individual could have a right to know why their Double Jeopardy rights are being waived)

5. STIPULATES that nothing in this resolution shall restrict a defendant’s right to appeal their conviction or sentence.

Good.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Moronist Decisions]

After discussion and thought, we have chosen to re-separate the rights of double jeopardy and appeal. Please find a revised draft based partly on the original, mixed draft and the revised (combined) draft.

[Mallorea and Riva]

1. DEFINES "retrial", for the purpose of this resolution, as a prosecution-initiated re-trial of a defendant after a verdict was previously passed on a legal case based on substantially the same alleged actions as the previous verdict.

So far so good. Defense based appeals are irrelevant to the issue at hand, and have no place in it.

2. OUTLAWS retrials except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand, such as when proper legal procedure was not followed in the course of the previous trial.

3. MANDATES that each member nation shall independently specify specific circumstances under which retrials are allowed, and forbids retrials under all other circumstances.

I'll think about this one for awhile, since a mistake here would really sink the whole resolution.

4. LIMITS the prosecution to one retrial for a given defendant per set of criminal circumstances.

Erm what if there is another "miscarriage of justice" within the retrial?

5. REQUIRES defendants to be provided with
(a) Written notification of the decision to seek a retrial and the reasons for doing so; and
(b) the right to appeal, before an impartial judge, the decision to retry the case.

Understandable, but can the prosecution continue the chain of appeals through the nation's legal system? That seems like the most logical way to deal with the situation, rather than simply leaving it to a single judge.

7. 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.

Makes sense.

8. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall restrict a defendant’s right to appeal their conviction or sentence, subject to extant or future national and international law.

Good.

So, overall, while I cringe whenever member states see the WA intrude on their legal systems, this is indeed a superior draft than the one which has been resubmitted with minimal changes.

[Moronist Decisions]

While I will adopt many of your points, I will mention that this process is not the same as the actual appeals process, which is being worked on by Ossitania. This is designed for cases where the prosecution may wish to open a new case years after the actual appeals process has lapsed, or where (say) the prosecution wishes to charge someone who has been convicted of grievous bodily harm of murder after the victim has died from wounds.

[Moronist Decisions]

After deliberation between all relevant offices of the Council of Morons, the Faculties of Law and International Relations in the University of Moronist Decisions and the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Law, as well as with various foreign delegations, The Lion in Council has directed me to submit this proposal, and seeks the support of delegates to approve this proposal.

We have done this now to present an alternative to Quelesh's flawed proposal, which he has - for all intents and purposes - rehashed from his now-repealed resolution, and surprised the International Community in an unbecoming manner - and believe that the electorate should have a genuine choice between competing alternatives. This resolution provides protection against defendants against prosecutors seeking re-conviction with heavier charges, and requires limits on the number of retrials. It allows trials de novo and requires nations to specify their reasons for retrying a case.

Thanks etc,

[Ossitania]

We are, naturally, highly supportive of the current draft. Perhaps amusingly, our only disagreement is that we don't really feel we deserve the co-authoring credit, since the only parts of the current draft we really contributed to are the second and fourth lines of the opening clauses.

[Moronist Decisions]

Bump. We're getting close to quorum, but not quite ... :-) Approvals would be appreciated.

[Moronist Decisions]

Thank you to the delegates for helping bring this to quorum.

[Auralia]

Firm support.

[Ossitania]

We look forward to voting this in once the new Quelesian proposal has failed.

[Dagguerro]

What are the odds on Quelesh having an instarepeal draft in their back pocket in the event that theirs fails and this goes through? :-\

[Zaklen]

Zaklen wishes this proposal's author the best of luck in this proposal getting passed. Hopefully, the Queleshian filth won't pass and render this proposal illegal.

[Moronist Decisions]

At this stage, I would like to remind delegates and representatives that this quorate proposal is slated for vote after the Queleshian resolution. We do not believe that the Quelesian proposal has fundamentaly addressed the problems that got it repealed, and would like to urge representatives to vote against the Quelesian proposal and after that is hopefully defeated, vote for this proposal.

[Moronist Decisions]

As mentioned before, this is at vote immediately after the current proposal has been (hopefully) voted down. As you can see, and as we have mentioned previously in the current thread, this would be a reasonable replacement and block any tripe that Quelesh may wish to pass on this particular issue.

[Mousebumples]

As mentioned before, this is at vote immediately after the current proposal has been (hopefully) voted down. As you can see, and as we have mentioned previously in the current thread, this would be a reasonable replacement and block any tripe that Quelesh may wish to pass on this particular issue.

We endorse this approach (voting IN FAVOR of this proposal, after voting down the current resolution At Vote), as it would add an extra step before the Queleshian delegation would be able to attempt to foist their narrowly focused text on this Assembly. (A repeal of PMT would be required, after all, for any resubmission of DJP.)

[Moronist Decisions]

Pre-vote bump Please support this when it comes to the floor!

[Dagguerro]

I am eagerly awaiting it coming to vote.

[Damanucus]

OOC: Less than two hours before this reaches vote, thankfully.