Advertisement
by Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:58 am
Diadem wrote:Seems this is "give the scumbag criminal more rights" month for WA?
by Arcomo » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:02 pm
by Datavia » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:42 pm
Sanctaria wrote:Datavia wrote:Datavia thinks that the better way to incorporate international legislation is step by step. This new proposal, like the recently passed Habeas Corpus Act, is very to the point. Both are well written and significant (the last one just increased our Civil Rights rating). I hope this bout (timidly initiated by the Foreign Marriage Recognition) is going to last. Of course, Datavia announces its vote FOR this current proposal. And let's forget Quelesh, for crying out loud!
No "Act".
It's just "Habeas Corpus".
by Retired WerePenguins » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:34 pm
by Whipporwill » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:50 pm
by Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:56 pm
Whipporwill wrote:This resolution is completely preposterous! I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that the drafters and sponsors think that convicts have rights! In The Republic of Whipporwill, we execute our "Homeless" because they are useless! Now, convicts are worse than useless, they are a burden on our society and a threat to our National security! They lie, cheat, steal, and murder! Why would I give them rights?!
Shame on you all! The Republic of Whipporwill joined this Assembly to benefit itself. Not submit to the ridiculous laws and resolutions that hinder The Republic of Whipporwill's progress!
If this resolution passes, a resolution requesting the repeal of it will be posted immediately!
by Cowardly Pacifists » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:59 pm
Whipporwill wrote:If this resolution passes, a resolution requesting the repeal of it will be posted immediately!
by Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:03 pm
by The Federal Republic of Ducharme » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:07 pm
by Damanucus » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:21 pm
Convict Appellate Rights wrote:
- there is reason to believe that the court decided a question of law incorrectly,
by New Paris » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:43 pm
by Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:52 pm
New Paris wrote:I like this bill, but there is one part that confuses me. The part about a biased jury/judge troubles me. It is human nature to be biased. You can deny it all you want but everyone has bias about something. Therefore every jury or judge goes into a trial biased, whether that be in favor or against a convict. Using this clause a terrible serial killer could appeal and possibly be released because his/her jury was "biased." In a perfect world, humans would not be biased. Our world is far from perfect.
by New Paris » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:04 pm
Ossitania wrote:New Paris wrote:I like this bill, but there is one part that confuses me. The part about a biased jury/judge troubles me. It is human nature to be biased. You can deny it all you want but everyone has bias about something. Therefore every jury or judge goes into a trial biased, whether that be in favor or against a convict. Using this clause a terrible serial killer could appeal and possibly be released because his/her jury was "biased." In a perfect world, humans would not be biased. Our world is far from perfect.
Which is why I put the word "improper" before it, to indicate that it refers only to bias which shouldn't be there in a fair trial.
by Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:10 pm
by New Paris » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:37 pm
Ossitania wrote:New Paris wrote:
Again, who decides what is improper?! Becuase those who decide maybe as biased as the jury they are negating.
Ambassador, if you're going to imagine what would happen were this law applied in a world where apparently everyone is corrupt and evil, you're naturally going to conclude it's not going to work, because no laws work in a world where everyone is corrupt and evil. Laws are passed with the assumption that there is at least a significant amount of people who will obey them on principle - if this assumption were not true, there's no enforcement mechanism in the world that would stop people breaking the law. You're trying to argue that this law isn't going to work in corrupt environments and that's totally correct but that's not a problem that can be legislated away. If we did not pass every law that could be flouted by the corrupt, we would pass no laws at all because, shockingly enough, all laws can be broken by lawbreakers.
by Nea Utopia » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:40 pm
by Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:52 pm
Nea Utopia wrote:I agree that the use of "improper" here is somewhat odd as it would presuppose that there is such a thing as "proper bias". "Appreciable bias" or perhaps even better "appreciable lack of impartiality" might work better.
New Paris wrote:I understand. But while some people are wrongfully imprisoned, many others are set free even though they are guilty because of laws like this.
by Retired WerePenguins » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:11 pm
Ossitania wrote:How come we don't get a cool weakness like kryptonite or sunlight or the love of a mysterious woman?
by United Fenris System » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:45 pm
Ossitania wrote:
REQUIRES member-states to allow such appeals when one or more of the following is true;
[*]there is compelling evidence suggesting improper bias on the part of the judge or jury,[/list]
Ossitania wrote:PROHIBITS the limitation or restriction of the right of convicts to appeal their convictions based on time passed since conviction,
by Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:54 pm
United Fenris System wrote:Ossitania wrote:
REQUIRES member-states to allow such appeals when one or more of the following is true;
[*]there is compelling evidence suggesting improper bias on the part of the judge or jury,[/list]
Bias especially when it is considered Jury bias is not grounds for appeal within today's modern judiciary systems. There is a system currently in place that allows both sides within a trial matter to dismiss a juror from their duty before the trial begins if they have reason to believe that the juror would not be impartial. This therefore becomes redundant and would simply serve to tie up the judiciary with endless appeal cases costing the state great deals of money and achieving nothing in return.
United Fenris System wrote:Ossitania wrote:PROHIBITS the limitation or restriction of the right of convicts to appeal their convictions based on time passed since conviction,
The limitation should be and must be in place to ensure that prisoners which will undoubtedly become bored during their time in jail don't use it as a opportunity to simply waste the judiciary's time and skill for a matter that should have been closed months or even years ago. The only time in which stay should be granted is when new or previously undisclosed evidence is uncovered that may change the facts and thus the outcome of the case. The general reason that there is a time limit is so the courts do not get tied down by offenders known as vexatious litigants who constantly pester and waste the courts time.
by Orginal New France » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:40 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement