[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

[Slavskia]

Our delegation voted for as well. Seven out of eight members of Slavskia's delegation voted for this resolution.

[Diadem]

Seems this is "give the scumbag criminal more rights" month for WA?

[Ossitania]

Seems this is "give the scumbag criminal more rights" month for WA?

More than a month, since this has been going on since February, but I think you'll find that this proposal is to protect the rights of the innocent - true criminals who launch appeals aren't going to get very far if their rights have not already been violated by your nation. And if you're really sick of this topic, vote in favour so that it won't need to be revisited in the future.

[Arcomo]

A pretty good proposal for the GA, I'm in favour. Though I would have liked to see something of a description of the procedure of an appeal in order to, for instance, deny governments the possibility of taking forever on an appeals case, or putting it on hold for whatever reason they imagine.

[Datavia]

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".

Right. My fault. But not very to the point.

[Sanctaria]

No "Act".

It's just "Habeas Corpus".

Right. My fault. But not very to the point.

I was correcting you. It doesn't have to be to the point.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Three small penguins enter the chamber and one of them heads to the podium.

"Don't touch me! Is this microphone on? Hey [static] is this thing translating correctly? You can't trust a WA gnome as far as you can head butt them. Good, thanks, where was I?"

"On behalf of the tall WerePenguin Emperors of Retired WerePenguins, we the Adelie Penguin delegation to the World Assembly have been instructed to vote in the affirmative for the current resolution at vote. The resolution as written seems exceptionally reasonable, has no ovbious major errors and seems proper in the field of inalienable rights. It's a pitty that you have systems that manage to convict innocent people in the first place, but you can't all be like us Adelie Penguins, so having the mechanism for correction of errors in justice is exceptionally important."

[Whipporwill]

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!

[Ossitania]

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!

You already gave them tons of rights when you joined the Assembly. You may want to have a flick through the pages of international law. They're a very instructive read, I assure you.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

If this resolution passes, a resolution requesting the repeal of it will be posted immediately!

Oh dear, you've found Ossitania's weakness: a hastily drafted repeal.

[Ossitania]

If this resolution passes, a resolution requesting the repeal of it will be posted immediately!

Oh dear, you've found Ossitania's weakness: a hastily drafted repeal.

How come we don't get a cool weakness like kryptonite or sunlight or the love of a mysterious woman?

[The Federal Republic of Ducharme]

I firmly believe the creator of this proposal is correct in his/her statements regarding the rights of convicts once evidence has emerged that can possibly challenge the grounds of their persecution. Well done!

[Damanucus]

I do apologize for my delayed input in this debate; I was concerned that there was overlap with "Preventing Multiple Trials", requiring me to scrutinize the two acts for such. However, I am satisfied that there is none.

That said, I am to scrutinize it on its own merits, and there is one point that raises questions with me:

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

This was a point I brought up with another draft by a separate author. This, as I see it, is what defines the "sport" side of legal trials (convincing the jury or court on what they're deciding), and as such I do not believe that appealing a conviction based on "incorrect question of law" can be conceived as a reason for appeal. Additionally, this clause can be abused all too easily for this very reason. If you're wondering what I mean, allow me to demonstrate...

Stephanie holds up her two hands to represent mouths, and begins to take on voices for them.

"I want to appeal my client's conviction on basis of incorrect question of law."
"Your client was guilty of murder."
"Ah yes, but the question was not whether he killed someone, but whether he had a right to kill."
"He killed a man in cold blood."
"Ah yes, but was it without provocation? How would he know that he wasn't going to be killed by him, that his victim wasn't planning to kill him first?"

Stephanie lowers her hands, and returns to her normal voice.

This may seem like an exaggeration, but sadly this situation can occur, and as such, against my region's apparent wishes, I have to vote against this resolution. I don't like doing this to such an esteemed member of this council, but it is what I must do.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[New Paris]

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.

Also, the part about the court deciding "a question of law incorrectly." Who determines this? Politicians? Judges? The people? This could go wrong in many ways. For example, a judge/politician's brother is convicted of murdering 3 children. Then, he/she says that the court decided the question of law incorrectly. He/She then appeals and swings an "unbiased" jury their way. A serial killer is the set free in the name of deciding a question of the law correctly.

[Ossitania]

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.

[New Paris]

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.

Again, who decides what is improper?! Becuase those who decide maybe as biased as the jury they are negating.

[Ossitania]

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.

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.

[New Paris]

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.

I understand. But while some people are wrongfully imprisoned, many others are set free even though they are guilty because of laws like this.

[Nea Utopia]

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.

[Tibberiria]

We fully support this proposal.

[Ossitania]

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.

"Proper bias" would presumably be the bias that the jury accumulates as it is exposed to more and more evidence of the accused's guilt or innocence. At any rate, the law is at vote now and it is impossible to change the wording.

I understand. But while some people are wrongfully imprisoned, many others are set free even though they are guilty because of laws like this.

That's an unavoidable problem in any legal system and not one that can be fixed. If the provisions of this resolution were drastically increasing the amount of guilty people getting set free, it would be an argument against it but since I can't see how one could reasonably reach that conclusion, I don't see the point of your argument.

[Retired WerePenguins]

How come we don't get a cool weakness like kryptonite or sunlight or the love of a mysterious woman?

Or the Color Red

Go on ... NAME THAT MOVIE.

[United Fenris System]

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.

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.

[Ossitania]

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.

You're making the easy mistake of assuming uniformity among the judicial systems of all nations gathered together in this Assembly. That's not the case and the provisions were written to be applicable to the broadest number of judicial systems possible. Additionally, if your nation's legal system really has a good way of ensuring there is no bias, then it's not going to cause a problem because the decision on whether or not to hear appeals rests solely with your judiciary. If your judges decide to allow appeals on unreasonable grounds, that's a problem with your judges, not with my proposal.

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.

Again, it's your judiciary that will decide if there are sufficient grounds to hear an appeal. Additionally, the proposal does not prohibit requiring a waiting period between attempts at appealing a conviction - there is no provision against limiting or restricting appeal based on frequency, there is merely a provision against limiting or restricting appeal based on time passed since conviction. This, among other things, ensures that convictions may still be appealed after the fine is paid or the sentence is served or what have you. There should be no statue of limitations on the ability of an innocent to clear their name.

[Orginal New France]

Original New France supports this resolution. We see that if someone is convicted of a crime they did not commit then they should be able to appeal the conviction.