[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

[Calderax]

It is an undue strain on the Great Nation of Calderax's court systems to allow convicted felons to appeal, all of whom, thanks to our stellar and competent executive system, we know are guilty. So, truly, this legislation is NOT about increasing rights. It's about bankrupting nations in more and more red tape. If you have a problem with proper justice in your nations, then I suggest you look at the way in which you govern or what kind of ignorant cultural background your nations people hail from. But in the Great Calderax, we are complete and efficient in our justice and have no need of this useless legislation.

Calderax votes AGAINST.

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate and Media Minister of Europeia will be voting AYE on this proposal after a 6/1 internal vote decided such action as governed by Europeian Law. With no glaring issue found in this proposal, and a shred of National Sovereignty kept, we see little reason to deny this proposal to our books. It's simple, clear and doesn't impose any of these time-limits so, with that, our vote is cast.

[Luethdno]

The Republic of Luethdno has decided to vote against this resolution, though it is fair to many people the people of Luethdno do not want to take the risk of letting a person that may still be guilty and may commit again out in the public, alongside this we use our prisoners as apart of our working state, so it's a no on all levels.

[Computeropia]

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.

It seems to me that any nation can negate the entire wording of this resolution by claiming a "resonable ceiling" on the number of appeals can be set at "one" in their own nation. There would be no uniformity between nations. One nation may allow 5 chances and another 1.

[New Matawan]

The United Socialist States of New Matawan, finding Nothing within the Document contradictory to our deepest Beliefs, and Believing that all criminals should be given a Fair and Honest trial and the Right to defend themselves from any and all Conviction, hereby votes YEA to the Convict Appelate Rights Proposal.

[Ossitania]

It is an undue strain on the Great Nation of Calderax's court systems to allow convicted felons to appeal, all of whom, thanks to our stellar and competent executive system, we know are guilty. So, truly, this legislation is NOT about increasing rights. It's about bankrupting nations in more and more red tape. If you have a problem with proper justice in your nations, then I suggest you look at the way in which you govern or what kind of ignorant cultural background your nations people hail from. But in the Great Calderax, we are complete and efficient in our justice and have no need of this useless legislation.

Calderax votes AGAINST.

Your judiciary is what decides whether appeals are heard or not. If your oh-so-perfect justice system is really as great as you claim, then surely you have judges who are competent enough to dismiss applications to have an appeal heard by pointing out that your system leaves no question of guilt and its perfection would surely extend to making sure there were no procedural errors during the trial, meaning that convicts in your country would have no grounds to appeal as they would all be definitively guilty.

Following on from that, logically speaking, this resolution would have no effect on your nation, as there would never be a need for appeals to be heard, so convicts would never have grounds to appeal their convictions in the first place. That means that you are voting against extending these rights to people who may genuinely need them in countries with less perfect justice systems because...because why exactly? All you've shown is that the resolution won't affect your nation (well, actually, you claimed it would but the claim wasn't supported by your further statements), you haven't argued that it will negatively impact others. Unless such a negative impact can be demonstrated, your negative vote comes across as quite illogical, ambassador.

The Republic of Luethdno has decided to vote against this resolution, though it is fair to many people the people of Luethdno do not want to take the risk of letting a person that may still be guilty and may commit again out in the public, alongside this we use our prisoners as apart of our working state, so it's a no on all levels.

In case the ambassador from Luethdno is under some misconception, we do not see the problem. This resolution does not require that all appeals be accepted or even heard. There are grounds presented on which appeals must be heard but it is your nation's judiciary which will, in each case, determine if the arguments put forward by the appellant fit one or more of these grounds. If the appellant is then deemed to have the requisite grounds for an appeal, that still doesn't guarantee his success - he could very well fail at appeals, just as he could fail before he even gets that far. In reality, the chance of a truly guilty convict successfully appealing his conviction seems rather remote. In addition, you speak of prisoners when this resolution has nothing to do with prisoners - it is to do with people who have been declared guilty of a crime, no matter the punishment given to them. This isn't about appealing the legality of one's detention - that's the purview of the recently-passed GA #201 Habeas Corpus. This resolution is about appealing against the declaration of guilt, even after sentence has been served. This is about clearing one's good name, not escaping punishment, though that would be the natural result should someone who is serving time successfully appeal their conviction before their sentence is served.

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.

It seems to me that any nation can negate the entire wording of this resolution by claiming a "resonable ceiling" on the number of appeals can be set at "one" in their own nation. There would be no uniformity between nations. One nation may allow 5 chances and another 1.

Naturally, but setting a strict number would have been even more disastrous, as the number could have been a farcically large amount in species with a short lifespan and a farcically small amount in species with a long one. If we had attempted to dictate a specific number, it would have pleased no one in the end, whereas with this, we can guarantee that every single person gets at least one chance at an appeal and, in many nations, they will get a reasonably more significant number.

[Whipporwill]

Your judiciary is what decides whether appeals are heard or not. If your oh-so-perfect justice system is really as great as you claim, then surely you have judges who are competent enough to dismiss applications to have an appeal heard by pointing out that your system leaves no question of guilt and its perfection would surely extend to making sure there were no procedural errors during the trial, meaning that convicts in your country would have no grounds to appeal as they would all be definitively guilty.

You expect to gain support by criticizing and ridiculing our members' judiciary systems?! This is unacceptable! THE REPUBLIC OF WHIPPORWILL DEMANDS THAT THE MEMBER FROM THE INDEPENDENT COMMONWEALTH OF OSSITANIA BE REMOVED AND SUSPENDED FROM THIS ASSEMBLY!

[Sanctaria]

You expect to gain support by criticizing and ridiculing our members' judiciary systems?! This is unacceptable! THE REPUBLIC OF WHIPPORWILL DEMANDS THAT THE MEMBER FROM THE INDEPENDENT COMMONWEALTH OF OSSITANIA BE REMOVED AND SUSPENDED FROM THIS ASSEMBLY!

We are disinclined to acquiesce to your demand.

Means no.

[Ossitania]

You expect to gain support by criticizing and ridiculing our members' judiciary systems?! This is unacceptable! THE REPUBLIC OF WHIPPORWILL DEMANDS THAT THE MEMBER FROM THE INDEPENDENT COMMONWEALTH OF OSSITANIA BE REMOVED AND SUSPENDED FROM THIS ASSEMBLY!

1) I haven't criticised or ridiculed anyone's judicial system, I have criticised and ridiculed arguments against my proposal by people who clearly haven't noticed that their arguments are predicated on the incompetency of their own judicial systems. I haven't insulted anyone's judicial systems, I've merely pointed out that their judicial systems must be incompetent for their arguments to hold true, with the implication that their argument is wrong, not that their judicial system is incompetent.

2) Criticising and ridiculing the institutions of other member-states is not grounds for suspension from the Assembly anyway. And anyway, what's wrong with criticising? Are you so insecure in your institutions that you cannot take their flaws being pointed out to you?

[Fritzergald]

This will completely destroy WA nations who have the Most Extreme governments. You are just trying to get dictators on you!

[Goobergunchia]

We do not wish to engage in anything that kinky.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Ossitania]

This will completely destroy WA nations who have the Most Extreme governments. You are just trying to get dictators on you!

Any dictatorship that would be completely destroyed by this proposal is far too weak a dictatorship to concern the Independent Commonwealth of Ossitania.

[New Matawan]

It is an undue strain on the Great Nation of Calderax's court systems to allow convicted felons to appeal, all of whom, thanks to our stellar and competent executive system, we know are guilty. So, truly, this legislation is NOT about increasing rights. It's about bankrupting nations in more and more red tape. If you have a problem with proper justice in your nations, then I suggest you look at the way in which you govern or what kind of ignorant cultural background your nations people hail from. But in the Great Calderax, we are complete and efficient in our justice and have no need of this useless legislation.

Calderax votes AGAINST.

Are you seriously suggesting that, simply because your judicial systems are so much more "efficient" and "stellar", you get to impose that this Resolution is not needed for other, perhaps more needy, countries? Just because you don't require such legislation doesn't mean you can decide to restrict it from those that do need it.

[Not Kony Run Uganda]

Sounds like something that should be covered under habeas corpus.

[Goobergunchia]

We already have a resolution on habeas corpus. Rights not covered by that resolution should, as in this case, be covered in additional, subsequent resolutions.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

---

EWWW! That ambassador said the H-C words!

Darren Funkel
Deputy WA Ambassador

[Sanctaria]

Sounds like something that should be covered under habeas corpus.

No. No it shouldn't.

[Federal Republic of Zimbabwe]

As the legislation stands, the Federal Republic of Zimbabwe formally adds their support.

[Lenzum]

The Grand Empire of Lenzum will be voting NAY on the resolution as it stands.

Why? There is one simple reason - the death penalty would prevent HIM Lenzar III and his government from being able to comply,

[Ossitania]

The Grand Empire of Lenzum will be voting NAY on the resolution as it stands.

Why? There is one simple reason - the death penalty would prevent HIM Lenzar III and his government from being able to comply,

No, it wouldn't. The right to use the death penalty is already explicitly protected by extant international law (GA #112 Convention on Execution). Anyway, this proposal doesn't make any provision that would affect the ability to employ the death penalty, so I don't know where you're getting that out of.

[Gelattia]

The Republic of Gelattia would vote for this if it could. Unfortunately, Topdop has voted against. We implore them to vote for. Anyone who votes against this resolution doesn't care about their people.

[Damanucus]

The Republic of Gelattia would vote for this if it could. Unfortunately, Topdop has voted against. We implore them to vote for. Anyone who votes against this resolution doesn't care about their people.

Not necessarily. They may care enough for their people that, should there be an issue with the law at vote that may prevent them from properly caring for their nation, they will vote against it, just to deal with that issue.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We are proud to have registered our vote in favour of this proposal, and surprised that we didn't register it earlier.

[Quelesh]

We've voted FOR this proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Knootoss]

"While I am saddened that this proposal has furthered the Quelesh agenda I congratulate the author on its passage."


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Merfurian]

I rise to inform the House that the ayes were 9,075, the noes were 1,905. with an overall support of 83%

We move to the next item on the agenda, "Repeal Nautical Pilotage Act". I withdraw and yield the floor.