[PASSED] Repeal "For the Detained and Convicted"

[Knootoss]

Knootoss is glad to cast its five votes in favour of this worthy repeal, having every confidence that it will pass.


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

[Datavia]

Datavia is sad to vote AGAINST this proposal, not on the basis of its soundness, but to protest that, in the current state of affairs, amendments or substitute resolutions are illegal. It's a bad thing that, in order to improve a resolution which provides a fair amount of protection to the citizens, it must be first repealed. There's a risk that a new resolution is delayed too long, and meanwhile, the lesser scrupulous nations can strip both detainees and convicts from a basic human treatment. Furthermore, a new resolution can be rejected for technicalities (just as this is being repealed), delaying even more a good agreement. So, as it seems that our vote won't count too much against the massive support to this repeal (supported even by the author of the original resolution), Datavia will cast its vote AGAINST the injustice of depriving people of their rights because of procedural issues.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Datavia is sad to vote AGAINST this proposal, not on the basis of its soundness, but to protest that, in the current state of affairs, amendments or substitute resolutions are illegal.

Oh, Max Barry jumping on a pogo stick.(*) Please check out technical; there has been a debate about adding repeal and replace like FOREVER. (OK, it's only been a month, but that's like forever.)

* (Note to Max: please don't jump on a pogo stick; that's only an expression. We do not want the biggest shareholder getting hurt.)

[Tibberiria]

We vote for this proposal, as the presumption of innocence should be in any resolution of this type.

[Damanucus]

NOTES that Clause 1a proclaims that all who are detained are “considered the accused until proven guilty;” yet the resolution does not make any attempt to ensure that innocence is presumed of all accused until proven otherwise. As such, any accusation, no matter how spurious, may follow individuals throughout the rest of their lives, even if they are never convicted of the crimes in question;

Yeah, this phrase itself would be enough for me to support this repeal. But, of course, full analysis needed. (Even though it's probably been done a thousand times already.)

QUESTIONS the details of Clause 1c, as “outside and inside threats” are referenced but not given any further elaboration. Such a lack of clarity may be exploited by nations wishing to evade compliance with this clause's intent;

I do ask: how? I am thinking you mean by not considering many police abuses as "threats", but I may be wrong.

I'm not going to talk about the rest; there's really no need when it's clear as day. But yeah, just a little clari to the above would help.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, will be voting AYE/REPEAL on this proposal after a 6/0 internal vote. We note the shortcomings in the original text and looking forward to seeing the replacement being drafted by the excellent ambassador from Moronist Decisions. Specifically we note the shortcoming that those detained are “considered the accused until proven guilty.” The original resolution does note attempt to ensure detainees are regarded as innocent until the facts prove otherwise, no matter how contrived the accusation might be. This goes against some basic principles from my region and, therefore, we shall be supporting this repeal

[Bojac]

This is great a person should have rights when convicted but not enough that he can abuse them though

[Robanistania]

I am worried that we are again going down the path of repealing a resolution that is generally workable due to a few less than ideal choices of syntax. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for perfection and precision, but it's been my experience that courts are more or less equipped to deal with minor issues in resolutions.

I am further concerned that the reason of poor wording has been used as a guise to repeal other resolutions by those waving the national sovereignist banner. While I have read that a few nations appear interested in writing a better worded replacement resolution, I would have liked to see a new draft placed alongside this repeal. This, of course, ignores the risk that even if a new resolution is proposed, it does not guarantee its passage.

For these reasons, I have voted against repealing this resolution.

[Cerian Quilor]

By not mandating innocent until proven guilty, this resolution is a great deal worse than simply having poor syntax.

Generally, I am sympathetic to the idea of not repealing resolutions over small issues, because the huge door they leave open to National Sovreigntists - the worst kind of faction the World Assembly has ever seen - but this resolution has such a fundamentally enourmous flaw that there is no practical way that letting it stand would be remotely acceptable.

[Arivali]

Ugh... you had to go and make me do lots of reading. Oh, what the hell... The tigers are getting sick of gnome meat anyway. I mean, um... Yes, I'll support the repeal. I've always been very nice to my prisoners. *nods*

[A mean old man]

Repeal "For the Detained and Convicted" was passed 9,756 votes to 1,434.

[Mousebumples]

Many thanks to everyone for their support in this repeal endeavor!