NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Convention on Defence of Self and Others

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 531
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

[DRAFT] Convention on Defence of Self and Others

Postby Denathor » Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:36 pm

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting
that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person or persons may be required to defend themselves,

Recognizing that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" or "defence of others" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

  1. Defines:
    1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do physical harm to another person,
    2. the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force reasonably believed to be necessary to protect any person from an act of unlawful violence,
  2. Mandates that the act of reasonable defence of oneself or persons unable to defend themselves shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens than other affirmative defences, unless the aggressor is severely or critically injured or killed,

  3. Further mandates that in either of the previous cases, charges may only be laid after an investigation resulting from a criminal complaint determines that the use of force went beyond what is considered reasonable by the laws of the nation,

  4. Permits nations to both
    1. pass legislation to set limits on behaviour that may be considered reasonable for a defence, such as forbidding lethal force unless it is clear that the aggressor intends to cause death, forbidding certain types of weapons to be used in defence of self or others, or forbidding further force to be used after the aggressor has been incapacitated, and
    2. set additional requirements that must be met before the use of force is considered reasonable, such as requiring a person to attempt to retreat from the aggressor, or contact a peace officer.



Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting
that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person(s) may be required to defend themselves.

Disappointed that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation has been passed to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

1. Defines "reasonable force" as the force required to restrain or otherwise non-lethally incapacitate a threat to one's safety,

2. Declares that no person who uses reasonable force to defend themselves or others from another party where the person feels there is a threat shall face prosecution for the use of this force,

3. Further declares that in cases where use of force is outside of this definition, specifically where the threat is killed, the defender will not be covered by this immunity,

4. Provides for one to defend another person or persons using reasonable force.

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting
that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person(s) may be required to defend themselves.

Disappointed that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation has been passed to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

  1. Accepts the act of reasonable self-defence as the use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
    1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
    2. is unlawful,
  2. Declares that the act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
    1. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary, or
    2. killed.
    In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of a nation's judiciary,

  3. Affirms that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense, but damages may be awarded in cases that meet the exceptions of clause two,

  4. Provides for one to defend another person or persons using reasonable force.

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting
that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person or persons may be required to defend themselves.

Disappointed that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

  1. Defines the act of reasonable self-defence to be the use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
    1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
    2. is unlawful,
  2. Requires that the act of reasonable self-defence shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
    1. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
    2. killed.
    In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation,

  3. Mandates that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 2,

  4. Clarifies that a person is permitted to defend another person or persons from a threat using reasonable force if the latter person or persons are unable to defend themselves from a threat.

Civil Rights | Strong
The World Assembly,

Noting
that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person or persons may be required to defend themselves.

Recognizing that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

  1. Defines the act of reasonable self-defence to be the use of force to protect any person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
    1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
    2. is unlawful,
  2. Requires that the act of reasonable self-defence shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
    1. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
    2. killed.
    In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation,

  3. Compels nations to pass legislation to set limits on behaviour that may be considered reasonable for a defence,

  4. Mandates that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 2.
[/list]

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting
that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person or persons may be required to defend themselves.

Recognizing that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

  1. Defines:
    1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do harm to another person,
    2. the "act of reasonable self-defence" to be the use of force to protect any person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence
      1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
      2. is unlawful,
    3. a "security officer" as a peace officer, military personnel or private security guard,

  2. Requires that before self-defense is used, a person must make all possible attempts to avoid conflict, such as through alerting a security officer or retreating from the aggressor,

  3. Mandates that the act of reasonable self-defence shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
    1. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
    2. killed.
    In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation,

  4. Compels nations to pass legislation to set limits on behaviour that may be considered reasonable for a defence,

  5. Orders that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 3.

Draft 14:
-Reworded Clauses 1 and 2

Draft 13:
-Reworded Clause 1

Draft 12:
-Fixed some grammar in the preamble and Clause 2
-Changed all instances of "self-defence" to just "defence"
-Rewording of Point ii of Clause 1
-Amalgamation and reformatting of Clause 4 and 5

Draft 11:
-Split Clause 2 into two different clauses and did some rewording

Draft 10:
-Reworded Clause 2

Draft 9:
-Removed the lists from Clauses 3 and 4, but kept most of the text

Draft 8:
-Changed the title
-Added examples to Clauses 3 and 4

Draft 7:
-Removed Clause 2 because S.P. is the America your America could smell like just joking, don’t kill me
-Added Clause 4 as a compromise
-Removed the definition of "security officer" from Clause 1

Draft 6:
-Removed Clause 5
-Changed "compels" to "requires" in Clause 4
Last edited by Denathor on Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:35 pm, edited 23 times in total.
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2387
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:04 am

"This has the same issues as the old law. Clause 2 states that "no person ... shall face prosecution". Judges/juries are not permitted to decide if reasonable force was used and therefore this would effectively prevent any prosecution of assault once the perpetrator claims that they used reasonable force in response to a threat."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 531
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Denathor » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:18 am

"I see your point, but adding references to a nation's judiciary would make the resolution irrelevant for nations without a functioning judiciary, which I believe was part of your argument for repeal. However, I would be more than happy to change the wording to attempt to accommodate a solution."

Declares that no person who uses reasonable force to defend themselves or others from another party where the person feels there is a threat shall face prosecution where the judiciary of a nation feels that the use of force falls within the definition of "reasonable force",
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

User avatar
Aclion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5057
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Aclion » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:21 pm

Reasonable force isn't really the standard you want to be using anyway. It's an invitation for judicial activism, ablest, and treats acts of desperate self defense as offences to the terms of some kind of vile duel set by the aggressor.

What I would use is
"reasonable self-defense shall be understood to refer to use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence;
a: may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
b: is unlawful.

The act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater standards of evidence then other affirmative defenses.

No damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO Tactical Officer, Deputy WA Secretary, Emissary to Forest
TEP: Deputy Minister for WA affairs
Forest: Cartographer Emeritus
Oatland: Consul ,Caesar and Cartographer Emeritus
A free society rests on four boxes: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box.
It is the citizen's duty to understand which box to use, and when.

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Diplomat
 
Posts: 937
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:36 pm

Aclion wrote:The act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater standards of evidence then other affirmative defenses.

OOC: I'd add the exception to that for cases where the assailant ended up dead, especially when the threat they presented was not immediately life-threatening. So basically, you can't shoot someone point-blank, if the only weapon they had was their fists, and get away with it.

This has been attempted many times before, and tends to fall flat on its face because RL people playing this game have very different understanding of "reasonable self-defence". Many people, like myself, would, for instance, consider anything where someone ends up dead as unreasonable.
This nation is a plant-based hivemind.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14607
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:59 pm

Aclion wrote:Reasonable force isn't really the standard you want to be using anyway. It's an invitation for judicial activism, ablest, and treats acts of desperate self defense as offences to the terms of some kind of vile duel set by the aggressor.

What I would use is
"reasonable self-defense shall be understood to refer to use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence;tk,yhg
a: may reasonably be expected to cause harm, andt
b: is unlawful.

The act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater standards of evidence then other affirmative defenses.

No damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense.

"A few minor quibbles if this language is adopted. Broadly, I agree that this language is appropriate.

"'Standards of evidence' in this case would probably be better served as 'burdens of proof' or 'evidentiary burdens'. Evidentiary standards strikes me as relative to admissible evidence rather than the degree of convincing, and there are valid reasons for differing evidentiary standards, if not burdens of proof.

"I also think that this can be written in the active voice to ease comprehension, reduce unnecessary words, and generally improve the flow.

"Finally, as a note on the draft as a whole, and not specifically regarding the honorable delegation from Aclion's input, there is a concern of muddling civil penalties and criminal penalties when discussing legal liability for self-defense, made much more complicated by the fact that self-defense is a valid legal defense for radically different legal actions. I would strongly suggest that, if the author wishes to address both aspects, they clearly delineate the two in their draft with separate headings.

"The C.D.S.P. delegation is tentatively supportive of a draft on self defense that does not discentivize the use of force in a situation threatening to life or limb without reaching into micromanagement. While the average jury of the Confederate Dominion does not believe it is inherently unreasonable to use a firearm to prevent even an unarmed attacker from beating them to death, as we recognize that bare fists and booted feet are just as deadly as a blade or gun, we nonetheless recognize a national interest in regulating its own standards of behavior."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 531
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Denathor » Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:45 pm

"Thank you for all your input. I’ve made several revisions on the parts in question that I hope aligns it more with the standard of work that we all wish would be put forth at the World Assembly. There may still be some problems with clause two, but I have written as best I can."

Hereby:

  1. Accepts the act of reasonable self-defence as the use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
    1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
    2. is unlawful,
  2. Declares that the act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is:
    1. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary, or
    2. killed.
    In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of a nation's judiciary,

  3. Affirms that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense, but damages may be awarded in cases that meet the exceptions of clause two,

  4. Provides for one to defend another person or persons using reasonable force.
Last edited by Denathor on Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

User avatar
The COT Corporation
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 131
Founded: Nov 30, 2019
Corporate Police State

Postby The COT Corporation » Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:27 am

Denathor wrote:Noting[/b] that a person or persons Either add a (s) to the end of "persons" or remove the (s) from the other time you mentioned them. may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person(s) may be required to defend themselves.
My Nation is a more extreme version of my RL views.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14317
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:35 am

Denathor wrote:Accepts
Declares
Affirms
Provides

OOC: The verbs you use are weird. The first one by convention should be "Defines", since it's a definition. The rest.... they're better for some kind of official statement than law. Try using words like "mandates" or "requires" and similar, to make things binding. If you're clarifying something, use "clarifies".
Last edited by Araraukar on Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 779
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Maowi » Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:20 am

OOC: Clause 4 seems somewhat unnecessary given that your definition of "reasonable self-defence" does not specify who is doing the defending. Also, make sure you're consistent throughout with your use of defence vs defense.

2. [...] i. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary,


I agree that giving the nation's judiciary the ability to make decisions regarding this is a good idea, but I think something at least a little more specific than "reasonable" ought to be provided as a parameter. Perhaps something like "defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary"?

South Pacific

WA Minister
Customs Minister
Ambassador to Thaecia

--

Europeia

Deputy Councillor of World Assembly Affairs
Deputy Minister of Communications
Ambassador to the IDU

Former positions:
Minister of Communications
Minister of Recruitment
Deputy Minister of Recruitment

Awards received:
Order of Mercury
Order of the Sapphire Star x2
Silver Pen
Golden Pen

--

Author of GAR #457 and GAR #480
Co-author of GAR #479

Factbooks
Sloths
...That's it.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14317
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:55 pm

Maowi wrote:OOC: Perhaps something like "defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary"?

OOC: I like that. It makes the pool of acceptable choices of self-defence much smaller. In Araraukar's case "call the police" would likely be the only one determined to be necessary and thus acceptable. :P
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 531
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Denathor » Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:12 pm

OOC: Clause 4 just affirms that someone can use the self-defence rights to defend someone other than themselves without fearing penalty. I’ve changed the wording to hopefully make that clearer. Also redid the suggested wording. Thanks!
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14317
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:57 pm

Denathor wrote:OOC: Clause 4 just affirms that someone can use the self-defence rights to defend someone other than themselves without fearing penalty.

OOC: That's not self-defence, though. I mean, I'd understand defending like children, or someone else unable to defend themselves, but at what point does it become "attacking another attacker"? If person A attacks person B and person C attacks person A to defend person B, can person D then attack person C to defend person A? Where does it stop? Especially if we're not talking of just a couple of people but a gang or a mob?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19040
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:27 am

Maowi wrote:OOC: Clause 4 seems somewhat unnecessary given that your definition of "reasonable self-defence" does not specify who is doing the defending. Also, make sure you're consistent throughout with your use of defence vs defense.

2. [...] i. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary,


I agree that giving the nation's judiciary the ability to make decisions regarding this is a good idea,

OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14607
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:01 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Maowi wrote:OOC: Clause 4 seems somewhat unnecessary given that your definition of "reasonable self-defence" does not specify who is doing the defending. Also, make sure you're consistent throughout with your use of defence vs defense.



I agree that giving the nation's judiciary the ability to make decisions regarding this is a good idea,

OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.

Ooc: well. Ish. What is reasonable is a question of fact that would fall to the finder of fact. Jury or judge as the system warrants. Legislatures can find certain acts as unreasonable as a matter of law, but usually the question of whether an action is reasonable is decided in court and not in a legislative session.

Ymmv, this is probably system dependent, but I think most states dont break it out in legislation quite that much even where force is particularly discouraged.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Maowi
Diplomat
 
Posts: 779
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Maowi » Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:41 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.

OOC: I mean, the WA should be the one doing the lawmaking. It was for that reason that I suggested writing a more specific standard into the proposal. I just think the individual courts should be the ones determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a specific action met or surpassed that standard or not. (About juries - I'd been under the impression that "judiciary" also included juries but I know very little about that so I'll assume I was wrong; I didn't mean to say that juries should not be able to make that decision.)

South Pacific

WA Minister
Customs Minister
Ambassador to Thaecia

--

Europeia

Deputy Councillor of World Assembly Affairs
Deputy Minister of Communications
Ambassador to the IDU

Former positions:
Minister of Communications
Minister of Recruitment
Deputy Minister of Recruitment

Awards received:
Order of Mercury
Order of the Sapphire Star x2
Silver Pen
Golden Pen

--

Author of GAR #457 and GAR #480
Co-author of GAR #479

Factbooks
Sloths
...That's it.

User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 531
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Denathor » Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:46 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: That's not self-defence, though. I mean, I'd understand defending like children, or someone else unable to defend themselves, but at what point does it become "attacking another attacker"? If person A attacks person B and person C attacks person A to defend person B, can person D then attack person C to defend person A? Where does it stop? Especially if we're not talking of just a couple of people but a gang or a mob?


OOC: I admit I never considered that. I removed Clause 4 and slightly changed the wording in Clause 1 from "a person" to "any person' just to get the point across without a separate clause (as per Maowi's feedback).

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.


OOC: I added a clause to address this. I don’t believe it breaks any rules, but I’m slightly uneasy about how I worded it. Suggestions welcome.
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

User avatar
The Yellow Monkey
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Jan 13, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Yellow Monkey » Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:56 pm

Denathor wrote:[*]Mandates that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 2.

While an interesting Tort reform idea, I don't think this belongs in a civil rights proposal.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 404
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:21 pm

Denathor wrote:2. Requires that the act of reasonable self-defence shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
i. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
ii. killed.


OOC: I am not sure this is intentional, but as per this provision, any self-defense that results in killing the aggressor might be criminalised, even if the killing is 'necessary to ensure removal of the threat'? I agree that it might be reasonable to subject those cases to the higher eveidentiary burdens mentioned; however, allowing to criminalise all cases in which an aggressor is killed (not even intentionally) goes against the spirit of proportionality expressed by other provisions in this draft, and the Believing clause of the preamble.
Last edited by The New Nordic Union on Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Kaboomlandia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7377
Founded: May 22, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kaboomlandia » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:02 pm

Kevin McCallister has entered the chat

But in all seriousness, I think adding in a "duty to retreat" clause could clear some stuff up.
In=character, Kaboomlandia is a World Assembly member and abides by its resolutions. If this nation isn't in the WA, it's for practical reasons.
Author of GA #371 and SC #208, #214, #226, #227, #230, #232
Co-Author of SC #204
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

"Your legitimacy, Kaboom, has melted away in my eyes. I couldn't have believed that only a shadow of your once brilliant WA career remains."

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5533
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:30 am

“I don’t think that ‘disappointed’ is the right verb for your second preambulatory clause, as it should be a good thing that a path has been cleared for more detailed legislation.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 531
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Denathor » Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:29 pm

The Yellow Monkey wrote:While an interesting Tort reform idea, I don't think this belongs in a civil rights proposal.

"I respectfully disagree. If we were to remove this clause, it would mean that in order to have this legal protection, that clause would have to stand as an independent piece of legislation to be added later. I am not convinced that it would be able to stand independently, nor do I think we could afford to have a gap between this legislation and the confirmation of those rights that the clause allows."

The New Nordic Union wrote:OOC: I am not sure this is intentional, but as per this provision, any self-defense that results in killing the aggressor might be criminalised, even if the killing is 'necessary to ensure removal of the threat'? I agree that it might be reasonable to subject those cases to the higher eveidentiary burdens mentioned; however, allowing to criminalise all cases in which an aggressor is killed (not even intentionally) goes against the spirit of proportionality expressed by other provisions in this draft, and the Believing clause of the preamble.

OOC: The gist of the Clause 2 exceptions is that the total immunity provided by the defence of "self-defence" might not extend to those cases if a jury decides that the force used was unreasonable according to the laws standards that Clause 3 compels nations to create. It doesn’t necessarily mean that those cases must be prosecuted, it’s just a safeguard so you can’t kill someone, claim self-defence and walk away without charges. The case can be examined first to determine if the killing was justified. This is what is meant by
In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation


Kaboomlandia wrote:Kevin McCallister has entered the chat

But in all seriousness, I think adding in a "duty to retreat" clause could clear some stuff up.

An interesting idea. I’m not quite sure how to word it, however. Assuming I understand what you’re trying to say, I feel like an attacker would retreat as soon as they recognize that they’re losing. In this case, there’s no need to legislate such a clause, but I could add something to try and prevent someone from taking shots at an attacker as they’re fleeing. Let me know if I missed something and completely misinterpreted your point.

Kenmoria wrote:“I don’t think that ‘disappointed’ is the right verb for your second preambulatory clause, as it should be a good thing that a path has been cleared for more detailed legislation.”

IC: "This has been changed to reflect your point."
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14317
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:49 pm

Denathor wrote:
Kaboomlandia wrote:Kevin McCallister has entered the chat
But in all seriousness, I think adding in a "duty to retreat" clause could clear some stuff up.

An interesting idea. I’m not quite sure how to word it, however. Assuming I understand what you’re trying to say, I feel like an attacker would retreat as soon as they recognize that they’re losing. In this case, there’s no need to legislate such a clause, but I could add something to try and prevent someone from taking shots at an attacker as they’re fleeing. Let me know if I missed something and completely misinterpreted your point.

OOC: In my understanding (could be wrong) they meant that you should first try to escape an attacker, before attacking them in self defence. Or at least that's something that should be added, in addition to some duty of relying on authorities if they're present. Like, if there's a security officer (guard, police, etc.) within hearing, call for help and let them deal with it, rather than attacking the moment someone threatens you.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Denathor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 531
Founded: Oct 22, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Denathor » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:20 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: In my understanding (could be wrong) they meant that you should first try to escape an attacker, before attacking them in self defence. Or at least that's something that should be added, in addition to some duty of relying on authorities if they're present. Like, if there's a security officer (guard, police, etc.) within hearing, call for help and let them deal with it, rather than attacking the moment someone threatens you.

Ah, that would make more sense and would be a good idea. I added a clause to address this and made some changes for Clause 1. I’m not 100% sure whether to put the new clause before or after the "Mandates" clause, but I put it before for now.
Ambassador to the World Assembly: Sir Lucas Callahan
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly: Randal Atkinson
Undersecretary to the Ambassador: Thomas Morgan

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5533
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:37 am

“I think you should have ‘reasonable attempts’ rather than ‘possible attempts’ in clause 2. Giving all of your earthly possessions to an attacker is a possible way to avoid conflict, but it’s not the sort of thing the WA should be mandating.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads