[PASSED!] Repeal GA#666 "COLE for Heinous Crimes"

[Tinhampton]

On the 16th of August 2023, Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes" became GA#680!

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Repeals Board.
NOTE: at 1715 BST on the 23rd of July 2023, this proposal reached quorum with The Commonwealth of Rylandia's approval, the 56th all told.

---

Character count: 3,109
Word count: 514

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: We are united in our beliefs that the target soon-to-be-resolution is a net negative. We explain in our repeal text that we do not see the need for a replacement.

Repeal "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#666

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #666 “Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes” (Category: International Security; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that, whenever someone in a member state is charged by another member with a heinous crime (as defined), GA#666 requires that their state of residence conduct "a bona fide review... by a court or other tribunal" into whether they should be tried in that state or deported to the state seeking the charge instead,

Disappointed that the target resolution sets low standards of good faith in these reviews through only requiring the tribunal to consider the suspect's "past trials," their likelihood of guilt, the "relevant charges or conviction" they face, and "any state or public interests" regarding comity,

Frustrated that, in requiring the tribunal to consider a defendant's "past trials," GA#666 opens the door for extradition proceedings to use trials in which a defendant was acquitted as evidence against them, coming dangerously close to the near-total ban on double jeopardy imposed by GA#198 "Preventing Multiple Trials" and serving only to unfairly prejudice the finder of fact against the defendant with little probative value,

Convinced that the other comity rules of GA#666 are superfluous, because GA#147 "Extradition Rights" allows appeals against extradition between members to be rejected where the suspect has violated WA law (and every "heinous crime" is a violation of WA law), and GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" ensures that their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in,

Observing that, beyond comity, Article 4 requires the International Enforcement Commission (IEC) to supply armed officers when members ask it for help with certain extraditions,

Bemused not only that Article 4 further states that future resolutions may permit "the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions," but also that - despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - it is actually constituted by GA#666 as a police force that pursues those who are merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial or otherwise have to return to the state that convicted them,

Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear:

1. what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest,
2. what kind of force they may use in self-defence if the suspect goes beyond resisting arrest to assault IEC agents,
3. what immediately non-injurious actions (such as the destruction of obstacles the suspect is hiding behind) they are allowed to take to ensure safe extradition,
4. when they are meant to deploy arms in the first instance, or indeed
5. what degree of force they are meant to use against the suspect or any other person at any time, and

Believing that GA#666, when it is not somehow reminscent of prior WA law on criminal justice, endeavours to create a WA police force without setting firm guidelines on its use of force, making it unnecessary and harmful at the same time...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#666 "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes."

Co-authors: Refuge Isle, Witchcraft and Sorcery, Merni

[Tinhampton]

Reserved, if necessary. (Although it's unlikely it will be!)

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

Thanks to the delegations from Tinhampton, Merni, and Refuge for being excellent collaborators. Regrettable as the circumstances may be, this is our first foray into GA authoring and we look forward to the Assembly’s feedback.

It is our firm belief that soon-to-be GA666 should not be passing/have passed at all in the first place and that the repeal be processed with all due haste.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I find your Excellencies’ first and second clauses to be mutually incompatible. The first clause notes that GA #666 requires that a bona fide review be conducted. The second, however, is concerned that the review is not required to be in good faith. Your Excellencies, ‘bona fide’ is the Latin translation of ‘good faith’.”

[Tinhampton]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I find your Excellencies’ first and second clauses to be mutually incompatible. The first clause notes that GA #666 requires that a bona fide review be conducted. The second, however, is concerned that the review is not required to be in good faith. Your Excellencies, ‘bona fide’ is the Latin translation of ‘good faith’.”

Smith: The CONCERNED clause was a transcription error from a previous draft. It has been replaced with the DISAPPOINTED clause, which we intended to include in this version.

Concerned that these reviews need not follow any standard of good faith whatsoever, instead only having to consider the suspect's "past trials," their likelihood of guilt, the "relevant charges or conviction" they face, and "any state or public interests" regarding comity,

[Barfleur]

"I support repealing GA#666 (as it will likely be) for multiple reasons, several of which are described in the proposal. I would also suggest adding that, by considering the defendant's 'past trials,' GA#666 blesses subsequent prosecutions in respect of the same crime, even if the defendant has already been acquitted. Allowing the prosecution a do-over, even if it may be necessary to ensure the conviction of one or two actual war criminals, greatly undermines the rights of all criminal defendants in multiple ways. First, the state (not to mention the international community) almost always has more resources than any one person, which means that the defendant, no matter how many times they have 'won,' will be more likely to plead guilty after having exhausted their finances to afford a lawyer or two or three, regardless of actual guilt. Indeed, I would imagine that two 'wins' would be enough to bankrupt most ordinary people. Second, allowing the prosecution to retry the same person for the same facts would incentivize them to change strategy based on perceived defects in their case the first time around, making it substantially more difficult for the accused to mount the same or any defense. And third, keeping the proverbial sword of Damocles over someone's head on a permanent basis will affect every aspect of their life, not to mention their family and community, in an undeserved way. Not guilty means not guilty."

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

"I support repealing GA#666 (as it will likely be) for multiple reasons, several of which are described in the proposal. I would also suggest adding that, by considering the defendant's 'past trials,' GA#666 blesses subsequent prosecutions in respect of the same crime, even if the defendant has already been acquitted."

I would nitpick your response a little bit, Ambassador, insofar as I do not believe the target resolution actually allows for double jeopardy per se. As you are surely aware, past legislation (GA#198) explicitly forbids double jeopardy in nearly all cases, and thus the at-vote proposal would be illegal if it actually permitted a defendant to be tried twice.

However, you do raise a good point in that the language of "past trials" does seem to indicate that evidence of past trials, even where the defendant was acquitted, and even where the crime being tried for in said past trial was not a crime in one or both jurisdictions, could be used as evidence against them in an extradition hearing for an unrelated crime. That seems like it is unacceptably close to the line for double-jeopardy and is at best highly prejudicial to the finder of fact against the defendant with little to no probative value. "Past convictions" might be relevant but "past trials" certainly is not, and thus that part is well taken.

EDIT: We are adding the following clause to the draft.

Frustrated that, in requiring the tribunal to consider a defendant's "past trials," GA#666 opens the door for extradition proceedings to use trials in which a defendant was acquitted as evidence against them, coming dangerously close to the near-total ban on double jeopardy imposed by GA#198 "Preventing Multiple Trials" and serving only to unfairly prejudice the finder of fact against the defendant with little probative value,

[Barfleur]

"I support repealing GA#666 (as it will likely be) for multiple reasons, several of which are described in the proposal. I would also suggest adding that, by considering the defendant's 'past trials,' GA#666 blesses subsequent prosecutions in respect of the same crime, even if the defendant has already been acquitted."

I would nitpick your response a little bit, Ambassador, insofar as I do not believe the target resolution actually allows for double jeopardy per se. As you are surely aware, past legislation (GA#198) explicitly forbids double jeopardy in nearly all cases, and thus the at-vote proposal would be illegal if it actually permitted a defendant to be tried twice.

However, you do raise a good point in that the language of "past trials" does seem to indicate that evidence of past trials, even where the defendant was acquitted, and even where the crime being tried for in said past trial was not a crime in one or both jurisdictions, could be used as evidence against them in an extradition hearing for an unrelated crime. That seems like it is unacceptably close to the line for double-jeopardy and is at best highly prejudicial to the finder of fact against the defendant with little to no probative value. "Past convictions" might be relevant but "past trials" certainly is not, and thus that part is well taken.

"I was assuming that the target resolution only provided for double jeopardy when allowed by the narrow limits of GA#198. In any case, allowing evidence of unrelated crimes is entirely prejudicial and indeed lacks probative value. If a defendant is charged with killing civilians in a specific village, then that is what they are charged with, not being a bad person generally or torturing small animals."

[Tinhampton]

A new FRUSTRATED clause has been added to deal with Norfield's concerns. This was cleared with both W&S and Merni. (Refuge is busy IRL; they're listed as co-author because I found their arguments in the at-vote thread about IEC use of force to be very useful in relation to this draft and were fine with being co-authored for such. I believe that this constitutes a significant contribution per the Branding rule.)

[The Ice States]

I guess this is legal. Although that is about all you have going for this repeal.

Disappointed that the target resolution sets low standards of good faith in these reviews through only requiring the tribunal to consider the suspect's "past trials," their likelihood of guilt, the "relevant charges or conviction" they face, and "any state or public interests" regarding comity,

How is this a "low standard of good faith"?

Frustrated that, in requiring the tribunal to consider a defendant's "past trials," GA#666 opens the door for extradition proceedings to use trials in which a defendant was acquitted as evidence against them, coming dangerously close to the near-total ban on double jeopardy imposed by GA#198 "Preventing Multiple Trials" and serving only to unfairly prejudice the finder of fact against the defendant with little probative value,

That is obviously not what the clause does. If someone has been acquitted for the same crime in the past, that is evidence against extradition. Although the very resolution you cite states that retrials (double jeopardy) can only happen under "significant miscarriages of justice". In any other situation, doing this would obviously violate GA #198 (or any replacements thereof in case that it is repeal).

Adamant that the other comity rules of GA#666 are superfluous, because GA#147 "Extradition Rights" allows appeals against extradition between members to be rejected where the suspect has violated WA law (and every "heinous crime" is a violation of WA law), and GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" ensures that their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in,

This argument makes no sense. The goal of the target is not to make sure that "their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in"; although GA #147 has no requirement that a tribunal (or otherwise a member nation) formally consider whether or not to extradite in all cases involving heinous crimes. It merely restricts extradition. How is facilitating comity superfluous against restrictions on extradition?

Bemused not only that Article 4 further states that future resolutions may permit "the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions," but also that - despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - GA#666 establishes it as nothing more than a police force that pursues those merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial,

This is an intentional feature of the target. Allowing future resolutions about other law enforcement actions to be considered at vote is far preferable to not one, not two, not three, not four, but five resolutions trying to stop a WA police or military from being even considered. I guess you have the right to disagree, although philosophically I am opposed to this argument in any form.

Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest (never mind assaults IEC agents in doing so) or even when they are meant to deploy arms, and

Necessary means that it is a sine qua non. Can the person be safely extradited without IEC armed force? This is an objective standard, not an "unclear" one as alleged here.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

1) Vague, exploitable, and has an extremely high risk of unfair prejudice to defendants as addressed below.

2) There’s a reason past acquittals aren’t allowed in court. A past acquittal is not evidence against extradition, especially if the crime they were tried for is irrelevant to the crime charged. You cannot merely state that as fact and assume we will take it to be true because it is not. Past acquittals for prior relevant or irrelevant acts stand a much higher risk of prejudicing the fact-finder against the defendant by impugning their character and suggesting that the defendant has history with the law. US Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404, 608, and 609 are good reading material if you like on this, and there’s more I could dig up. In court, criminal convictions are fair game but trials in which a defendant was acquitted are considered inadmissible character evidence and at best unfairly prejudicial.

3) The burden is on you to prove what your resolution does that’s substantially different from GA38 and GA147 besides creating a WA police, and you have failed to do so in any comprehensible manner.

4) You’re just objectively wrong here. There is no world in which I want armed military terrorizing my citizens for suspected violations of international law. Per GA390 and GA440 we already have compliance mechanisms and, as far as I’m concerned, non-compliance means you’re not a member of the WA. Resolutions are binding. Once again the burden is on you to prove why I should be okay with more police, and you have once again spectacularly failed in this effort.

5) on the subject of sine qua non, extradition is necessarily a process involving agreement between two nations. If safety is a concern then it’s likely the extradition shouldn’t happen anyway. Compliance is already addressed. It shouldn’t be something where the WA needs to get involved other than setting the framework, which GA666 does absolutely nothing novel for.

[The Ice States]

1) Vague, exploitable, and has an extremely high risk of unfair prejudice to defendants as addressed below.

2) There’s a reason past acquittals aren’t allowed in court. A past acquittal is not evidence against extradition, especially if the crime they were tried for is irrelevant to the crime charged. You cannot merely state that as fact and assume we will take it to be true because it is not. Past acquittals for prior relevant or irrelevant acts stand a much higher risk of prejudicing the fact-finder against the defendant by impugning their character and suggesting that the defendant has history with the law. US Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404, 608, and 609 are good reading material if you like on this, and there’s more I could dig up. In court, criminal convictions are fair game but trials in which a defendant was acquitted are considered inadmissible character evidence and at best unfairly prejudicial.

What point is this trying to prove? If past trials cannot even be considered, is the argument about double jeopardy against extradition proceedings in general or what? I am extremely confused here.

3) The burden is on you to prove what your resolution does that’s substantially different from GA38 and GA147 besides creating a WA police, and you have failed to do so in any comprehensible manner.

I could just reverse this burden of proof, as you are writing the repeal and thus should be able to prove your positive claims. Although I will not, and instead state that the resolution you want to repeal requires comity (through extradition or otherwise) to be considered by a member nation, while GA #147 merely restricts the conditions under which extradition may occur. These are obviously very different policies, and neither makes the other redundant.

4) You’re just objectively wrong here. There is no world in which I want armed military terrorizing my citizens for suspected violations of international law. Per GA390 and GA440 we already have compliance mechanisms and, as far as I’m concerned, non-compliance means you’re not a member of the WA. Resolutions are binding. Once again the burden is on you to prove why I should be okay with more police, and you have once again spectacularly failed in this effort.

The IEC can only assist in extradition "with the consent of the extraditing member nation". Do not consent to IEC assistance if you do not want it. Although this time I will reverse the burden of proof given, once again, that the repeal claims have to be backed up, rather than disproven. How am I "objectively wrong", or is it just that I disagree with you? Unless you seriously think the majority of the WA is "objectively wrong".

5) on the subject of sine qua non, extradition is necessarily a process involving agreement between two nations. If safety is a concern then it’s likely the extradition shouldn’t happen anyway. Compliance is already addressed. It shouldn’t be something where the WA needs to get involved other than setting the framework, which GA666 does absolutely nothing novel for.

This largely misses the point. You should back up your repeal claims instead of relying on non sequiturs.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

The point of even doing this repeal is because you utterly failed to meet the burden of proof required of you and are not responding to large portions of substantive arguments leveled at your proposal. So I think I'm entirely correct in saying the burden was squarely on you, and the only reason you're trying to pull this now is because you were able to ram your resolution through the GA despite strong substantive opposition.

And the last point is not a non sequitur in the slightest. I directly responded to your question about safe extradition.

[Astrobolt]

The point of even doing this repeal is because you utterly failed to meet the burden of proof required of you and are not responding to large portions of substantive arguments leveled at your proposal. So I think I'm entirely correct in saying the burden was squarely on you, and the only reason you're trying to pull this now is because you were able to ram your resolution through the GA despite strong substantive opposition.

Out of character: This is incorrect. The burden of proof is squarely on the authoring delegates to prove their claims past muster. In this case it is on you and the other authors to show that the at vote resolution is problematic. While you are correct that the burden of proof is on Magecastle for the at-vote resolution, this isn’t the at vote resolution, this is its repeal. In this case, if the at-vote resolution passes, the WA would have already ‘accepted’ the merits of the would-be GA #666. You need to prove why this would be in error.

[The Ice States]

The point of even doing this repeal is because you utterly failed to meet the burden of proof required of you and are not responding to large portions of substantive arguments leveled at your proposal. So I think I'm entirely correct in saying the burden was squarely on you, and the only reason you're trying to pull this now is because you were able to ram your resolution through the GA despite strong substantive opposition.

Out of character: This is incorrect. The burden of proof is squarely on the authoring delegates to prove their claims past muster. In this case it is on you and the other authors to show that the at vote resolution is problematic. While you are correct that the burden of proof is on Magecastle for the at-vote resolution, this isn’t the at vote resolution, this is its repeal. In this case, if the at-vote resolution passes, the WA would have already ‘accepted’ the merits of the would-be GA #666. You need to prove why this would be in error.

This matches my view very closely.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

You're correct insofar as for this resolution that is the case, but my argument to Magecastle (which was utterly misinterpreted) was that the burden of proof both within the target resolution and the subsequent debate thread was not met and that's part of the reason the repeal is necessary. The other is that WA police are bad.

I didn't make as much clear in my post. For that I apologize.

[The Ice States]

You're correct insofar as for this resolution that is the case, but my argument to Magecastle (which was utterly misinterpreted) was that the burden of proof both within the target resolution and the subsequent debate thread was not met and that's part of the reason the repeal is necessary. The other is that WA police are bad.

I didn't make as much clear in my post. For that I apologize.

Fair enough, but in that case it is more so an argument against passage than for this repeal (in this case it was used as a counterargument against my arguments against the repeal).

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

You're correct insofar as for this resolution that is the case, but my argument to Magecastle (which was utterly misinterpreted) was that the burden of proof both within the target resolution and the subsequent debate thread was not met and that's part of the reason the repeal is necessary. The other is that WA police are bad.

I didn't make as much clear in my post. For that I apologize.

Fair enough, but in that case it is more so an argument against passage than for this repeal (in this case it was used as a counterargument against my arguments against the repeal).

It is both. The way I see it, if the resolution doesn't meet the burden of proof, it shouldn't be a resolution and it should be repealed because it's non-functional and non-functional legislation is bad.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: As the authoring delegations attempt to remove safeguards against war criminals, they are only going to cause more war crimes. For this abetting in war crimes, they should be arrested. Officers, please seize these ambassadors straight away.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: As the authoring delegations attempt to remove safeguards against war criminals, they are only going to cause more war crimes. For this abetting in war crimes, they should be arrested. Officers, please seize these ambassadors straight away.

Neville: 'Ambassador, I must inform you that under GA #22: "Diplomat Protection Act", all diplomats sent to this chamber have diplomatic immunity. We have thus sent a report to the Compliance Commission about your delegation's non-compliance.'

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

One of the mysterious hooded figures stands as if to speak, but the voice that follows does not seem to be coming from the direction of the speaker.

"Ambassadors, we assure you that despite appearances to the contrary, this resolution does not, in fact, remove protections against war criminals. Inspection of WA resolution history will reveal that a "Convention against Genocide" already exists as GA#38 and does a far better job of protecting member nations against war crimes than the target.

Should any more ambassadors have substantive feedback on the draft, we welcome it. We hope to submit this soon now that the target has indeed passed. The longer a WA police is allowed to exist, the less safe our nations become."

[Namwenia]

"As the drafting delegation of the failed Protecting World Assembly Neutrality, our delegation was strongly opposed to GAR #666 when it was up for a vote. Especially on the grounds of Section 4. Expansion of comity between nations for extradition did not require the establishment of an armed enforcement agency of the World Assembly.

We strongly support any efforts to repeal this legislation."
-Kaori Campbell
World Assembly Ambassador
The United Socialist States of Namwenia

[The Ice States]

despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - GA#666 establishes it as nothing more than a police force that pursues those merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial,

Ooc: Apologies for not mentioning this earlier, although this has not been submitted yet. How is this true when the Section 3 mandate for extradition (the IEC mandate applies "[w]here a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3") allows for extradition for both "charg[ing] or convict[ing] the individual"?

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - GA#666 establishes it as nothing more than a police force that pursues those merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial,

Ooc: Apologies for not mentioning this earlier, although this has not been submitted yet. How is this true when the Section 3 mandate for extradition (the IEC mandate applies "[w]here a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3") allows for extradition for both "charg[ing] or convict[ing] the individual"?

That... means the clause is still true? Not sure what your point is.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: Apologies for not mentioning this earlier, although this has not been submitted yet. How is this true when the Section 3 mandate for extradition (the IEC mandate applies "[w]here a member nation has elected to extend comity via extradition under Section 3") allows for extradition for both "charg[ing] or convict[ing] the individual"?

That... means the clause is still true? Not sure what your point is.

The police force does more than "pursu[ing] those merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial". Am I misreading the repeal argument (specifically the "nothing more" wording)?

Edit 2: When would it be "more than" a police force which pursues charged individuals?