[DRAFT] “Prohibition On Coerced Testimony” GA#759

[Kronverg]

I want to repeal GA Resolution #759 "Prohibition On Coerced Testimony" because it does now not efficaciously prohibit member states from coercing testimony from those who aren't detained. This allows for the opportunity of interrogating individuals without felony detention and pressuring the ones related to the suspect or their legal representatives to coerce testimony. The lack of a clean definition of "detained" further complicates this issue. This decision grants member states criminal authority to compel residents to provide touchy criminal statistics, dismissing varying cultural values, moral standards, and ranges of development amongst nations.

---

Here is the text of my resolution (https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1733675839):


Preamble:

The General Assembly accepts the need to maintain the lawful conduct of judicial procedures and make sure that effective law enforcement officers can go on with their work by the revision of the current rules on testimony and communication in detention.
Arguments for Repeal:
a.

Balancing Law Enforcement and Individual Rights:
According to the current resolution, there is an unexpected resistance of law enforcement agencies in the gathering of vital information during the investigations, hence hampering trial administration and delay of vital evidence production to court to prosecute the case effectively.
b.

Ensuring Accountability:
The removal of the prohibition on coerced testimony gives a basis for setting up accountability measures for the law enforcers, so that the interrogations can be conducted according to ethical standards, while they can still use the necessary techniques of investigation for detecting the crimes.
c.

Facilitating Cooperation:
The repeal will be a force that will discourage criminal behavior, thereby will,
enlighten people about the harsh penalties for doing them. This will then lead to a safer public condition through finding a common ground, which will promote better compliance of the police department with the public and thereby create a cooler climate of police-community relations.
The General Assembly hereby abrogates "Prohibition On Coerced Testimony" (General Assembly Resolution # 759). This legislative action restores the hands of some WA member states in using the authorized techniques of interrogation that do not compromise the rights of the individual through surveillance and regulations. Countries are given a role to implement legal structures that will protect their citizens while at the same time aiding in the efficient enforcement of the law by the cooperation and accounting of the people.

[Untecna]

AI-generated and submitted before drafting, obviously against.

[Aadhiris]

Took one look at this and immediately knew that AI wrote it. Against.

[Kronverg]

AI-generated and submitted before drafting, obviously against.

The third part of the resolution - the most important one - was drawn up by myself, it just underwent minor changes when checking for literacy performed using AI. But I agree with you, and I will try to rewrite it, but it seems to me that I managed to convey the main purpose of the resolution.

[The Overmind]

AI-generated and submitted before drafting, obviously against.

The third part of the resolution - the most important one - was drawn up by myself, it just underwent minor changes when checking for literacy performed using AI. But I agree with you, and I will try to rewrite it, but it seems to me that I managed to convey the main purpose of the resolution.

The use of AI to generate any of the words of your proposal without disclosing it is considered intellectually dishonest and will kill your proposal in the cradle. Even after disclosing it, though your honesty will have some purchase in winning people over, AI generation of proposals is frowned upon unless its role was almost entirely supportive (i.e. you are the one who wrote almost all of the actual words that made it into the draft you post here). Finally, the expectation is that you will draft your proposal in the forum before submitting it so that you can improve it with feedback, generally for a month or more, before submitting, and the proper tag for that in your topic title is [Draft] or [DRAFT].

[Kronverg]

The General Assembly, recognizing the need to maintain the fair conduct of judicial investigative procedures, improve the effectiveness of the work of investigative commissions and facilitate the process of identifying evidence of the guilty person by interrogating him.

Determining that interrogation procedures may sometimes contain violence, used if necessary, for the use of which permission was given from the relevant authorized State bodies in this area and aimed solely at identifying information necessary for the court.

Prohibiting the use of violence with serious consequences during interrogations, without appropriate permission from the relevant authorized state bodies in this area, as well as unjustifiably abusing it.

Taking into account the individual characteristics of the judicial systems of different states, their traditions and laws, as well as the nuances of specific situations.

It is clear that information revealed through targeted and justified violence during interrogation can play a crucial role in the course of the investigation.

Hereby repeals the resolution "Prohibition On Coordinated Testimony" GA#759 due to the inexpediency of such.

[Kronverg]

If no one criticizes and comments on this project by December 12, then I will submit it to the General Assembly

[The Overmind]

If no one criticizes and comments on this project by December 12, then I will submit it to the General Assembly

The use of AI to generate any of the words of your proposal without disclosing it is considered intellectually dishonest and will kill your proposal in the cradle. Even after disclosing it, though your honesty will have some purchase in winning people over, AI generation of proposals is frowned upon unless its role was almost entirely supportive (i.e. you are the one who wrote almost all of the actual words that made it into the draft you post here). Finally, the expectation is that you will draft your proposal in the forum before submitting it so that you can improve it with feedback, generally for a month or more, before submitting, and the proper tag for that in your topic title is [Draft] or [DRAFT].

[Kronverg]

If no one criticizes and comments on this project by December 12, then I will submit it to the General Assembly

The use of AI to generate any of the words of your proposal without disclosing it is considered intellectually dishonest and will kill your proposal in the cradle. Even after disclosing it, though your honesty will have some purchase in winning people over, AI generation of proposals is frowned upon unless its role was almost entirely supportive (i.e. you are the one who wrote almost all of the actual words that made it into the draft you post here). Finally, the expectation is that you will draft your proposal in the forum before submitting it so that you can improve it with feedback, generally for a month or more, before submitting, and the proper tag for that in your topic title is [Draft] or [DRAFT].

In the last version of the resolution, I did not use AI, because I wrote it myself in my native language and when translating into English, I decided to hedge my bets and used an online translator.

[The Overmind]

In the last version of the resolution, I did not use AI, because I wrote it myself in my native language and when translating into English, I decided to hedge my bets and used an online translator.

I'm trying to help you out, so please meet me halfway and stop skimming my replies. The bolded part, which I already sent once above, is the pertinent part of the quote. I'm going to give you a more general suggestion: look at other drafting threads in the forum to learn how this process usually works, what its expectations are, and how long it usually takes.

[Kronverg]

In the last version of the resolution, I did not use AI, because I wrote it myself in my native language and when translating into English, I decided to hedge my bets and used an online translator.

I'm trying to help you out, so please meet me halfway and stop skimming my replies. The bolded part, which I already sent once above, is the pertinent part of the quote. I'm going to give you a more general suggestion: look at other drafting threads in the forum to learn how this process usually works, what its expectations are, and how long it usually takes.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have been more attentive and thank you!

[Tinhampton]

If no one criticizes and comments on this project by December 12, then I will submit it to the General Assembly

Are you trying to argue that evidence gained through torture should be valid? Then you should repeal GA#9, not this - because GA#9 bans the use of such evidence.

[Kronverg]

If no one criticizes and comments on this project by December 12, then I will submit it to the General Assembly

Are you trying to argue that evidence gained through torture should be valid? Then you should repeal GA#9, not this - because GA#9 bans the use of such evidence.

Unfortunately, I cannot cancel two resolutions at the same time...I think I'll have to give up my ambitions.

[The Overmind]

Are you trying to argue that evidence gained through torture should be valid? Then you should repeal GA#9, not this - because GA#9 bans the use of such evidence.

Unfortunately, I cannot cancel two resolutions at the same time...I think I'll have to give up my ambitions.

This is a game of delayed gratification. My suggestion is to slow down and enjoy the process instead of rushing it or giving up right away.

[Kronverg]

This constructive conversation has probably come to an end, but it has not borne fruit. I enjoyed it as much as I could.

[Elyreia]

I don't see this passing as-is.

For one, your Repeal cannot Legislate. The "Prohibit" line is an attempt at legislation, by using the Repeal to get rid of the GA#579, but then you "[Prohibit] the use of violence with serious consequences during interrogations, without appropriate permission from the relevant authorized state bodies in this area, as well as unjustifiably abusing it.".

A repeal cannot prohibit anything. It cannot mandate anything., A repeal can only strike the old legislation out. Any attempts to Prohibit, Mandate, or Enforce must be done in a Replacement.

[The Overmind]

This constructive conversation has probably come to an end, but it has not borne fruit. I enjoyed it as much as I could.

Was this a bump or something? I have no idea how to reply to this. The conversation is constructive inasmuch as it helps you understand that this will never pass for the cited reasons.

[Comfed]

The big problem with GA#759 is that it's simultaneously designed to prohibit all coerced testimony, rather than just self-incriminating testimony, and also that it fails entirely in its goal anyways by only protecting people who are in jail. It's a usual bog-standard procedural rights resolution that somehow was passed anyways, so it should be fairly easy for you to repeal without using AI.

[Kronverg]

This constructive conversation has probably come to an end, but it has not borne fruit. I enjoyed it as much as I could.

Was this a bump or something? I have no idea how to reply to this. The conversation is constructive inasmuch as it helps you understand that this will never pass for the cited reasons.

In principle, I think that the conversation was certainly constructive, I learned a lot from it for myself, it just lost its activity over time. In general, I want to save the draft.

[Kronverg]

The big problem with GA#759 is that it's simultaneously designed to prohibit all coerced testimony, rather than just self-incriminating testimony, and also that it fails entirely in its goal anyways by only protecting people who are in jail. It's a usual bog-standard procedural rights resolution that somehow was passed anyways, so it should be fairly easy for you to repeal without using AI.

But what about GA#9?