NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT 2] Repeal GA198 'Preventing Multiple Trials

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

[DRAFT 2] Repeal GA198 'Preventing Multiple Trials

Postby The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 7:34 am

GA 198: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=198/council=1

General Assembly Resolution #198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials’ Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ADMIRING the good intentions of this resolution to protect those who are,

CONCERNED, however, by the vagueness of the terms ‘valid justification,’ which is undefined and therefore, being a subjective term, may differ significantly depending on the nation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this resolution; ‘impartial.’ Because no human being (or, indeed, artificial intelligence) can be truly impartial, are argument can be made by a skilled lawyer that the various degrees of impartiality makes the term meaningless unless a specific definition is provided.

DISAPPROVING of the inherent difficulties in enforcing this bill and the resulting waste of World Assembly resources in legal disputes. There are two main loopholes that make this bill impossible to enforce: Clause 3a states that retrials are only permitted in cases of ‘significant and compelling miscarriages of justice.’ The bill fails, however, to outline what would be considered a miscarriage of justice, making the term impossible to defend. Clause 3b fails to specify reasonability, which means that the World Assembly would have no legal basis to go after retrials so long as the number is considered ‘reasonable.’ Every number, without a definition, is considered reasonable,

NOTING that Clause 3, which ‘MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system...a reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.’ This clause, which attempts to address differences in different justice systems, also means that all of the bill's language preventing retrials is irrelevant for reasons provided above,

FEARING that Clause 6, which ‘FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial.’ While this clause was intended to close a loophole, it is too restrictive. An attorney would be unable to prosecute a two related crimes in separate cases, leading to guilty people going free on a technicality, even if their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.

ACKNOWLEDGING that while Clause 7 states that the defendant’s right to appeal shall remain unimpaired, Clauses 1 and 2 state that ‘prosecution-initiated re-trial[s]’ may not be granted. This unbalances the justice system in the defendant’s favour because they may appeal their sentence until the nation’s highest court, while prosecutors theoretically would only get one chance to get it right.

HERBY repeals G198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials.

You don't wanna see the first draft
Last edited by The Europians on Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6969
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Thu Jan 23, 2025 7:58 am

This is a bad attempt at repeal, for multiple reasons:

  1. National Sovereignty is almost never considered for the purposes of repeal, because it is a weak argument. You give up some autonomy to the WA by joining it, so noting "different legal systems" is unnecessary. Seeing as NatSov somewhat makes up the majority of the argument of this repeal (I.e calling terms vague because of some perceived notion that everyone defines things differently, which isn't true), it's the main reason this is a poor attempt.
  2. Nitpicking impartiality into absurdity isn't necessary.
  3. You mention "many loopholes" but never actually examine any. You also claim the resolution can not be enforced, yet you do not prove that.

If you want to write a repeal, I would suggest researching the resolution more thoroughly, and bringing proof into the matter. NatSov and semantics do not make a repeal.

Additionally, the stickied threads at the top of this subforum are useful for rules, ideas, and advice. Please use them.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
49rs | Vols | Defenders
NS stats/policies are not canon. Except for the scientific advancement score.
Issues Author (#1520)

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:17 am

Got it.
Last edited by The Europians on Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6969
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:20 am

The Europians wrote:
Untecna wrote:This is a bad attempt at repeal, for multiple reasons:

  1. National Sovereignty is almost never considered for the purposes of repeal, because it is a weak argument. You give up some autonomy to the WA by joining it, so noting "different legal systems" is unnecessary. Seeing as NatSov somewhat makes up the majority of the argument of this repeal (I.e calling terms vague because of some perceived notion that everyone defines things differently, which isn't true), it's the main reason this is a poor attempt.
  2. Nitpicking impartiality into absurdity isn't necessary.
  3. You mention "many loopholes" but never actually examine any. You also claim the resolution can not be enforced, yet you do not prove that.

If you want to write a repeal, I would suggest researching the resolution more thoroughly, and bringing proof into the matter. NatSov and semantics do not make a repeal.

Additionally, the stickied threads at the top of this subforum are useful for rules, ideas, and advice. Please use them.


I thank you for your feedback, although you do have to work on being a bit nicer.

I don't see anything objectionable about my statements.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
49rs | Vols | Defenders
NS stats/policies are not canon. Except for the scientific advancement score.
Issues Author (#1520)

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:27 am

Ok
Last edited by The Europians on Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6969
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Thu Jan 23, 2025 9:51 am

The Europians wrote:Of course not, or else you wouldn't have made it. If you want elaboration, telegram me.

No, I think your prior edit was enough clarification on your position.

The Europians wrote:
Untecna wrote:This is a bad attempt at repeal, for multiple reasons:

  1. National Sovereignty is almost never considered for the purposes of repeal, because it is a weak argument. You give up some autonomy to the WA by joining it, so noting "different legal systems" is unnecessary. Seeing as NatSov somewhat makes up the majority of the argument of this repeal (I.e calling terms vague because of some perceived notion that everyone defines things differently, which isn't true), it's the main reason this is a poor attempt.
  2. Nitpicking impartiality into absurdity isn't necessary.
  3. You mention "many loopholes" but never actually examine any. You also claim the resolution can not be enforced, yet you do not prove that.

If you want to write a repeal, I would suggest researching the resolution more thoroughly, and bringing proof into the matter. NatSov and semantics do not make a repeal.

Additionally, the stickied threads at the top of this subforum are useful for rules, ideas, and advice. Please use them.


I thank you for your feedback, although you do have to work on being a bit nicer. I'm serious: people will ignore you if they think you're calling them an idiot. And that is how it comes across. Just letting you know.

If you think I'm calling you an idiot for noting the flaws of your proposal and giving you advice on writing better proposals, I'd be concerned about how much power your ego has over you.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
49rs | Vols | Defenders
NS stats/policies are not canon. Except for the scientific advancement score.
Issues Author (#1520)

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:36 am

Untecna wrote:
The Europians wrote:Of course not, or else you wouldn't have made it. If you want elaboration, telegram me.

No, I think your prior edit was enough clarification on your position.

The Europians wrote:
I thank you for your feedback, although you do have to work on being a bit nicer. I'm serious: people will ignore you if they think you're calling them an idiot. And that is how it comes across. Just letting you know.

If you think I'm calling you an idiot for noting the flaws of your proposal and giving you advice on writing better proposals, I'd be concerned about how much power your ego has over you.


Ok. You be concerned.

User avatar
Cashers
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Feb 23, 2023
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Cashers » Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:41 am

Ok, both of you, stop it.

Europians, your idea isn't terrible. It does need refinement, though, and it does seem like you're rejecting help. You may not be an idiot, but that's stupid.

Untecna, I won't lie, you're post does look a bit passive-aggresive. It seems like you're insulted by the concept. That's your opinion, but I can see why Europians is annoyed.

Both of you are letting your egos control you. Stop it, that's not what this place is for.

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6969
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Thu Jan 23, 2025 11:46 am

Cashers wrote:Ok, both of you, stop it.

Europians, your idea isn't terrible. It does need refinement, though, and it does seem like you're rejecting help. You may not be an idiot, but that's stupid.

Untecna, I won't lie, you're post does look a bit passive-aggresive. It seems like you're insulted by the concept. That's your opinion, but I can see why Europians is annoyed.

Both of you are letting your egos control you. Stop it, that's not what this place is for.

Never said the idea was terrible, but that the execution was terrible, which is the same conclusion you came to. Though, I will say that I don't see a viable repeal for GA198 being possible.

As for your other comments, those are unnecessary. If Europians wants to join others in disliking or hating people for giving straightforward comments on their proposals, then so be it. But that doesn't mean that everyone else has to "be nice", as I'm sure you think it does, because no one is actually insulting them.

It would be better to use your first time in the WA forum to comment on the proposal, and not on your support of the author's rejection of advice.
Last edited by Untecna on Thu Jan 23, 2025 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
49rs | Vols | Defenders
NS stats/policies are not canon. Except for the scientific advancement score.
Issues Author (#1520)

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:11 pm

You know what, let's just be done. I respect your advice. Didn't love your tone, but still respect your advice. Cashers, thanks for trying to be a mediator.

User avatar
Comfed
Minister
 
Posts: 2416
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Thu Jan 23, 2025 1:40 pm

Untecna wrote:National Sovereignty is almost never considered for the purposes of repeal, because it is a weak argument. You give up some autonomy to the WA by joining it, so noting "different legal systems" is unnecessary. Seeing as NatSov somewhat makes up the majority of the argument of this repeal (I.e calling terms vague because of some perceived notion that everyone defines things differently, which isn't true), it's the main reason this is a poor attempt.

(emphasis added)

This just isn't true.


To the author: while the arguments in this draft are not convincing to me, I can identify some plausible reasons that could be argued as justifications for repeal. For example, the resolution seems to prevent almost all appeals of acquittals by the prosecution as a matter of law. In the U.S., those are (to my knowledge -- I'm not a lawyer!) illegal, but they are legal in, for example, some Commonwealth countries. Another reason could be that section 3(b), taken literally, basically requires nations to set a specific maximum number retrials, an arbitrary number.

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:31 pm

Comfed wrote:
Untecna wrote:National Sovereignty is almost never considered for the purposes of repeal, because it is a weak argument. You give up some autonomy to the WA by joining it, so noting "different legal systems" is unnecessary. Seeing as NatSov somewhat makes up the majority of the argument of this repeal (I.e calling terms vague because of some perceived notion that everyone defines things differently, which isn't true), it's the main reason this is a poor attempt.

(emphasis added)

This just isn't true.


To the author: while the arguments in this draft are not convincing to me, I can identify some plausible reasons that could be argued as justifications for repeal. For example, the resolution seems to prevent almost all appeals of acquittals by the prosecution as a matter of law. In the U.S., those are (to my knowledge -- I'm not a lawyer!) illegal, but they are legal in, for example, some Commonwealth countries. Another reason could be that section 3(b), taken literally, basically requires nations to set a specific maximum number retrials, an arbitrary number.

Moreover, Untecna, saying that something that clearly has effort put into is bad quality is not constructive and is bad form. The author has a legitimate gripe with how the feedback was presented. It's particularly inappropriate to direct unhelpful feedback toward newer authors. You should know that. You are fairly new yourself.
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:04 am

Thank you, The Overmind. I appreciate it. I will take your feedback into account and, hopefully within a day, I'll have a second draft. I feel like this would be easier if I were a lawyer.

User avatar
Cashers
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Feb 23, 2023
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Cashers » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:06 am

The Europians wrote:You know what, let's just be done. I respect your advice. Didn't love your tone, but still respect your advice. Cashers, thanks for trying to be a mediator.


You're very welcome. I have a feeling Unteca may be projecting a bit of their insecurities about feedback on us. It is very poor form.

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:36 am

This is a modified version:

General Assembly Resolution #198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials’ Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ADMIRING the good intentions of this resolution to protect those who are innocent,

CONCERNED, however, by the vagueness of the terms ‘valid justification,’ which is undefined and therefore, being a subjective term, may differ significantly depending on the nation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this resolution; ‘impartial.’ Because no human being (or, indeed, artificial intelligence) can be truly impartial, an argument can be made by any semi-competent attorney that the various degrees of impartiality makes the term meaningless unless a specific definition is provided,

DISAPPROVING the impossibility of this resolution to enforce and the waste of the World Assembly’s resources fighting legal battles against lawyers, especially lawyers persistent enough to bring up cases more than once. There are simply too many loopholes, and the lawyers will find them all. Endless arguments over term definitions and punishments warranted by crimes of different calibres created by G198 will not only render the resolution useless, but slow down the already tedious processes of legal systems.

FEARING that Clause 6, which ‘FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial.’ While this clause was intended to close a loophole, it is too restrictive. What if a new serious crime is discovered that requires much of the same evidence as a previous crime? Would a murderer simply get away with murder because the evidence is too similar to their robbery? This clause leads to miscarriages of justice because it prevents prosecutors from doing their jobs, even when the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

NOTING that Clause 3, which ‘MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system...a reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.’ This clause, which attempts to address differences in different nationstates’ justice systems, is an attempt to allow nations their sovereignty. While national sovereignty is, indeed, important, allowing every nation to choose the minimum number of retrials makes this resolution effectively toothless,

HERBY repeals G198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials.’

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:40 am

The Europians wrote:This is a modified version:

It's best to put your current draft in the OP, and to spoiler your older drafts:

General Assembly Resolution #198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials’ Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ADMIRING the good intentions of this resolution to protect those who are innocent,

CONCERNED, however, by the vagueness of the terms ‘valid justification,’ which is undefined and therefore, being a subjective term, may differ significantly depending on the nation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this resolution; ‘impartial.’ Because no human being (or, indeed, artificial intelligence) can be truly impartial, an argument can be made by any semi-competent attorney that the various degrees of impartiality makes the term meaningless unless a specific definition is provided,

DISAPPROVING the impossibility of this resolution to enforce and the waste of the World Assembly’s resources fighting legal battles against lawyers, especially lawyers persistent enough to bring up cases more than once. There are simply too many loopholes, and the lawyers will find them all. Endless arguments over term definitions and punishments warranted by crimes of different calibres created by G198 will not only render the resolution useless, but slow down the already tedious processes of legal systems.

FEARING that Clause 6, which ‘FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial.’ While this clause was intended to close a loophole, it is too restrictive. What if a new serious crime is discovered that requires much of the same evidence as a previous crime? Would a murderer simply get away with murder because the evidence is too similar to their robbery? This clause leads to miscarriages of justice because it prevents prosecutors from doing their jobs, even when the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

NOTING that Clause 3, which ‘MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system...a reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.’ This clause, which attempts to address differences in different nationstates’ justice systems, is an attempt to allow nations their sovereignty. While national sovereignty is, indeed, important, allowing every nation to choose the minimum number of retrials makes this resolution effectively toothless,

HERBY repeals G198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials.’
General Assembly Resolution #198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials’ Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
ADMIRING the good intentions of this resolution to protect those who are,

NOTING the vast diversity of the members of the World Assembly and that all have vastly different laws and justice systems,

FEARING, therefore, that this resolution is too sweeping to address this diversity.

CONCERNED by the vagueness of the terms ‘valid justification,’ which is undefined and therefore, being a subjective term, may differ significantly depending on the nation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this resolution; ‘impartial.’ Because no human being (or, indeed, artificial intelligence) can be truly impartial, are argument can be made by a skilled lawyer that the various degrees of impartiality makes the term meaningless unless a specific definition is provided; and ‘reasonable,’ which is also a term that can be easily manipulated,

DISAPPROVING of the impossibility of this bill to enforce and the waste of the World Assembly’s resources fighting legal battles against lawyers, especially lawyers persistent enough to bring up cases more than once. There are simply too many loopholes, and the lawyers will find them all.

HERBY repeals G198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials.

Code: Select all
General Assembly Resolution #198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials’ Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ADMIRING the good intentions of this resolution to protect those who are innocent,

CONCERNED, however, by the vagueness of the terms ‘valid justification,’ which is undefined and therefore, being a subjective term, may differ significantly depending on the nation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this resolution; ‘impartial.’ Because no human being (or, indeed, artificial intelligence) can be truly impartial, an argument can be made by any semi-competent attorney that the various degrees of impartiality makes the term meaningless unless a specific definition is provided,

DISAPPROVING the impossibility of this resolution to enforce and the waste of the World Assembly’s resources fighting legal battles against lawyers, especially lawyers persistent enough to bring up cases more than once. There are simply too many loopholes, and the lawyers will find them all. Endless arguments over term definitions and punishments warranted by crimes of different calibres created by G198 will not only render the resolution useless, but slow down the already tedious processes of legal systems.

FEARING that Clause 6, which ‘FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial.’ While this clause was intended to close a loophole, it is too restrictive. What if a new serious crime is discovered that requires much of the same evidence as a previous crime? Would a murderer simply get away with murder because the evidence is too similar to their robbery? This clause leads to miscarriages of justice because it prevents prosecutors from doing their jobs, even when the suspect is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

NOTING that Clause 3, which ‘MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system...a reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.’ This clause, which attempts to address differences in different nationstates’ justice systems, is an attempt to allow nations their sovereignty. While national sovereignty is, indeed, important, allowing every nation to choose the minimum number of retrials makes this resolution effectively toothless,

HERBY repeals G198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials.’
[spoiler=Draft 1]General Assembly Resolution #198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials’ Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
ADMIRING the good intentions of this resolution to protect those who are,

NOTING the vast diversity of the members of the World Assembly and that all have vastly different laws and justice systems,

FEARING, therefore, that this resolution is too sweeping to address this diversity.

CONCERNED by the vagueness of the terms ‘valid justification,’ which is undefined and therefore, being a subjective term, may differ significantly depending on the nation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this resolution; ‘impartial.’ Because no human being (or, indeed, artificial intelligence) can be truly impartial, are argument can be made by a skilled lawyer that the various degrees of impartiality makes the term meaningless unless a specific definition is provided; and ‘reasonable,’ which is also a term that can be easily manipulated,

DISAPPROVING of the impossibility of this bill to enforce and the waste of the World Assembly’s resources fighting legal battles against lawyers, especially lawyers persistent enough to bring up cases more than once. There are simply too many loopholes, and the lawyers will find them all.

HERBY repeals G198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials.[/spoiler]
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:45 am

Thank you, I did not know that. That will be done in the future. What do you think of the draft?

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1995
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:46 am

The Europians wrote:Thank you, I did not know that. That will be done in the future. What do you think of the draft?

I work today, so I may be able to give it a read over tomorrow or something : )
Free Palestine
2024 Kenmoria Award
2024 Contributor of the Year Award
Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights

Neuroscientist | Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6969
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Fri Jan 24, 2025 10:42 am

Well, I apologize for being a bit too blunt, but the point of my comments still stands. The proposed repeal still lacks in the first two sections. "Valid justification" and "impartial" aren't really objectionable terms, nor are they vague or wrong in the context of the target.

DEPLORING the practice of trying individuals repeatedly for a single offense without valid justification


In this context, it's referring to retrials without any legal justification (i.e there is no reason to conduct a new trial, other than to harm the defendant).

the right to appeal, before an impartial judge, the decision to retry the case


This simply requires a new judge to hear the case.

As for the second section, it feels a bit unnecessary. It's not really clear how the target is "unenforceable", as claimed, so if it were to remain in that language, I would suggest clarification.

There are simply too many loopholes, and the lawyers will find them all. Endless arguments over term definitions and punishments warranted by crimes of different calibres created by G198 will not only render the resolution useless, but slow down the already tedious processes of legal systems.


These sentences from that section feel unnecessary, too, though moreso because you target specific clauses following this section.

A final suggestion would be to make your language more formal. As it stands, it feels bloggy, particularly in Clause 6, where questions are being posed. It would be better to have formal, straightforward language.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
49rs | Vols | Defenders
NS stats/policies are not canon. Except for the scientific advancement score.
Issues Author (#1520)

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:03 pm

Thank you. I will take this into account for the next draft.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23004
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Jan 24, 2025 5:10 pm

Please put your active draft in the OP (opening post), that's what people are likely to respond to, rather than a new draft buried in the thread.
She walked into my office on legs as long as one of those long-legged birds that you see in Florida – the pink ones, not the white ones – except that she was standing on both of them, not just one of them, like those birds, the pink ones, and she wasn’t wearing pink, but I knew right away that she was trouble, which those birds usually aren’t.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Despotic Hegemon, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

[DRAFT 2] Repeal GA198 'Preventing Multiple Trials'

Postby The Europians » Wed Jan 29, 2025 6:16 am

GA 198: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=198/council=1

General Assembly Resolution #198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials’ Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

ADMIRING the good intentions of this resolution to protect those who are,

CONCERNED, however, by the vagueness of the terms ‘valid justification,’ which is undefined and therefore, being a subjective term, may differ significantly depending on the nation, thereby reducing the effectiveness of this resolution; ‘impartial.’ Because no human being (or, indeed, artificial intelligence) can be truly impartial, are argument can be made by a skilled lawyer that the various degrees of impartiality makes the term meaningless unless a specific definition is provided.

DISAPPROVING of the inherent difficulties in enforcing this bill and the resulting waste of World Assembly resources in legal disputes. There are two main loopholes that make this bill impossible to enforce: Clause 3a states that retrials are only permitted in cases of ‘significant and compelling miscarriages of justice.’ The bill fails, however, to outline what would be considered a miscarriage of justice, making the term impossible to defend. Clause 3b fails to specify reasonability, which means that the World Assembly would have no legal basis to go after retrials so long as the number is considered ‘reasonable.’ Every number, without a definition, is considered reasonable,

NOTING that Clause 3, which ‘MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system...a reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.’ This clause, which attempts to address differences in different justice systems, also means that all of the bill's language preventing retrials is irrelevant for reasons provided above,

FEARING that Clause 6, which ‘FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial.’ While this clause was intended to close a loophole, it is too restrictive. An attorney would be unable to prosecute a two related crimes in separate cases, leading to guilty people going free on a technicality, even if their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.

ACKNOWLEDGING that while Clause 7 states that the defendant’s right to appeal shall remain unimpaired, Clauses 1 and 2 state that ‘prosecution-initiated re-trial[s]’ may not be granted. This unbalances the justice system in the defendant’s favour because they may appeal their sentence until the nation’s highest court, while prosecutors theoretically would only get one chance to get it right.

HERBY repeals G198 ‘Preventing Multiple Trials.

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6969
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Wed Jan 29, 2025 7:07 am

Second drafts go in the same thread, not in new threads.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
49rs | Vols | Defenders
NS stats/policies are not canon. Except for the scientific advancement score.
Issues Author (#1520)

User avatar
The Europians
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: May 19, 2023
New York Times Democracy

Postby The Europians » Wed Jan 29, 2025 8:09 am

Untecna wrote:Second drafts go in the same thread, not in new threads.

I've been told otherwise. Otherwise has been indicated by precedent. Thoughts on the actual proposal?

User avatar
Untecna
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6969
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Untecna » Wed Jan 29, 2025 8:12 am

The Europians wrote:
Untecna wrote:Second drafts go in the same thread, not in new threads.

I've been told otherwise. Otherwise has been indicated by precedent. Thoughts on the actual proposal?

Well, whoever told you that was wrong. When a draft is updated, it is put in the original thread; new threads are not made for each subsequent revision.
Dragon with internet access. I am coming for your data. More for the hoard.
49rs | Vols | Defenders
NS stats/policies are not canon. Except for the scientific advancement score.
Issues Author (#1520)

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads