by The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 7:34 am
by Untecna » Thu Jan 23, 2025 7:58 am
by The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:17 am
by Untecna » Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:20 am
The Europians wrote:Untecna wrote:This is a bad attempt at repeal, for multiple reasons:
- 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.
- Nitpicking impartiality into absurdity isn't necessary.
- 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.
by The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 8:27 am
by 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.
The Europians wrote:Untecna wrote:This is a bad attempt at repeal, for multiple reasons:
- 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.
- Nitpicking impartiality into absurdity isn't necessary.
- 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.
by 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.
by Cashers » Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:41 am
by 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.
by The Europians » Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:11 pm
by 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.
by 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.
by The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:04 am
by 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.
by The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:36 am
by The Overmind » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:40 am
The Europians wrote: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.’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.
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]
by The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 9:45 am
by 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?
by Untecna » Fri Jan 24, 2025 10:42 am
DEPLORING the practice of trying individuals repeatedly for a single offense without valid justification
the right to appeal, before an impartial judge, the decision to retry the case
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.
by The Europians » Fri Jan 24, 2025 12:03 pm
by Wallenburg » Fri Jan 24, 2025 5:10 pm
by The Europians » Wed Jan 29, 2025 6:16 am
by Untecna » Wed Jan 29, 2025 7:07 am
by The Europians » Wed Jan 29, 2025 8:09 am
Untecna wrote:Second drafts go in the same thread, not in new threads.
by Untecna » Wed Jan 29, 2025 8:12 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement