Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Welcome to The Rejected Realms

Government:

Delegate: Wabbitslayah
Officer: Frattastan (Foreign Affairs)
Officer: Marilyn Manson Freaks (Outreach)
Officer: PowerPAOK (Media)
Officer: Relfa (Culture)

Other Officials:

Speaker: Vulturret
RRA High Commander: Frattastan
RRA Commander: Guy
RRA Commander: Wopruthien
Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
No Penalty Without Law; Proposed by Sciongrad
Topic Started: Apr 3 2015, 02:18 AM (445 Views)
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
This proposal reached quorum earlier today. Its vote will begin in two hours.

In-game debate thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=21358190

No Penalty Without Law
Proposed by Sciongrad
No Penalty Without Law
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sciongrad


The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its stance that "one should not be penalised for doing something that is not prohibited by law,"

Regretting, however, the lack of internationally recognized legal safeguards protecting individuals from criminal penalties in circumstances where no relevant law exists,

Believing that the World Assembly must act to rectify this oversight,

1. Declares that neither member nations, political subdivisions thereof, nor any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, may arrest, detain, prosecute, or punish any individual unless such action is specifically permitted by international law or a relevant member nation's established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law;

2. Mandates that such established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law shall define any punishable action in good faith so as to reasonably minimize ambiguity in enforcement;

3. Requires member nations to ensure that all established international or statutory laws, judicial precedents, or guidelines with the force of law applicable under their jurisdiction are publicly promulgated when it is determined to be both practical and necessary in preventing their inhabitants from committing punishable actions;

4. Prohibits member nations, political subdivisions thereof, or any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated;

5. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified, and;

6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall provide protection for those that claim ignorance of the law if the relevant law is publicly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of clause three.
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
Christian Democrats
Apr 3 2015, 02:18 AM
5. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified
First, this clause is a horrible idea. It could result in the release of thousands of dangerous criminals worldwide.

Second, I oppose this proposal because it is Western-centric and could infringe on the freedom of preindustrial countries to enforce their customary laws, which might or might not be procedurally and substantively fair.

Against.
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banned: Chester Pearson
Member Avatar
Resouluton Author Extraordinaire
Against.
The Right Honourable Chester B. Pearson,

Prime Minister, United Federation of Canada

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sciongrad
Member Avatar
Poster
Christian Democrats
Apr 3 2015, 02:21 AM
Christian Democrats
Apr 3 2015, 02:18 AM
5. Demands that all individuals previously convicted or currently detained in violation of any of the aforementioned principles shall be immediately freed and have their sentences nullified
First, this clause is a horrible idea. It could result in the release of thousands of dangerous criminals worldwide.

Second, I oppose this proposal because it is Western-centric and could infringe on the freedom of preindustrial countries to enforce their customary laws, which might or might not be procedurally and substantively fair.

Against.
The idea that clause 5 would release thousands of "dangerous" criminals is highly unlikely. To say that a regime that punishes individuals without a basis in law will be doing so to arrest murderers and rapists misunderstands that the purpose behind punishing individuals for actions that are not illegal is primarily to undermine or suppress political opposition, not to meaningfully dish out justice. This argument is accidentally exaggerated at best, and downright fear-mongering at worst. And even so, individuals should not be expected to endure the full length of a punishment for a law they did not break, regardless of what it is. It's not expected in the real world, and it definitely shouldn't be expected in the NS world either.

And your argument regarding the Western-centric nature of the resolution is exaggerated. I've already explained to you on the NS thread how this does not preclude the practice of other types of legal system of non-western traditions, including Xeer.
Edited by Sciongrad, Apr 4 2015, 03:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
"When it is determined to be both practical and necessary " is pretty bizarre wording in c.3; almost a bit dystopian. I'll vote alongside the forum vote.

Personally I'll ABSTAIN, for the moment.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
Sciongrad
Apr 4 2015, 03:26 PM
The idea that clause 5 would release thousands of "dangerous" criminals is highly unlikely. To say that a regime that punishes individuals without a basis in law
This is precisely the problem. Your conception of law is very narrow.

Sciongrad
Apr 4 2015, 03:26 PM
And your argument regarding the Western-centric nature of the resolution is exaggerated. I've already explained to you on the NS thread how this does not preclude the practice of other types of legal system of non-western traditions, including Xeer.
I disagree. A jury of elders divining the law from reason and the sacred traditions of its people would not be protected even if the decisions of this system are consistently just. Let me give an example besides xeer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Hindu_law
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kenny
Member Avatar
WASC Suicide Bomber
I'm abstaining gameside, so I will be abstaining here also.
About us
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sciongrad
Member Avatar
Poster
unibot
Apr 4 2015, 05:25 PM
"When it is determined to be both practical and necessary " is pretty bizarre wording in c.3; almost a bit dystopian. I'll vote alongside the forum vote.

Personally I'll ABSTAIN, for the moment.
That certainly wasn't the intention, nor do I think the actual effect of the clause is as insidious as you think it sounds. The wording was meant to balance the undeniable necessity of promulgating the laws with the possibility of economic impracticality. This was discussed in greater depth on the NS thread, but the effect of this clause is merely to allow for efforts at promulgation that are both practical (i.e. economically viable) and necessary (i.e. with sufficient effort to ensure that individuals are aware of what is and isn't illegal).

Quote:
 
This is precisely the problem. Your conception of law is very narrow.


No, it isn't. You're assuming that the resolution only accounts for Western-centric models of law and therefore legal systems of a non-western tradition that rightfully punish dangerous criminals will be forced to free those criminals because it's not recognized by this resolution. I'm arguing, and have been arguing, that those legal systems are recognized by this resolution, and therefore any system that punishes individuals without a basis in law cannot reasonably be doing so for violent crimes.

Quote:
 
I disagree. A jury of elders divining the law from reason and the sacred traditions of its people would not be protected even if the decisions of this system are consistently just. Let me give an example besides xeer.


As long as those decisions are predictable, consistent, and based on something other than the whims of the elders, then they are quite clearly recognized by this resolution. However, when it comes to legal systems founded entirely on the inclinations of a certain individual or a group of individuals, then western-centric or not, I don't believe that those types of legal system are legitimate.
Edited by Sciongrad, Apr 5 2015, 01:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
Just because a judgment is not based on a publicly promulgated statute, legal opinion, or regulation does not make it whimsical.
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warzone Codger
Member Avatar
JEFFERSONBORG
For.

After reading the discussion from the last TRT, I'm all for moves to advance the assumption that nations are modern human nations. WA RP shouldn't need to cater to pre-industrial societies.
Also known as Jeffersonborg - re-educating ejectees one mind at a time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
Warzone Codger
Apr 5 2015, 08:49 AM
After reading the discussion from the last TRT, I'm all for moves to advance the assumption that nations are modern human nations. WA RP shouldn't need to cater to pre-industrial societies.
The article said that we ought to treat the WA world as if it were like the real world.

Do you think indigenous communities (Australia, Canada, US, etc.) would be able to meet all of these promulgation requirements? If they haven't been meeting them, should they be required to cancel previous sentences? How about the hundreds of millions of people who live in preindustrial communities in Asia and Africa? To what lengths must a mountain village go to make sure that everybody knows what the case law says?
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
unibot
Member Avatar
Chief Propagandist
Christian Democrats
Apr 5 2015, 05:50 PM
Warzone Codger
Apr 5 2015, 08:49 AM
After reading the discussion from the last TRT, I'm all for moves to advance the assumption that nations are modern human nations. WA RP shouldn't need to cater to pre-industrial societies.
The article said that we ought to treat the WA world as if it were like the real world.

Do you think indigenous communities (Australia, Canada, US, etc.) would be able to meet all of these promulgation requirements? If they haven't been meeting them, should they be required to cancel previous sentences? How about the hundreds of millions of people who live in preindustrial communities in Asia and Africa? To what lengths must a mountain village go to make sure that everybody knows what the case law says?
To be fair, how much effort would they put into coming into compliance with some distant international law.
Posted Image
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christian Democrats
Member Avatar
HMSM James II
unibot
Apr 5 2015, 05:57 PM
Christian Democrats
Apr 5 2015, 05:50 PM
Warzone Codger
Apr 5 2015, 08:49 AM
After reading the discussion from the last TRT, I'm all for moves to advance the assumption that nations are modern human nations. WA RP shouldn't need to cater to pre-industrial societies.
The article said that we ought to treat the WA world as if it were like the real world.

Do you think indigenous communities (Australia, Canada, US, etc.) would be able to meet all of these promulgation requirements? If they haven't been meeting them, should they be required to cancel previous sentences? How about the hundreds of millions of people who live in preindustrial communities in Asia and Africa? To what lengths must a mountain village go to make sure that everybody knows what the case law says?
To be fair, how much effort would they put into coming into compliance with some distant international law.
Lol. Yes, there's definitely some difficulty in reconciling realism and the rule that all WA law is mandatory.
"I was born free and desire to continue so."

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sciongrad
Member Avatar
Poster
Christian Democrats
Apr 5 2015, 05:50 PM
Warzone Codger
Apr 5 2015, 08:49 AM
After reading the discussion from the last TRT, I'm all for moves to advance the assumption that nations are modern human nations. WA RP shouldn't need to cater to pre-industrial societies.
The article said that we ought to treat the WA world as if it were like the real world.

Do you think indigenous communities (Australia, Canada, US, etc.) would be able to meet all of these promulgation requirements? If they haven't been meeting them, should they be required to cancel previous sentences? How about the hundreds of millions of people who live in preindustrial communities in Asia and Africa? To what lengths must a mountain village go to make sure that everybody knows what the case law says?
The promulgation requirements are not nearly as strict as you're making them out to be. Assuming an indigenous tribe with pre-industrial level technology levels is capable of both maintaining active membership in the WA and implementing and enforcing its extant legislation (comprehensive education, access to mental health facilities, etc.), there is no way traditions and reasoning that set the foundation for that tribe's law can't be spread through song, dance, folklore, etc. That is the length to which a mountain village must go to make sure everybody knows the tribes legal traditions. For someone so intent on painting this resolution as western-centric, you yourself haven't even acknowledged that promulgation doesn't need to be achieved through industrial, first world methods.
Edited by Sciongrad, Apr 5 2015, 09:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guy
Member Avatar
Old Admin Slave
Abstain
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Assembly · Next Topic »
Add Reply