[GA, Passed] Procedural Rights Of Defendants

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cookiemonster

Lost Butterfly
Pronouns
She/Her
TNP Nation
Isabella van der Feltz
Discord
isabella_respublica
ga.jpg

Procedural Rights Of Defendants
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Steam-Gardens | Onsite Topic


The World Assembly,

Noting that member states undertake criminal proceedings to determine whether someone accused of a crime is guilty of committing it,

Believing that the right of the accused to have and know their procedural entitlements and responsibilities is critical to safeguarding the integrity of such proceedings,

Dismayed that no current World Assembly resolution safeguards several quintessential rights, allowing for unchecked abuse of power and violation of procedural rights by officers and therefore resulting in unfair trials, and

Aiming to guarantee the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings while preventing law enforcement from abusing its authority;

The World Assembly hereby, subject to prior and standing WA legislation,
  1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,
    • a "defendant" as any person who is suspected of perpetrating a crime and has undertaken or is undertaking any criminal proceedings,

    • an "officer" as a person who compels observance of or compliance with a World Assembly member nation’s laws, such as judges, police officers, and legal interrogators, and

    • a "criminal proceeding" as any proceeding in the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of a person charged or to be charged with the commission of a crime, including police questionings and trials in court;

  2. Declares that, in criminal proceedings:
    • Defendants are entitled to:
      • Refuse to answer an officer’s questions, without prejudice for any refusal,

      • Provide an answer to questions they wish to answer, although false answers and answers which are proven to be deliberately incomplete to said questions may result in charges of perjury,

      • Only be considered guilty of a crime when they have been handed down a guilty verdict by the court in relation to said crime, subject to national appellate proceedings as appropriate under relevant law, and

    • Officers must not:
      • Require a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer, although without preclusion of reasonable interrogation tactics,

      • Punish a defendant for refusing to answer a question; nor

      • Use lie detectors or other mind-reading technology on any person in their capacity as law enforcement officers;

  3. Requires that officers inform defendants of all the relevant rights and regulations that the legislation of the World Assembly grants to those defendants in a way that the defendant understands; and

  4. States that if a defendant is not informed in the manner required by clause 3, all evidence supplied by the defendant in the instant criminal proceeding up to the point that Article 3 is fulfilled may not be used as proof of the defendant's guilt in both the instant and all future criminal proceedings.
  1. Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA)or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
    Voting Instructions:
    • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
    • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
    • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
    • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
    Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!


    ForAgainstAbstainPresent
    61001
 
Last edited:
Overview
The proposal seeks to protect the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings. It asserts that defendants have the right to refuse to answer questions without prejudice, provide truthful answers, and be considered guilty only after a court verdict. The proposal prohibits officers from compelling answers, punishing defendants for refusing to answer a question, or using mind-reading technology. Additionally, it mandates that officers inform defendants of their rights and requires any evidence provided by the defendant up to that point in the criminal proceeding may not be used as proof of guilt in both the current and future criminal proceedings.

Recommendation
The proposal states that evidence may be excluded if a defendant is not informed adequately, which causes many concerns in regard to fairness and due process. The section allowing charges of perjury for false or deliberately incomplete answers in non-oath situations during criminal proceedings, including police questioning, is problematic and overly broad. Additionally, the subjective nature of "reasonable interrogation tactics" can potentially permit abusive practices.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the at-vote GA resolution, "Procedural Rights Of Defendants".
 
Last edited:
States that if a defendant is not informed in the manner required by clause 3, all evidence supplied by the defendant in the instant criminal proceeding up to the point that Article 3 is fulfilled may not be used as proof of the defendant's guilt in both the instant and all future criminal proceedings.
Because of this section, I am against.
 
For

There are some sections which don't apply particularly well to certain legal systems, and the implication made by "lie detectors or other mind-reading technology" seems an unfortunate err, but I see little else with which to take much issue.
 
I am hesitant on this, largely because the use of polygraphy is somewhat controversial, and it also has a certain American/British law feel to it that makes it incompatible with some other law systems. Will have to read it again in detail.
 
Last edited:
Provide an answer to questions they wish to answer, although false answers and answers which are proven to be deliberately incomplete to said questions may result in charges of perjury,

A bit concerned about this section, as usually to be charged with perjury (at least in the US) you have to be testifying under oath. Based on the definition of "criminal proceeding" including initial police questioning, this could be used to charge a defendant with perjury if they don't provide full information to questions they decide to answer. Also concerned about the fact that "deliberately incomplete" answers could lead to a perjury charge. If you answer the question that is asked on the stand, and there might be more information but it isn't relevant to the actual question, that could lead to a defendant being charged with perjury. I think the extension of the applicable situations where a defendant could be charged with perjury is pretty broad so for that reason I would be against.
 
I am uncertain as to whether the concern raised by Comfed justifies voting against this proposal. As a result of my uncertainty, I will vote as present.
 
Against because of the perjury loophole that Gymna pointed out.
 
A bit concerned about this section, as usually to be charged with perjury (at least in the US) you have to be testifying under oath. Based on the definition of "criminal proceeding" including initial police questioning, this could be used to charge a defendant with perjury if they don't provide full information to questions they decide to answer. Also concerned about the fact that "deliberately incomplete" answers could lead to a perjury charge. If you answer the question that is asked on the stand, and there might be more information but it isn't relevant to the actual question, that could lead to a defendant being charged with perjury. I think the extension of the applicable situations where a defendant could be charged with perjury is pretty broad so for that reason I would be against.

It kind of ends up with 400 instances of pleading the Fifth instead.

"Reasonable interrogation tactics" is also very problematic. Is waterboarding a terrorist "reasonable" against someone who killed your parents, your spouse and your children?

Against for now but I'd post forumside for additional feedback.
 
Last edited:
This discussions helps to decide my vote for it soon. (Note: Right thread to message in now instead of the other IFV discussion thread)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top