The R.O.D. (Right Of Defense) Bill.

[Vivanco]

The Right of Defense Bill.​

The Bill of Rights of The North Pacific shall be revised as follows:

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
8. All nations of The North Pacific shall have the right to a capable legal counsel, either by choice or need.

Subsequent clauses are to be renumbered as needed.

With this reform, the right of a good defense of those accused of any crime will be ensured, in order to not leave the defendant of the cases without proper representation or to the mercy of the parts involved.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I am not sure how this is an improvement on the current article 7, which already provides for a right to counsel:

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

Could the proposer elaborate?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Unnecessary.

Article 7 of the bill of rights already covers this and in much more sophisticated language. You cannot have a fair and impartial trial without the right to legal counsel. The two are completely intertwined.

 

[Vivanco]

I am not sure how this is an improvement on the current article 7, which already provides for a right to counsel:



Could the proposer elaborate?

Gladly.
This reform ought to be the foundation to stablish the guarantee of a capable defense of a defendant. There have been cases in which, by sheer ignorance of the legislation of the region, the defendant have pleaded guilty when, if done properly and studied further, an innocent resolve may have been reached. This not only would clarify on such right already existing, but allows to the existence of the form of Temporary Defense Counselors, thus the wording of "by choice or by need". Perhaps one person is unable to reach a defense in a case, and however unlikely such case may be, we ought to stablish the security of the law, so in that case, invoking this particular clause, a temporal counselour would be appointed, a capable person to ensure the defendant's right to a proper defense.

There have been cases in the past that resulted in innocent people pleading guilty because of the lack of such security, people left stray. And with this, and a follow up reform if this goes, of the Legal Code in order to introduce the form of the Temporal Defense Counselors, or Duty Counselors, we can ensure such defense.

 

[Vivanco]

Unnecessary.

Article 7 of the bill of rights already covers this and in much more sophisticated language. You cannot have a fair and impartial trial without the right to legal counsel. The two are completely intertwined.

It is true that the right is there, but it exists for only the nation's choosing. In the case of imposibility of getting such defense, in order to not leave one of the parts void and avoid having unequal parts in court, this reform and the "by choice or need" wording would allow following legislation of forms of defense.

 

[Eluvatar]

I would be very cautious of anything that would allow the treating of nations as legally incompetent.

 

[Vivanco]

I would be very cautious of anything that would allow the treating of nations as legally incompetent.

Care to clarify?