[GA - defeated] Repeal "Legal Equality Act"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle_Embassy_Building_A5
Discord
red_canine
ga.jpg

Repeal "Legal Equality Act"
Category: Repeal | GA #649
Proposed by: Simone Republic, Co-authored by: Kenmoria | Onsite Topic
Replacement: None​

The World Assembly,

Noting that many nations across the multi-verse consider their democratically-elected national legislature(s) to be sovereign and their laws to be non-justiciable;

Concerned by clause 2(1) of this resolution, which failed to define what constitutes a "demonstrabl(e)" case of "public interest" or "the public's interest" in enacting "measures such as commutations and pardons, including refraining from prosecuting a case";

Dismayed by the flaws deriving from the lack of such definitions, which may permit politicians to determine themselves the fate of pardons and prosecutions for crimes in the absence of an independent "public interest" test and undermine due process of law;

Anxious at the same time at the compliance powers derived from GAR#440 and perverse incentives resulting thereof, such as this resolution lacking a provision for police discretion in enforcing minor offences, leading to unnecessary arrests and strain on police resources;

Hereby repeals "Legal Equality Act".
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to 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
41613
 
Last edited:
Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GA#649 "Legal Equality Act" over concerns of the definition of "public interest", and the flaws that constitute the supposed lack of definition. The proposal also raises the concern over the conflict with the compliance powers of GAR#440, stating that it would be taxing on police resources, and risk the constant occurrence of unnecessary arrests.

Recommendation
Although well written, this proposal is based mainly around one argument. The core argument is that the definition of "public interest" is too overly broad, and could be manipulated if the "actor" is the one who determines what is in the public interest.

This argument not only unreasonably assumes that the "actor" will not themselves face punishment for manipulation of that member state's justice system; but fails to take into account that the resolution quite clearly requires the measures to actually be in the public's interest, rather than merely asserted to be by a member state. The argument is therefore based on the occurrence of certain situations that, although possible, rarely occur.

The second argument is also at best an exaggeration and at most simply false. The target's exception includes a provision for "refraining from prosecuting a case", and applies to like actions to the listed examples. Refusing to investigate or prosecute a frivolous case is therefore permitted, so GA #649 would not result in these "unnecessary arrests and strain on police resources".

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against "Repeal Legal Equality Act".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The argument is very technical and is largely on the Forums, based on extensive research on the legal consequences of a lack of a public interest test by @Kenmoria under common law. (The civil law case for European countries is actually more straight forward).

Voting For (please note I am a coauthor). As I think the convention that the author does not vote is getting dropped by MoWAA, I am voting For.
 
Last edited:
Against. While I do not disclaim obvious bias, I strongly disagree with these arguments. The second argument (which I actually didn't notice until now given the accelerated timeframe of this, and not being in the initial draft I reviewed) is especially specious -- if the public interest clause really is that exploitable, "refraining from prosecuting a case" (which explicitly falls under the test) would allow for "police discretion in enforcing minor offences". Even if it isn't that exploitable (I don't think it is), the public has a rather clear interest against unnecessary arrests, so member nations would have a solid argument for allowing such discretion.
 
Last edited:
I am, of course, for this proposal, though I do suffer from a bias in this regard.


Magecastle:
Against. While I do not disclaim obvious bias, I strongly disagree with these arguments. The second argument (which I actually didn't notice until now given the accelerated timeframe of this, and not being in the initial draft I reviewed) is especially specious -- if the public interest clause really is that exploitable, "refraining from prosecuting a case" (which explicitly falls under the test) would allow for "police discretion in enforcing minor offences". Even if it isn't that exploitable (I don't think it is), the public has a rather clear interest against unnecessary arrests, so member nations would have a solid argument for allowing such discretion.
Click to expand...
At least from my domestic standpoint of the United Kingdom, there is a difference between a police investigation into a case and a decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute it.
 
I have to say I think that if you want to repeal a resolution based on a highly technical argument, you have to explain it in a way that makes sense to people who aren't in that field. People aren't going to support arguments that they can't understand, and the vast majority of players don't have a background in or a deep understanding of real-life law (including me lol). So you can go on about non-justiciability all you like, but if your arguments don't make sense to people who don't know about subtle details of common law, you can't expect them to succeed. Part of the game, after all, is convincing the voters.
 
Comfed:
I have to say I think that if you want to repeal a resolution based on a highly technical argument, you have to explain it in a way that makes sense to people who aren't in that field. People aren't going to support arguments that they can't understand, and the vast majority of players don't have a background in or a deep understanding of real-life law (including me lol). So you can go on about non-justiciability all you like, but if your arguments don't make sense to people who don't know about subtle details of common law, you can't expect them to succeed. Part of the game, after all, is convincing the voters.
Click to expand...

Working on that. The argument is highly technical so I am trying to simplify it as much as I can.

The repeal from Kenmoria and myself is based on the concept of "non-justiciability" - the US concept of "public interest" being quite different from that of other common law countries such as the UK, not to say civil law countries (such as much of Europe or Japan).

In terms of prosecutorial powers (that's 2.1 of the resolution):

In the US, since prosecutors, judges, governors and representatives (at both Federal and state level) are essentially all elected (directly in some states, indirectly for say the US Supreme Court), the concept of "public interest" rests on direct democracy: if the people of state X decide to elect a prosecutor A and judge B and they both run on a platform of ruling in a particular direction (abortion being the prime example here), that's direct democracy. If there appears to be a grave injustice, the US Supreme Court can step in.

In the UK, (and many other countries), as Parliament is sovereign, the courts (UK Supreme Court for example) do not have the right to overturn the decision of Parliament. They cannot step in. Parliament can essentially deem whatever it wants to be "in the public interest". Since the UK is not a direct democracy either, there is a deficit in democracy and no possibility of judicial review. This creates a deficit of democracy and (indirectly) a grave injustice.

And For, since this is entirely intra TNP MoWAA as all four authors on both sides are TNP MoWAA so might as well vote For
 
Last edited:
I am voting present. While I lean slightly for a repeal, I do agree that these arguments don't necessary provide the full context and explain fully why it should be repealed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top