[GA, Passed] Procedural Rights Of Defendants

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.

Click to expand...

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!
   

   ---

   
   

   For	Against	Abstain	Present
   6	10	0	1

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.

Click to expand...

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,

Click to expand...

Gymna:

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.

Click to expand...