|
Post by starman deluxe on Jun 9, 2008 0:03:42 GMT -5
Description: WA Resolution #3: The Right to a Fair Trial (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: Understanding that the intended purpose of "The Right to a Fair Trial" is to provide fair trials,
Noting that the resolution fails to understand that the WA is composed of wildly divergent cultures in its description of a "Fair Trial",
Also noting that the resolution fails to take into account that certain nations have long-established non-jury judicial systems of unquestioned integrity,
Regretting that the resolution allows defendants to choose any person to represent them, despite the legal ramifications of possible conflicts of interest,
Further regretting that the resolution allows defendants any number of appeals they wish,
Noting that this flawed legislation bars a more effective resolution from passage,
Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more effective version of this resolution to the World Assembly,
The World Assembly hereby repeals "The Right to a Fair Trial".
VOTING ENDS: WEDNESDAY JUNE 11TH AT 11 PM EST!!!!
VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Durandal on Jun 9, 2008 0:28:54 GMT -5
I've noticed that these resolutions are repealed because of obvious defects, and then NEVER REPROPOSED! It seems like the repealers are trying to fix the resolutions but they only get rid of it, not fix it. This is the only thing that gives people fair trial. Sure, I'd love to use torture, but not on a petty theft or domestic abuse suspect.
I vote AGAINST.
|
|
|
Post by Kritschboilek on Jun 9, 2008 9:24:22 GMT -5
5 (= not 4)
|
|
|
Post by Canton Rouge on Jun 9, 2008 11:32:31 GMT -5
Against, for obvious reasons
|
|
|
Post by Porcu on Jun 9, 2008 13:44:07 GMT -5
For the repeal
|
|
|
Post by South Malaysia on Jun 9, 2008 21:08:20 GMT -5
abstain
|
|
|
Post by starman deluxe on Jun 11, 2008 22:23:04 GMT -5
mmk well i have no idea what krits post mean but assuming its for then we have a tie by which i will vote and personally i vote against.
back to bed for rest.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Durandal on Jun 12, 2008 1:06:48 GMT -5
I think Krits meant NOT FOR, meaning against, but whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Porcu on Jun 12, 2008 14:12:26 GMT -5
Haha! Yea, 5 is not 4... 4 = FOR ... 5 = AGAINST It really doesn't matter...I lose again
|
|
|
Post by Kritschboilek on Jun 12, 2008 16:36:20 GMT -5
to clear all foncusion, i meant against
|
|