Draft: Rule of Lenity

[New Rockport]

My country's World Assembly mission is working on a draft resolution that would codify the Rule of Lenity. I would like to get input from members of The North Pacific 10000 Islands so that I can address your concerns before submitting the resolution for a vote. I appreciate any questions, comments, or suggestions that you might have. Here is the draft:

The Rule of Lenity
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild? Significant?

The World Assembly,
OPINING that laws, especially criminal laws, should be clearly stated;

RESOLVING that no person should be forced to guess, at the risk of his or her liberty, whether a criminal law applies to his or her conduct;

Hereby

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "criminal law" as any law which defines conduct for which a government may punish an individual;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution "sentencing law" as any law which determines the punishment that may be imposed on an individual who has been found guilty of violating a criminal law;

REQUIRES legislatures to make sure that all statutes are stated in the clearest possible language and to avoid ambiguity to the greatest practical extent.

MANDATES that any reasonable ambiguity in a criminal law must be construed in favor of the defendant;

FURTHER MANDATES that any reasonable ambiguity in a sentencing law must be construed in favor of the defendant.

The General Assembly forum thread on this draft is here.

[Paffnia]

Jan 23, 2011 22:54:08 GMT -5 New Rockport said:

I would like to get input from members of The North Pacific

You're in the wrong region, then, I'm afraid.
Seriously, this proposal is sound but seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

[New Rockport]

I need to be more careful with the copying and pasting.

[Wordy]

No worries New Rockport, we appreciate the opportunity to give input.

[Paffnia]

What about ambiguity in civil law?
Also does this resolution conflict with stare decisis? I mean, if your nation has a court system that can make legally binding interpretations of an unclear law, are those overruled?

[Takaram]

If it is, I am going to have to vote nay.

[Paffnia]

Also, not every nation has a legislature, so maybe that clause could be rephrased as "URGES that all statutes be stated in the clearest possible language and to avoid ambiguity to the greatest practical extent."

[Paffnia]

From the NS forums:

Jan 24, 2011 16:59:15 GMT -5 Paffnia said:

What about ambiguity in civil law?

The first mandatory clause, as currently written, would apply to ambiguity in civil law. The last two would apply only to criminal law.

Jan 24, 2011 16:59:15 GMT -5 Paffnia said:

Also does this resolution conflict with stare decisis? I mean, if your nation has a court system that can make legally binding interpretations of an unclear law, are those overruled?

I think so. World Assembly resolutions override domestic law. Presumably that would include domestic judicial decisions.

Jan 24, 2011 17:12:29 GMT -5 Paffnia said:

Also, not every nation has a legislature, so maybe that clause could be rephrased as "URGES that all statutes be stated in the clearest possible language and to avoid ambiguity to the greatest practical extent."

If a country has a person or group of people who make laws then it has a legislature, even if the legislature does not take the form of a parliament or congress and even if the legislature has additional functions that are not legislative.

If a country has no legislature, then it has no laws to be interpreted. If there are no laws, then it is impossible for the laws to be ambiguous. Therefore a country with no legislature would not violate this draft.

-David Corrigan, Esq.
Chief Counsel to the World Assembly Mission
Airport Motor Lodge

[loomington]

Jan 23, 2011 23:21:00 GMT -5 Paffnia said:

Seriously, this proposal is sound but seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Hmm very sound interpretation. Makes a lot of sense, it could be an effective method, but a very unnecessary change.