[ga]: Repeal: “Convention On Law Enforcement For H

[Markanite]

General Assembly Resolution

Repeal: “Convention On Law Enforcement For Heinous Crimes”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#666

Proposed by: Tinhampton

General Assembly Resolution #666 “Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes” (Category: International Security; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that, whenever someone in a member state is charged by another member with a heinous crime (as defined), GA#666 requires that their state of residence conduct "a bona fide review... by a court or other tribunal" into whether they should be tried in that state or deported to the state seeking the charge instead,

Disappointed that the target resolution sets low standards of good faith in these reviews through only requiring the tribunal to consider the suspect's "past trials," their likelihood of guilt, the "relevant charges or conviction" they face, and "any state or public interests" regarding comity,

Frustrated that, in requiring the tribunal to consider a defendant's "past trials," GA#666 opens the door for extradition proceedings to use trials in which a defendant was acquitted as evidence against them, coming dangerously close to the near-total ban on double jeopardy imposed by GA#198 "Preventing Multiple Trials" and serving only to unfairly prejudice the finder of fact against the defendant with little probative value,

Convinced that the other comity rules of GA#666 are superfluous, because GA#147 "Extradition Rights" allows appeals against extradition between members to be rejected where the suspect has violated WA law (and every "heinous crime" is a violation of WA law), and GA#37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials" ensures that their trial will follow basic standards no matter what member state it takes place in,

Observing that, beyond comity, Article 4 requires the International Enforcement Commission (IEC) to supply armed officers when members ask it for help with certain extraditions,

Bemused not only that Article 4 further states that future resolutions may permit "the IEC to carry out additional law enforcement actions," but also that - despite the IEC's pretences to offer "armed defensive support" - it is actually constituted by GA#666 as a police force that pursues those who are merely accused of heinous crimes while awaiting trial or otherwise have to return to the state that convicted them,

Enraged that the IEC's only use-of-force standard is a rule that they use no more force than "necessary to ensure that the individual is safely" extradited, thus making it unclear:

what they are supposed to do when the suspect merely resists arrest,

what kind of force they may use in self-defence if the suspect goes beyond resisting arrest to assault IEC agents,

what immediately non-injurious actions (such as the destruction of obstacles the suspect is hiding behind) they are allowed to take to ensure safe extradition,

when they are meant to deploy arms in the first instance, or indeed

what degree of force they are meant to use against the suspect or any other person at any time, and

Believing that GA#666, when it is not somehow reminscent of prior WA law on criminal justice, endeavours to create a WA police force without setting firm guidelines on its use of force, making it unnecessary and harmful at the same time...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#666 "Convention on Law Enforcement for Heinous Crimes."

Co-authors: Refuge Isle, Witchcraft and Sorcery, Merni

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[icethousand]

As the author of the target, the assertion in this repeal I most take issue with is the statement that "the other comity rules of GA#666 are superfluous". They aren't.

The first resolution cited, GA #147, does not require comity, it merely restricts comity. Requiring comity and restricting extradition are obviously very different policies. Neither makes the other "superfluous". The second one cited, GA #37, similarly restricts trials by mandating that they be fair. GA #666 does not do this, it merely mandates that such trials happen ab initio (although obviously they must still be compliant with GA #37). This, likewise, does not make either resolution redundant. Not even the co-author attempted to rebut these facts when they made the redundancy argument in the original drafting thread.

The other assertions here also fall apart when subject to any real scrutiny. "Necessary" means that something is a sine qua non, which is an objective standard, rather than an "unclear" one. The double jeopardy assertion is also the least true it can be without being illegal -- the provision in the target ensures that acquittals for the same heinous crime can be used as evidence for the defendant, so as to avoid double jeopardy.

Even if you disagree with the target, please vote against this repeal so that its exaggerated, illogical complaints do not permanently enter the books.

[Pantso]

To add to what icethousand said, it looks like most of the rest of the repeal is about implementation details of the type which are not typically included in WA resolutions anyway. Pantso will recommend Against.

[Astrobolt]

No support of a repeal without a replacement.