[At Vote] [ga] Procedural Rights Of Defendants

[Astrobolt]

General Assembly Resolution

Procedural Rights Of Defendants

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: The Steam-Gardens

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, 
   1. a "defendant" as any person who is suspected of perpetrating a crime and has undertaken or is undertaking any criminal proceedings,
   2. 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
   3. 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: 
   1. Defendants are entitled to: 
      1. Refuse to answer an officer’s questions, without prejudice for any refusal,
      2. 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,
      3. 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
      
      
   2. Officers must not: 
      1. Require a defendant to answer a question they do not wish to answer, although without preclusion of reasonable interrogation tactics,
         
      2. Punish a defendant for refusing to answer a question; nor
      3. 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.

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

[Jabberwocky]

This reads a lot like the USA's Miranda Rights. Does anyone find any faults here? Currently FOR.