(P(I)) Criminal Penalty and Jury Process Operational Resolution

I still object to the definition of Act, given to this and to other resolutions of the General Assembly.
Please, consider that in no way the Charter allows the GA to enact Acts, but only recommendations (and, following the real UN-system, from where we brought our Charter, also resolutions).

On the other points, I'm satisfied with the explanations. Just for the sake of clarity, I would propose to add, at the beginning of Section I, the simple wording "definitions for the purposes of this proposal" or what else, so we would eliminate automatically any incovenient.

You didn't object to any of the other Acts we passed, so your point is essentially moot.

I didn't object because, honestly, I was too busy to get myself involved. Now I'm not. And I don't see where is this great obstacle in changing the name of the proposals (past and present) from Acts in Resolutions, since it's perfectly in the spirit of what we've done until now.

Because it is an irrelevant detail.

I can assure that it isn't...otherwise, I would not underline it.
"Acts" is the definition for binding, domestic laws. It's not an appropriate term for the deliberations of the UN General Assembly, and it could create confusion and misunderstandings about the effective powers of the GA and its relationship with Member States and their sovereignty.

New Tarajan wrote:I can assure that it isn't...otherwise, I would not underline it.
"Acts" is the definition for binding, domestic laws. It's not an appropriate term for the deliberations of the UN General Assembly, and it could create confusion and misunderstandings about the effective powers of the GA and its relationship with Member States and their sovereignty.

For the sake of ending this argument and moving on, any mention of the word "act" will be replaced with "operational resolution" from now on in this document. I understand both sides of the argument and feel this change does not detract from the overall meaning of this proposed law.

Any who have issues with this change, let it be known.

New Tarajan wrote:I can assure that it isn't...otherwise, I would not underline it.
"Acts" is the definition for binding, domestic laws. It's not an appropriate term for the deliberations of the UN General Assembly, and it could create confusion and misunderstandings about the effective powers of the GA and its relationship with Member States and their sovereignty.

I disagree and think your point is trivial at best. That said, are we moving on to voting now?

But, considering that this Act is referred to the good working of the organizations of the UNE, I think the opposition of NT become irrelevant.

Federation of Antanares wrote:But, considering that this Act is referred to the good working of the organizations of the UNE, I think the opposition of NT become irrelevant.

But, considering that I have no clue as to what you are trying to say, I will assume that you are ready to vote now.

Well, we must wait for speaker and after we can start.

Section I - Definitions
Art. 1.0 - Defines “criminal” as any citizen, organization, nation, or alliance convicted by the Esamir Court of Justice or a jury of a crime against the laws of the United Nations of Esamir.
Art. 1.1 - Defines “citizen” as any human being residing within a nation of the United Nations of Esamir.
Art. 1.2 - Defines “organization” as a grouping of citizens not functioning as a nation.
Art. 1.3 - Defines “nation” as a sovereign government with the capacity to govern its people of at least one month in age in the Esamir Calendar.
Art. 1.4 - Defines “alliance” as a grouping of nations working in general cooperation.
Art. 1.5 - Defines “physical property” as non-living, tangible belongings that hold value. Defines “living property” as organisms that fall under the ownership of an individual or of an organization.
Art. 1.6 - Defines “penalty” as any action permitted by this document as punishment for breaking a regional law.
Art. 1.7 - Affirms that the entirety of this operational resolution shall pertain only to the Esamir supranational government. Nations within Esamir are not required to follow these guidelines.

Section II - Penalties
Art. 2.0 - No citizen or member of an organization shall be given the penalty of death after the conviction of a crime.
Art. 2.1 - No nation shall be forced into permanent submission of another nation or have all lands permanently ceded to the regional government.
Art. 2.2 - The ESAMIR-Department of Defense may be called upon to enforce all penalties enacted.
Art. 2.3 - The Court or jury may order the transfer of monetary funds, physical property, and any living property to another entity.
Art. 2.4 - The Court or jury may give a prison sentence of one month to one hundred and ten years to a citizen of at least eighteen years of age. Citizens between the ages of twelve and eighteen may be sentenced to prison for a maximum of fifty years in the event an organ in the regional government defines further punishment for this age group. Otherwise, those between twelve and eighteen years of age may not be imprisoned. Citizens under twelve years of age may not be given a prison sentence.
Art. 2.5 - Orders the establishment of a prison on any property owned by the regional government to house citizens convicted of breaking a regional law.
Art. 2.6 - No citizen shall have any rights listed in the Safeguarding of Human Rights Act revoked as part of a penalty.

Section III - Jury
Art. 3.0 - A jury may be called upon by the defense or the Court in a criminal case.
Art. 3.1 - A jury must consist of at least three members, but may have an odd number of members up to a size of seven. One member of a jury may be selected by the prosecution, while the defense may also choose one member. The Court shall appoint the remaining jury members.

---

As the author of this resolution, I now declare the end to the debate period. The voting period shall now begin, ending at 00:00 UTC on March 21, 2015. General Assembly members may submit a vote in favor, against, or abstention. Votes of abstention will count as votes in favor. The result will be determined via simple majority of total votes cast.

Europe and Asia wrote:

I disagree and think your point is trivial at best. That said, are we moving on to voting now?

It is pretty evident that you did not get the point I wished to state.

That said, New Tarajan votes FOR the Resolution.