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

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.

The debate period shall now begin. It shall last five days, ending on March 18, 2015, at 00:00 UTC. Following the voting period, a three-day voting period shall commence. The Speaker may extend the debate period if requested by a 4/5 majority of nations debating a bill, and may close it with a 4/5 consensus. The author of the proposal may also close the debate with the permission of the Speaker.

Votes will be counted via simple majority of nations present. Nations may submit a vote of for, against, or abstention. The Speaker wishes to inform abstention voters that votes of abstention will be counted as votes in favor. Votes cast during the debate period will not be counted.

NOTE: Voting initiation changed to March 17, 2015 CDT. It will now end at 00:00 UTC on March 21, 2015.

I would like to ask a question pertaining to Article 2.4: Could an amendment be added that a penalty of one hundred years and ten months at maximum be given to youth offenders over the age of twelve who have been deemed by a psychologist or mental health professional designated by the court to be competent and fully aware of their crimes?

I also would like to request a definition of the bill's use of the word "entities", specifically does this word refer to non-governmental organizations?

Why would the Esamir CJ be convicting juveniles. We suggest adding a an age limit of persons that can be tried by the criminal bench of the ECJ.
We suggest 20 above.

Zackalantis wrote:Why would the Esamir CJ be convicting juveniles. We suggest adding a an age limit of persons that can be tried by the criminal bench of the ECJ.
We suggest 20 above.

The age of majority is generally considered to be 18. Do you have any particular reasons as to why it should be 20?

---

On Eurasia's amendment, what does everyone think?

The term "entity" used in Section I has been changed to "sovereign government." "Entity" as used in Section II refers to governments and non-governmental bodies.

Zackalantis wrote:Why would the Esamir CJ be convicting juveniles. We suggest adding a an age limit of persons that can be tried by the criminal bench of the ECJ.
We suggest 20 above.

Yes, twenty is a strange choice.

18 is fine too.

We would like clarification that this only refers to the ECJ and not courts within member nations.

If this only refers to the ECJ then ‘citizens' is irrelevant here in this resolution. The ECJ will not try odinary citizens of a nation that is the job of the courts of that particular nation. Therefore ‘citizens' is not required in this resolution or its definition could be changed.

We propose the following:
The ECJ should have to benches.
First bench should be known as the Esamir bench which will settle territorial and such other disputes between sovreign nations.
Second bench should be the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be to try war criminals and national leaders who have committed gross human rights violations.

Also another question where will funds come from to maintain the prisoners and the accused that the court has convicted?

Zackalantis wrote:18 is fine too.

We would like clarification that this only refers to the ECJ and not courts within member nations.

If this only refers to the ECJ then ‘citizens' is irrelevant here in this resolution. The ECJ will not try odinary citizens of a nation that is the job of the courts of that particular nation. Therefore ‘citizens' is not required in this resolution or its definition could be changed.

We propose the following:
The ECJ should have to benches.
First bench should be known as the Esamir bench which will settle territorial and such other disputes between sovreign nations.
Second bench should be the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be to try war criminals and national leaders who have committed gross human rights violations.

Also another question where will funds come from to maintain the prisoners and the accused that the court has convicted?

Yes; Sec.I, Art.1.0 & 1.7 state that this act does not apply to member nations.

"Citizens" is relevant as not all regional laws, such as this one, may apply to member nations in the future.
Say that we make a regional law stating that nuclear weapons may not be transported into the Esamir Capital Region (E.C.R.), but member nations may allow such weapons to be in their capitals. With your thinking, the COJ would be unable to try an individual who smuggled nuclear weapons into the E.C.R.

On your proposal of dividing the court, I think that goes beyond what this act can do in regards to the Charter. I suppose you are free to make a followup proposal or amendment, but I do not wish to cover that territory in this proposal.

In regards to funding for a regional prison, may I ask who funded the construction of the General Assembly complex, the Court of Justice building? Who pays for the Esamir International News Network or the costs incurred during the elections we have?

As Chief Justice, I can say that if you want to divide the court you'll have to amend the ESAMIR Chartef.

It is not necessary divide the Court, I think. And also, I think the CoJ has the power to judge people, like what happened with Panem.
Antanares is FOR the proposal.

Eurasia is FOR this proposal.

Although we commend the purposes of this proposal, we would like to underline our opposition (with relative motivations, of course) to some points:

1. First of all, a simple formal objection: since we have now established a UN-like system, the General Assembly cannot vote for Acts (which is a term referred to domestic laws) but Resolution. So, I would suggest to change the name accordingly.

2. Section I, Art. 1.3 is problematic, in its actual terms: indeed, it provides for a definition of "nation" which, since it is implemented in a GA Resolution, could constitute a dangerous precedent. Why? Simply, because it recognizes as a "nation" (although maybe a more correct term would be "country" or "State", since "nation" is a very vague term in the contemporary dictionnary, and more related to ethnicity than administraion or politics), "a sovereign government with the capacity to govern its people of at least one month". This definition could allow for the automatic recognition of any self-proclaimed entity, with all the dangerous consequences for the sake of international stability and order. Indeed, it is our opinion that this Article should be changed, simply defining a State/Country as a State recognized by the United Nations of Esamir and its Members.

3. The jury: the idea is interesting. But actually, how could we effectively implement it, with our low participation levels?

Could resolution mention that the ECJ will not try juveniles unless they are accused of war crimes.

And what about the eventuality of a juvenile accused of International Drug Traffic or other international illegal traffic? I thinks is better don't implement this.

So scrap the entire act because one part is disagreeable? That's asinine on several levels. The bill can be amended.

New Tarajan wrote:Although we commend the purposes of this proposal, we would like to underline our opposition (with relative motivations, of course) to some points:

1. First of all, a simple formal objection: since we have now established a UN-like system, the General Assembly cannot vote for Acts (which is a term referred to domestic laws) but Resolution. So, I would suggest to change the name accordingly.

2. Section I, Art. 1.3 is problematic, in its actual terms: indeed, it provides for a definition of "nation" which, since it is implemented in a GA Resolution, could constitute a dangerous precedent. Why? Simply, because it recognizes as a "nation" (although maybe a more correct term would be "country" or "State", since "nation" is a very vague term in the contemporary dictionnary, and more related to ethnicity than administraion or politics), "a sovereign government with the capacity to govern its people of at least one month". This definition could allow for the automatic recognition of any self-proclaimed entity, with all the dangerous consequences for the sake of international stability and order. Indeed, it is our opinion that this Article should be changed, simply defining a State/Country as a State recognized by the United Nations of Esamir and its Members.

3. The jury: the idea is interesting. But actually, how could we effectively implement it, with our low participation levels?

1. The words "resolution" or "act" are not mentioned anywhere in the Charter, and this has not proved to be an issue in the past two proposals we passed, so I don't see the issue here.

2. I see no issue in defining "nation" here. Article 53 of the charter defines members of the General Assembly as nations (IC) / persons (OOC) who have been in the region for one week or more. Since the Calendar Act was passed before this proposal, the one month time mentioned in this proposal time equates to one week in real life. Article 53 essentially defines nation/country/whatever in itself.

3. *hint* The article doesn't say the CoJ can't appoint members of the Court as jury members. Plus, we have enough people to serve on the jury. *hint*
    Nevertheless, the jury is mentioned as being 1/3 of the entire justice system in the Charter and letting it go unused would be a waste.

---

I will amend the part that allows the trying of juveniles, but know that we still have no law stating what is a war crime.

Here is how it now reads, if anyone has issues let it be known.

"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."

International drug trafficking must NOT be tried in the ECJ. If zach juvenile is caught for international drug trafficking the UKZ courts wll try him or her.

If a zach's juvenile is caught in Antanares for an accuse like international drug traffic, it is possible that Antanares decides to use its jurisdiction, because it is our territory. I find more comfortable the idea, in any case, to send this cases to the CoJ.

I do agree with Antanares, but I also have to point out that drug trafficking is not illegal under Esamir law. (It isn't legal either really, as there isn't a mention of it.) And some nations on the Court, mainly me, have totally legalized drugs and therefore drug trafficking isn't a crime.

I understand completely. But what I indeed is that is preferable that, in a case like that I mentioned, is the Court of Justice that intervene, like an International Tribunal, to avoid legal fight between countries.

We need to have a list of offences as well, which the court has jurisdiction in.

That will need to be a separate law.

Zackalantis wrote:We need to have a list of offences as well, which the court has jurisdiction in.

This act is designed to be one of a series of acts meant to better define the UNE gov't processes. I wanted to keep the debate as streamlined as possible, so I made this proposal as a basic foundation for more intricate proposals. A list of offenses is soon to come if that eases your concerns at all.

---

Does anyone have any more questions or concerns with this proposal? If not, petitions to end the debate will now be accepted. The debate period will end on the 18th otherwise.