Here is a new resolution. As usual, I'll vote in accordance with the wishes expressed in this poll. The voting period at the UN closes February 14. Feel free to state your feedback and thoughts in this thread.

---

Definition of a Fair Trial

Description: A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003. However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is.

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:
1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:
1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.
2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.
3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.
4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.

As such: all litigants, plaintiffs, prosecutors, and varying degrees of defendants will benefit and allow for a clearer interpretation of United Nations law so that due process shall be upheld, making the legal system fairer for all people.

Personally I'm opposed. The intent of this one is fantastic. Unfortunatley, in my view, it goes too far.

For instance:

4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

There are some jurisdictions who put the presumption standard at "balance of probabilities" and not "reasonable doubt". Who is the UN to impose the higher standard on all nations?

What's wrong with shifting a trial to a town a few towns over from where teh crime was committed? In remote rural situations, that is the only way to dispense with justice effectively.

Is there anything wrong with a trial by judge alone, so long as the judge is impartial? Why do we need to force the jury concept on people?

As such, while I like most of it, this resolution goes beyond just defining rights, and starts infringing on national sovereignty. Hence, I'm opposed.

This is a domestic issue pure and simple.

The UN has no business here.

-Dunefish

and what about the fact that people who are wealthy have greater advantages over poor when it comes to defence?
I'm opposed.

Sharpie summed it up for me. (which keeps me from having to repeat myself AGAIN.)

Another one of good intentions but, oversteps the bounds of national sovreignity.

Just outlines a normal trial nothing too bad but too restricting

it should be a daily issue and not a UN bill.

I agree with Bweezy. Plus, The True Domination has legislation in place that prohibits the waving of any rights. Citizens may wave a flag, or their hand. But never rights....

GRAMMAR PEOPLE, GRAMMAR!!

What a cool word. If you say grammar over and over it starts to sound pretty weird after a few minutes.

The resolution "Definition of 'Fair Trial'" was passed, 12556 votes to 6283, and implemented in all UN member nations. Offsite, we voted against 12-1, so I cast my vote against the resolution. Thanks to all of you you voted off-site.