Habeus Corpus Act

[Gulliver]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: [nation]Quelesh[/nation]

Description: The World Assembly,

ALARMED by the practice of arbitrary or indefinite detention of individuals;

DISTURBED by the continued detention of individuals after being cleared of wrongdoing or after serving their criminal sentences;

RESOLVED to prevent such practices and to grant relief to individuals being unjustly detained;

hereby MANDATES the following, subject to any limitations existing in prior international law:

1. Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period. Member states may extend by a maximum of four additional hours the aforementioned two hour time limit if and only if doing so is necessary to protect the public safety or the safety of the individual being detained;

2. Member states shall not detain any individual, solely on the suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense, for more than 36 hours without formally charging the individual with the offense. Periods of time in which the authorities responsible for formally charging the individual with a crime are not available to do so may be added to the aforementioned 36 hour time limit, to a maximum of 96 additional hours;

3. Multiple separate detentions on suspicion of the same alleged criminal act shall cumulatively count towards the time limit in clause 2;

4. Member states shall not detain any individual who has been formally charged with a crime, but who has not been convicted of that crime, for any longer than is necessary to provide that individual with a speedy trial in accordance with international law. If the charge is dismissed prior to the conclusion of the trial, member states shall no longer detain the individual on that charge, unless the charge is lawfully refiled;

5. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense after that individual has been acquitted of that offense unless, in accordance with international law, (1) the individual's acquittal has been lawfully vacated and (2) the detention is for the purpose of a lawful retrial on the same charge;

6. Member states shall not detain any individual for a particular criminal offense in excess of the individual's lawful criminal sentence for that offense after that individual has been convicted of that offense;

7. Member states must allow all detained individuals to formally challenge the legality of their detention before an impartial adjudicator; should the adjudicator deem the individual's detention to be in violation of either the member state's domestic law or international law, the member state must immediately cure the illegality, including releasing the individual if necessary;

and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution affects or restricts any of the following activities or the ability of this Assembly to legislate on any of the following topics:

8. Administrative detention of suspected illegal immigrants for the minimum length of time necessary to determine whether they are or are not illegal immigrants and, if they are determined to be illegal immigrants, to ascertain their nation or origin and to deport them;

9. Voluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody;

10. Involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients;

11. The detention of prisoners of war;

12. Necessary medical quarantines; and

13. Double jeopardy.

[Eluvatar]

MANDATES... double jeopardy?

[Delfos]

MANDATES... double jeopardy?

It's a problem of writing, you know what this means and everybody else does. Point 5 isn't exactly the same but explains the way this motion is supposed to go. And I want to clarify that it doesn't MANDATE, in only Mandates from point 1 to point 7, from point 8 to point 13 they're a "clarification" that doesn't object against previous legislation on those points, including Double Jeopardy, which should come as a "suggestion" of legislation and not a clarification.

Either way, even with a weird structure, it's a positive bill that could lead to new improved bills and should never be failed or repealed unless to present a new better constructed bill which includes the original motive of this idea and maybe sum up the previous legislation it intends to not go against from point 8 to 13.

[Delfos]

Wherever the wind blows...

[Gulliver]

This is now at a vote, and I have cast a provisional vote of against.

[Delfos]

As it doesn't mandate double jeopardy, can anyone explain another reason to repeal? Maybe I'm not understanding this bill correctly?

[Gulliver]

I voted against because like the original proposal, the time frames given are far too strict and impractical. Under this proposal, for example, a very drunk person in public could not be detained until they sobered up.

In any case, I am declaring my final vote now as against.

[Delfos]

There's a new one anyway, no harm done.

[Gulliver]

This has been defeated, 7,806 votes to 2,599.