Habeas Corpus
4 participantes
Página 1 de 1
Habeas Corpus
Description: The World Assembly,
DESIROUS that the due process of law not be side-stepped by detention without trial,
CONCERNED that individuals can be harassed by repeated accusations that have been disproven in law,
AWARE of the need to balance the requirements of legal systems with the rights of the individual,
MANDATES the following:
1) That no person may be held against their will without being charged with or officially suspected of a criminal offence for more than two hours in any one week without full legal authorisation for such detention. Such authorisation may extend the period of detention to at most twenty four hours in any one week.
2) Full legal authorisation for detention without reason can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct some form of trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.
3) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for more than forty eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence. Time during which judicial authorities are not active (such as weekends or public holidays) to a maximum of ninety six hours shall not be counted to this period; in other words, a person may be held for up to 144 hours provided that the judicial authorities are available for no more than 48 of those hours.
4) That a person so charged must be informed of the formal charge immediately.
5) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for which they have been previously held on suspicion without full legal authorisation for such re-detention.
6) Full legal authorisation for re-detention on suspicion can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation, and who are presented with evidence that the suspicions against the individual are materially stronger than was the case for the previous detention.
7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial.
Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.
DESIROUS that the due process of law not be side-stepped by detention without trial,
CONCERNED that individuals can be harassed by repeated accusations that have been disproven in law,
AWARE of the need to balance the requirements of legal systems with the rights of the individual,
MANDATES the following:
1) That no person may be held against their will without being charged with or officially suspected of a criminal offence for more than two hours in any one week without full legal authorisation for such detention. Such authorisation may extend the period of detention to at most twenty four hours in any one week.
2) Full legal authorisation for detention without reason can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct some form of trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.
3) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for more than forty eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence. Time during which judicial authorities are not active (such as weekends or public holidays) to a maximum of ninety six hours shall not be counted to this period; in other words, a person may be held for up to 144 hours provided that the judicial authorities are available for no more than 48 of those hours.
4) That a person so charged must be informed of the formal charge immediately.
5) That no person may be held on suspicion of a criminal offence for which they have been previously held on suspicion without full legal authorisation for such re-detention.
6) Full legal authorisation for re-detention on suspicion can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation, and who are presented with evidence that the suspicions against the individual are materially stronger than was the case for the previous detention.
7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial.
Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.
Aldonin- Número de Mensagens : 104
Data de inscrição : 01/10/2009
Re: Habeas Corpus
Desta vez estou dividido, por um lado parecem todas propostas muito razoaveis e democráticas.
Por outro, cada estado deve possuir a soberania nacional para decidir o seu sistema judicial, por isso estou dividido.
Por outro, cada estado deve possuir a soberania nacional para decidir o seu sistema judicial, por isso estou dividido.
Re: Habeas Corpus
Australásia escreveu:Por outro, cada estado deve possuir a soberania nacional para decidir o seu sistema judicial, por isso estou dividido.
Eu concordo mais com esta parte..
Scream_off- OCDE
- Número de Mensagens : 11459
Idade : 36
Capital : Águas Santas
Regime Politico : Republica Federal
Chefe de Estado : Presidente Zé
Data de inscrição : 25/08/2008
WA
Scream_off escreveu:Australásia escreveu:Por outro, cada estado deve possuir a soberania nacional para decidir o seu sistema judicial, por isso estou dividido.
Eu concordo mais com esta parte..
Esta tipo de conversa parece é piada ... se não querem que o WA afecte a soberania da vossa nação, simplesmente saiam da WA!!!
Acho que devíamos discutir as propostas de outro ponto de vista. Ou concordam ou não! E o não não deveria ser por essas razões.
Desculpem mas é verdade.
Cumps
Re: Habeas Corpus
É a tua verdade.. lol.. Porque haveria de sair da WA? Para não afectar a minha soberania? Então porque votamos? Não é para regular a WA e a sua actuação? Qual é o mal de eu não a querer numa parte do meu país? Tu imaginas a UE a decidir sobre coisas fundamentais, assim sem mais nem menos? A argumentação não poderia ser simplesmente, a UE não tem nada a ver com isto? Ora volta lá a pensar...
Scream_off- OCDE
- Número de Mensagens : 11459
Idade : 36
Capital : Águas Santas
Regime Politico : Republica Federal
Chefe de Estado : Presidente Zé
Data de inscrição : 25/08/2008
Re: Habeas Corpus
Scream_off escreveu:É a tua verdade.. lol.. Porque haveria de sair da WA? Para não afectar a minha soberania? Então porque votamos? Não é para regular a WA e a sua actuação? Qual é o mal de eu não a querer numa parte do meu país? Tu imaginas a UE a decidir sobre coisas fundamentais, assim sem mais nem menos? A argumentação não poderia ser simplesmente, a UE não tem nada a ver com isto? Ora volta lá a pensar...
Continuo a achar que o argumento contra deveria ser algo mais para além do "a WA não tem nada a ver com isto" ... mas como tu dizes é a verdade que acredito.
Mas então diz o porque de na tua nação esta proposta não ser exequível ...
Re: Habeas Corpus
Em ninguém, nenhum dos argumentos me convenceu.
Aldonin- Número de Mensagens : 104
Data de inscrição : 01/10/2009
Página 1 de 1
Permissões neste sub-fórum
Não podes responder a tópicos
|
|