04-13-2008, 04:13 AM
I cannot support this; the idea is important, but the resolution has several fatal flaws, as I discussed before, even accounting for the author planning to have appeals addressed elsewhere. I'm reposting my concerns, for those who are lazy like me:
Quote: Admirable, but I have a few problems with this. First and foremost is the final clause, that the accused may waive any rights. What if either a) the accused is subjected to undue pressure to waive or b) the accused does not understand (due to ignorance, mental state, etc) the effects of the waiver. That is a huge, glaring problem for me. Having the right doesn't mean it has to be exercised, anyway, so the ability to waive any rights is unnecessary and dangerous.
Also, the "undue delay" clause seems to be more concerned with the procedure/performance of the actual trial, and not the speed getting to trial. It lays no restrictions on the ability of governments or other areas outside the court and prosecution/defence to affect the speed of the time from arrest to trial.[/quote]
Quote: Admirable, but I have a few problems with this. First and foremost is the final clause, that the accused may waive any rights. What if either a) the accused is subjected to undue pressure to waive or b) the accused does not understand (due to ignorance, mental state, etc) the effects of the waiver. That is a huge, glaring problem for me. Having the right doesn't mean it has to be exercised, anyway, so the ability to waive any rights is unnecessary and dangerous.
Also, the "undue delay" clause seems to be more concerned with the procedure/performance of the actual trial, and not the speed getting to trial. It lays no restrictions on the ability of governments or other areas outside the court and prosecution/defence to affect the speed of the time from arrest to trial.[/quote]