US Opts Out of World Court

[Sikander]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I like this - a former member of the military telling two history majors that the US wasn't aggressive and imperialist, and that it didn't oppose freedom in many cases

Two history majors who regularly get smacked around in debates.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Why is this such a problem ? If there is appeal, the acquittal is not final.

Perhaps if you could give me an example from Germany (I hope you told me that they had a similar system.) under what conditions a prosecutor would appeal his loss of a case, I would be better able to wrap my brain around the concept. I will admit to a case of ethnocentrism in this instance.

And what do you mean by use of secret evidence ? One is that the public is excluded, but where do you see that the PARTIES are excluded ?

Evidence is specifically withheld from the defense. IIRC, you said that some of the statutes I'm refering to here went a "tad" too far in limiting the defense. What were you refering to if not the practice of withholding evidence?

Where do you get the withheld evidence from?

Section 5 of Article 68.

Is it the "in camera" that gets your balls in a knot ?

In some respects, yes. I tend to believe that for justice to truely be done, it must be seen to be done. Excluding the public from a trial doesn't accomplish that objective, IMO.

[Roland]

1. Appeal

I'll use the austrian system as we have juries. The jury decides guilt or innocence, and prosecution and defense can appeal against the verdict on qualified errors, ie grave mistakes. But that cuts both ways.

In minor cases where a senate or individual judge decide, there is a full appeal - available to the prosecution and the defense on any legal reason.

One example on jury trials would be that the judges gave a wrongful instruction on the law to the jurors. Appeal (more precisely, appeal for nihilation, or so) is quite rare on jury verdicts. On individual judges, it is a full review.

2. Withheld evidence

What I meant was IIRC the limit to pretrial disclosure. "prior to the commencement of the trial".

3. public

"Excluding the public from a trial doesn't accomplish that objective, IMO."

I think that excluding the public from hearing witnesses where there is a good reason to exclude the public is justified, and is different from excluding the public from the ENTIRE trial.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We're going to wait until he wipes out all the annoying people in NZ first.

Now there's a good plan! And after them, we'll tackle the Welsh!

Section 5 of Article 68.

Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Statute may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her family, the Prosecutor may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.

And what is so wrong with submitting a summary of it if the witness/victim fears for his life if he testifies? Like I brought up the example before, mafia types were hard to bring down because people knew if the testified against them they would be killed or their families would. This is a brilliant way to prevent that from occuring.

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
1. Appeal

Ok, I'm starting to get an idea on how this would work. Could you provide a short rundown on what sort of qualified errors could pop up in an ICC trial given HRW's response to the assertion that the judges would be either partisan or incompetent? Or are we talking about a situation where the prosecution can appeal an acquital for any legal reason?

What I meant was IIRC the limit to pretrial disclosure. "prior to the commencement of the trial".

Out of interest, how would you have handled the situation within the confines of international law?