[DRAFT] On Execution

[Railana]

On Execution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

Recognizing that the criminal justice system is imperfect and that, on occasion, innocent persons have been convicted of serious crimes,

Concerned that an innocent person who has been unjustly imprisoned can be released and compensated for time served, but that an innocent person who has been unjustly executed cannot be brought back from the dead,

Believing that executions must therefore be limited to the most serious of circumstances,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines "execution", for the purposes of this resolution, as the killing of a person by the state as punishment for a crime;
2. Declares that executions are prohibited in all member states, except in cases where the person to be executed has been convicted of a serious crime and execution is the only available means to protect society from future serious criminal acts by that person;
3. Clarifies that imprisonment is a legitimate alternative to execution for the purpose of protecting society from future serious criminal acts by convicted criminals, and that member nations are not permitted to execute any person if they are reasonably capable of safely imprisoning that person.

[Dendodgia]

This contradicts the already passed resolution GA#112. That would have to be repealed before this could be passed, although the Dendodgian delegation prefers that resolution over this proposal.

[Railana]

This contradicts the already passed resolution GA#112. That would have to be repealed before this could be passed, although the Dendodgian delegation prefers that resolution over this proposal.

No, it does not. GAR #112 explicitly authorizes further restrictions on execution "where seen necessary and proper by the World Assembly to prevent miscarriages of justice." This resolution declares all but a small subset of executions miscarriages of justice, effectively banning execution while remaining in compliance with GAR #112.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Dendodgia]

This contradicts the already passed resolution GA#112. That would have to be repealed before this could be passed, although the Dendodgian delegation prefers that resolution over this proposal.

No, it does not. GAR #112 explicitly authorizes further restrictions on execution "where seen necessary and proper by the World Assembly to prevent miscarriages of justice." This resolution declares all but a small subset of executions miscarriages of justice, effectively banning execution while remaining in compliance with GAR #112.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

GA#112 allows further regulations "where seen necessary and proper by the World Assembly to prevent miscarriages of justice". A miscarriage of justice is correctly, regardless of the definition given within this proposal, "the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime he or she did not commit", often extended to also include errors of impunity but always unrelated to the sentence carried out.

While the Dendodgian mission strongly opposes capital punishment, our interpretation of GA#112 is that it unfortunately precludes this proposal. However, we would fully support tighter restrictions - or, indeed, a total ban - on capital punishment if GA#112 were repealed. We do want this proposal to pass.

[Hakio]

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"Wait a second..."

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"You're not an Auralian puppet... are you?" Sia darts her eyes around the room paranoid.

[Wrapper]

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"Wait a second..."

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

"You're not an Auralian puppet... are you?" Sia darts her eyes around the room paranoid.

Hmmmm... turn the 'u' upside down, rearrange the letters... and it spells....

[Grays Harbor]

A way to effectively ban executions without repealing GAR #112, Convention on Execution.

On Execution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

Recognizing that the criminal justice system is imperfect and that, on occasion, innocent persons have been convicted of serious crimes,

Further recognizing that an innocent person who has been unjustly imprisoned can be released and compensated for time served, but that an innocent person who has been unjustly executed cannot be brought back from the dead,

[color=#BF0000][b]Believing that executions must therefore be limited to the most serious of circumstances,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines "execution", for the purposes of this resolution, as the killing of a person by the state as punishment for a crime;
2. Declares that all executions are miscarriages of justice and are therefore prohibited in all member nations, except in cases where the person to be executed has been convicted of a serious crime, such as murder, and execution is the only available means to protect society from future serious criminal acts by that person;
3. Clarifies that imprisonment is a legitimate alternative to execution for the purpose of protecting society from future serious criminal acts by convicted criminals, and that member nations are not permitted to execute any person if they are capable of imprisoning that person.

Well, we don't really see where this is anything other than what #112 does, despite your weak protestation otherwise, nor does do anything at all really, and certainly not enough to warrant "significant" as the strength.

Defines "execution", for the purposes of this resolution, as the killing of a person by the state as punishment for a crime;

Already been defined in #112 "a. “Execution” as the lawfully sponsored and orchestrated death of an individual as their punishment for committing a crime"

[*]Declares that all executions are miscarriages of justice and are therefore prohibited in all member nations, ...

An opinion, nothing more

except in cases where the person to be executed has been convicted of a serious crime, such as murder, and execution is the only available means to protect society from future serious criminal acts by that person;

kinda sending a mixed message there, aren't you?

Clarifies that imprisonment is a legitimate alternative to execution for the purpose of protecting society from future serious criminal acts by convicted criminals, and that member nations are not permitted to execute any person if they are capable of imprisoning that person.

Again, nothing more than an opinion.

Yeah, we get it, you don't like execution as a means of justice. So what? You have a few bare platitudes presented here, not backed up by any approaching a fact. You try to appeal to emotion by stating "but that an innocent person who has been unjustly executed cannot be brought back from the dead,", cases of which are so rare as to be almost non-existent, yet you seem to follow the flawed "I'd rather 1000 guilty men go free than a single innocent man be executed" theory. With modern forensics and investigative techniques, coupled with the exhaustive appeals process available in virtually every civilized nation, the chances are vanishingly rare an "innocent" man will be convicted and executed.

This whole thing smacks of "We don't like it so BAN IT!". So, if you want our support, then I recommend you present facts and leave off with the emotional heartstrings. As it currently sits, no, we cannot support this effort.

[Defwa]

Failing to adequately define serious crime and incorrectly defining miscarriage of justice makes this unacceptable, Auralia.

[Normlpeople]

"Considering that we already have the right, as per prior legislation, to execute after a fair trial, I believe it to be a stretch to declare such a verdict a 'miscarriage of justice' when the executed was found guilty at said trial. Considering how #112 lays out pretty much all the framework to ensure it is used only as a last resort, this is a stretch at best.

We don't have a death penalty, so it doesn't effect my nation, but I will be voting against it anyhow, as I feel the current legislation is sufficient"

[Railana]

((OOC: Bumping this.))

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Assuredly in support of this. Should Convention on Execution be repealed, this would be our only protection from an all-out ban on capital punishment by the World Assembly.

[Tinfect]

"While the Imperium supports the goals of this draft, we believe its current incarnation, for lack of a better term, to be somewhat 'ham-handed', in its attempts to limit the abuses of Execution. Further, it is quite easily abused by those states that would continue to abuse the practice. As an example, a State that executes all criminals, regardless of crime, would be fully able to continue doing so, as, lacking any prison or rehabilitation facilities, the State would have no other way of removing the threat of Criminal Activity, this is of course, in addition to the simple fact that the extremely vague term, 'serious crime', can, and will, be interpreted in a manner that allows a State to Execute criminals for whatever crimes they so please.

Further, this draft, appears to be designed so that those states with effective Prison and Rehabilitation Facilities are entirely unable to execute Criminals, barring extreme circumstance regarding the nature of the Criminal in question. While this may have been intentional, we must ask why your Government would force a State with effective facilities for such, to award War Criminals, and the like, with permanent residence within them.

In short, the provisions of this current draft are easily abused by the States it is meant to limit, and needlessly restrictive to those States that were not already abusing the process of Execution."

[Losthaven]

Strong support. This is an exquisite balance between state's rights and progressive execution reform.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I would prefer this to any alternative. Support."

[Tinfect]

Strong support. This is an exquisite balance between state's rights and progressive execution reform.

"Except that in its current form, it does less to prevent abuses of Execution than standing legislation, and merely prevents most just cases of Execution from being carried out."

[Separatist Peoples]

Strong support. This is an exquisite balance between state's rights and progressive execution reform.

"Except that in its current form, it does less to prevent abuses of Execution than standing legislation, and merely prevents most just cases of Execution from being carried out."

"Imprisonment is always an option so long as prisons exist or are capable of being constructed. Ipso facto, this creates even greater prevention of execution. Unless you were trying to imprison Superman, who cannot be imprisoned by conventional means within the ability of most nations, this wouldn't have any issues. The extenuating circumstances necessary to justify an execution within the bounds set by the draft are extreme."

[Losthaven]

"Except that in its current form, it does less to prevent abuses of Execution than standing legislation, and merely prevents most just cases of Execution from being carried out."

"Imprisonment is always an option so long as prisons exist or are capable of being constructed. Ipso facto, this creates even greater prevention of execution. Unless you were trying to imprison Superman, who cannot be imprisoned by conventional means within the ability of most nations, this wouldn't have any issues. The extenuating circumstances necessary to justify an execution within the bounds set by the draft are extreme."

I would imagine a situation where someone was victimizing other inmates might also qualify.

[Tinfect]

"Except that in its current form, it does less to prevent abuses of Execution than standing legislation, and merely prevents most just cases of Execution from being carried out."

"Imprisonment is always an option so long as prisons exist or are capable of being constructed. Ipso facto, this creates even greater prevention of execution. Unless you were trying to imprison Superman, who cannot be imprisoned by conventional means within the ability of most nations, this wouldn't have any issues. The extenuating circumstances necessary to justify an execution within the bounds set by the draft are extreme."

"The Imperium requests that you see our earlier statement on this draft. It is easily abused by the Regimes this legislation, presumably, is intended to restrict."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Imprisonment is always an option so long as prisons exist or are capable of being constructed. Ipso facto, this creates even greater prevention of execution. Unless you were trying to imprison Superman, who cannot be imprisoned by conventional means within the ability of most nations, this wouldn't have any issues. The extenuating circumstances necessary to justify an execution within the bounds set by the draft are extreme."

I would imagine a situation where someone was victimizing other inmates might also qualify.

"Most prisons have an option for excessively violent inmates that cannot be trusted to socialize with other inmates. Many maximum security facilities have such contingencies, and even if a nation doesn't have them, steps can be taken easily. I don't think that would quite qualify as a situation that exceeds the onus for "only available means"."

[Imperium Anglorum]

We entirely agree with the delegations from Grays Harbor and Tinfect.

[Kaboomlandia]

Opposed. The lack of a definition of "serious crime" means that Examplestan could theoretically define jaywalking as a "serious crime" and execute people for it.

OOC: Not to mention that I will not support anything but a full ban on capital punishment. I don't support the death penalty IRL; the state can't just say "oops, we screwed up" if they've already executed the accused when new evidence pops up.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Not to mention that I will not support anything but a full ban on capital punishment. I don't support the death penalty IRL; the state can't just say "oops, we screwed up" if they've already executed the accused when new evidence pops up.

OOC: Banning the death penalty is non sequitur from fallible courts.

---

The furthest I would go towards intervention on this topic is banning people from being executed with exception of high treason and murder.

[Araraukar]

"Imprisonment is always an option so long as prisons exist or are capable of being constructed. Ipso facto, this creates even greater prevention of execution."

Weren't you slated for execution, Benjamin? This sounds a lot like your personal preferences at play, since your nation was obviously happy to have you executed, if you had been proven guilty.

The furthest I would go towards intervention on this topic is banning people from being executed with exception of high treason and murder.

And what if an individual purposefully or due negligence causes a major ecological catastrophe that plunges entire communities into destitution, due to losing their sustenance and livelihood, should they not pay for ruining - possibly destroying - so many lives with their life?

...why does everyone think treason is so important as a crime?

OOC: Yes, I know, technically Araraukar could claim the ecological destruction to be treason, but that's not how they view the issue.

[Bears Armed]

The furthest I would go towards intervention on this topic is banning people from being executed with exception of high treason and murder.

And what if an individual purposefully or due negligence causes a major ecological catastrophe that plunges entire communities into destitution, due to losing their sustenance and livelihood, should they not pay for ruining - possibly destroying - so many lives with their life?

"Quite so. In Bears Armed, the crime of Malicious Great Arson carries the death penalty, and in my opinion quite rightly so."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The furthest I would go towards intervention on this topic is banning people from being executed with exception of high treason and murder.

And what if an individual purposefully or due negligence causes a major ecological catastrophe that plunges entire communities into destitution, due to losing their sustenance and livelihood, should they not pay for ruining - possibly destroying - so many lives with their life?

...why does everyone think treason is so important as a crime?

OOC: Yes, I know, technically Araraukar could claim the ecological destruction to be treason, but that's not how they view the issue.

Read my long quote of Kant ... somewhere in this thread someplace (could have been a different thread altogether, it's all muddled in my head now...). I think its rather explanatory for why that would not be just punishment based on the crime committed and whether such a maxim could be interpreted within the confines of the categorical imperative.