[Draft] Ban On Killing

[Old Hope]

Wanting to forbid a very evil act in all member states,
the World Assembly establishes the following in all member states:

1.In the act of killing, the World Assembly hereby lists six situations:
1.1.Saving a sapient beings life
1.2.Killing armed enemies in a military conflict
1.3.Legally allowed executions
1.4.Unintentionally taking someones life
1.5 Legally allowed abortions
1.6.All other cases
2.Killing other sapient beings without their consent in all cases where situation 1.6 applies is a crime.
3. All those who commit a crime according to section 2 and do 3.1.not meet these criteria:
3.1.1. They were, at the time when the crime was comitted, under the age of majority
3.1.2. They were forced to kill a sapient being under the threat of torture or murder.
3.1.3.They were made unable to control themselves by others without their consent.
3.1.4.They have diplomatic immunity.
3.2.must be punished with at least the longest imprisonment avaliable in the member state where the crime was comitted.
3.3All those solely not being punished according to 3.2 because of 3.1.4 must be expelled to the nation they are a diplomat for as soon as possible.

I would apply the following:
Category Moral Decency, Strength Significant.

[Defwa]

I have no idea what's going on with your numbering system.

Though a WA gay in murder has been tossed around as a joke for years, we never wanted anyone to try.
Your draft has a lot of unintended consequences, not the least of which is on abortion.

I understand you're new and want to make a difference but you should engage in debate of other resolutions prior to authority your own.
That way you can learn how to look at your own work critically and learn what is expected of you

[Old Hope]

I have no idea what's going on with your numbering system.

Though a WA gay in murder has been tossed around as a joke for years, we never wanted anyone to try.
Your draft has a lot of unintended consequences, not the least of which is on abortion.

I understand you're new and want to make a difference but you should engage in debate of other resolutions prior to authority your own.
That way you can learn how to look at your own work critically and learn what is expected of you

Please name some of the consequences you assume to be unintended. Maybe that can be sorted out?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Since the autocorrect on Ms. Landfree's universal translator appears to have mutated and overstepped its bounds, I'll reiterate her point and add a small one of my own.

It would behoove you to examine passed WA resolutions as well as current drafts, and participate in some drafting discussions, before trying to author a resolution yourself.

Then, I utterly fail to see how this is an international issue. I'm unaware of any nation in which random, unprovoked killing is lawful. Some societies have different standards than others as to what constitutes mitigating or justifying circumstances; but absent some kind of code, there wouldn't be any economic activity at all, as everyone would always be plotting and scheming (if not skulking and backstabbing), more or less; nothing would get done as the easiest way to back out of an obligation would just be to kill the other guy and walk away. The fact we're all here reading these words indicates a WA resolution is not needed.

You'll have a better time directing your energies elsewhere at this time.

[Hirota]

If you are looking to write a proposal under moral decency - I'd submit the body of your text does not match the category and would be illegal.

Lots of other silliness going on here as well, but lets focus on the fundamentals.

[Old Hope]

If you are looking to write a proposal under moral decency - I'd submit the body of your text does not match the category and would be illegal.

Lots of other silliness going on here as well, but lets focus on the fundamentals.

My proposal forbids something, orders imprisonment for all violators, and that all in the name of morality. Why is this illegal?

[Zunkwentania]

If you are looking to write a proposal under moral decency - I'd submit the body of your text does not match the category and would be illegal.

Lots of other silliness going on here as well, but lets focus on the fundamentals.

My proposal forbids something, orders imprisonment for all violators, and that all in the name of morality. Why is this illegal?

Hmm... maybe because we prefer rehabilitation?

[Vasputia]

Wanting to forbid a very evil act in all member states,
the World Assembly establishes the following in all member states:

1.In the act of killing, the World Assembly hereby lists six situations:
1.1.Saving someones life
1.2.Killing armed enemies in a military conflict
1.3.Legally allowed executions
1.4.Unintentionally taking someones life
1.5 Legally allowed abortions
1.6.All other cases
2.Killing others without their consent in all cases where only situation 1.6 applies is a crime.
3. All those who commit a crime according to section 2 and do 3.1.not meet these criteria:
3.1.1. They were, at the time when the crime was comitted, under the age of majority
3.1.2. They were forced to kill someone else under the threat of torture or murder.
3.1.3.They were made unable to control themselves by others without their consent.
3.2.must be punished with at least the longest imprisonment avaliable in the member state where the crime was comitted.

I would apply the following:
Category Moral Decency, Strength Significant.

I am confused. Are the "six situations" that you list times where it is legal to kill someone or illegal? It doesn't really say.

[Hakio]

So this is not a joke? Welcome to the WA, we have coffee and water foutains galore!

[Tsarist Chernigov]

Are you just saying that wars are to be banned?

[The Two Jerseys]

Congratulations, you've legalized reckless manslaughter.

[Separatist Peoples]

"How is this an international issue? At all? What a terrible idea..."

[Old Hope]

Congratulations, you've legalized reckless manslaughter.

Have I? Where did I legalize that?

[The Two Jerseys]

Congratulations, you've legalized reckless manslaughter.

Have I? Where did I legalize that?

"Unintentionally taking someones life".

[The Leningrad Union]

Against.

Murder is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by all.

[Old Hope]

Have I? Where did I legalize that?

"Unintentionally taking someones life".

2.Killing others without their consent in all cases where only situation 1.6 applies is a crime.

Look on this again, please. Where does it tell you that everything else is legal?

Against.

Murder is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by all.

States like yours are the reason for this proposal. There are some standards that should apply in all states.

[Lower Columbia]

Against.

Murder is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by all.

States like yours are the reason for this proposal. There are some standards that should apply in all states.

"It seems that someone can't recognize sarcasm in others' comments. Given how fond the ambassador from the Leningrad Union is of sarcasm, it would behoove you to not take everything (or anything) he says seriously, ambassador.

"At any rate, I must concur with the Sierra Lyricalian and C.D.S.P. ambassadors: this is in no way an international issue, rendering this proposal pointless. You would do well to heed the advice that others have already given you and familiarize yourself with passed resolutions and the rules governing proposals, as well as participate in debates on other ambassadors' proposals, before trying to author one yourself."

[The Two Jerseys]

"Unintentionally taking someones life".

2.Killing others without their consent in all cases where only situation 1.6 applies is a crime.

Look on this again, please. Where does it tell you that everything else is legal?

Against.

Murder is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by all.

States like yours are the reason for this proposal. There are some standards that should apply in all states.

Right here:

2.Killing others without their consent in all cases where only situation 1.6 applies is a crime.

It's only a crime where the killing is classified as "all other cases". So no matter what idiotic thing I do that results in someone dying, as long as I didn't intend to kill them situation 1.4 applies, so it can't be a crime.

[Old Hope]

Look on this again, please. Where does it tell you that everything else is legal?



States like yours are the reason for this proposal. There are some standards that should apply in all states.

Right here:

2.Killing others without their consent in all cases where only situation 1.6 applies is a crime.

It's only a crime where the killing is classified as "all other cases". So no matter what idiotic thing I do that results in someone dying, as long as I didn't intend to kill them situation 1.4 applies, so it can't be a crime.

I think a word in my proposal caused some misunderstandings. I removed it- things should be clear now. Or not?
I should tell you what I want, maybe you have a good idea on how to write that.
I simply the situations 1.1-1.5 to be left out by this proposal, neither legalized nor illegalized, but simply not legislated on by this resolution- other than that these situations exist.

[Chester Pearson]

Are you quite done with this farce yet? Just label it [JOKE] so we can move on to serious shit....

[Wrapper]

So... killing animals for food would be a crime? As would killing insects using a pesticide or a bug zapper? Or, even if you intended this to apply only the killing of sapient beings, should committing euthanasia or assisted suicide really be punishable by the same life sentence (or in some cases a death sentence) that a nation would impose on a serial killer?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Though a WA gay in murder has been tossed around as a joke for years, we never wanted anyone to try.

(Assuming "gay" is an autocorrect/typo for..."ban"?) it has been tried before. Very unsuccessfully.

[Old Hope]

So... killing animals for food would be a crime? As would killing insects using a pesticide or a bug zapper? Or, even if you intended this to apply only the killing of sapient beings, should committing euthanasia or assisted suicide really be punishable by the same life sentence (or in some cases a death sentence) that a nation would impose on a serial killer?

Oops! Yes, sapient beings only. I will correct this.

should committing euthanasia or assisted suicide really be punishable by the same life sentence (or in some cases a death sentence) that a nation would impose on a serial killer?

Assisted Suicide is not criminalized(consent?)
The rest is just murder, and that's it. Do it and you get locked up. So simply:Don't do it. What is wrong about that?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

You've still done nothing whatsoever to convince anyone that this is an international issue that warrants the World Assembly's time, attention, and energy. Is there a rash of murder taking place in WA states? Fatal drunk driving accidents? Duels, honor killings, gang wars, paramilitary actions, civil wars, bombings, other acts of terrorism, pogroms? Why do you imagine there are member nations in which any of these things is not already outlawed? Who does this protect that wasn't already protected? Who does this help that hasn't already been helped?

How is this an issue for the World Assembly rather than individual nations?

[Old Hope]

Is anyone here who supports this idea?