[Draft] Ban On Killing

[Honor and Glory]

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.
3.2.must be punished with at least the longest imprisonment avaliable in the member state where the crime was comitted.
Category Moral Decency, Strength Significant.

The numbering system on this makes it very difficult to read, 3.1.1 allows child/teenage serial murders protected by law, and I don't feel this is international issue. It also doesn't work with places that have non standard justice systems. Honor and Glory has no jails, there are no imprisonments. We rehabilitate through therapy, work releases, and schooling. those that cannot be rehabilitated are executed ( or sent back to their own nations if they are not citizens ).

[Separatist Peoples]

Is anyone here who supports this idea?

"No, because it isn't an international issue. For the upteenth time."

[Old Hope]

Is anyone here who supports this idea?

"No, because it isn't an international issue. For the upteenth time."

Because murder in any other country does usually not affect yours? This might be true. But surely you want to improve the World Assembly for all, right? Or would you solely say:No international effect->repeal/No vote?
And do you really think that the majority would be against this because of these reasons?

[Separatist Peoples]

"No, because it isn't an international issue. For the upteenth time."

Because murder in any other country does usually not affect yours? This might be true.

"Bigtopians killing Bigtopians in Bigtopia is irrelevant to us because it is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It's not international. Any incidence of Bigtopians killing foreigners or vice versa while in Bigtopia is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It is not international. Criminals crossing borders generally involves cross-jurisdiction cooperation and extradition law, none of which involves a ban on killing. I'd love to hear an example to the contrary."

[Old Hope]

Because murder in any other country does usually not affect yours? This might be true.

"Bigtopians killing Bigtopians in Bigtopia is irrelevant to us because it is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It's not international. Any incidence of Bigtopians killing foreigners or vice versa while in Bigtopia is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It is not international. Criminals crossing borders generally involves cross-jurisdiction cooperation and extradition law, none of which involves a ban on killing. I'd love to hear an example to the contrary."

I don't think your opinion represents a majority in the World Assembly. Some laws should apply in the whole World Assembly because they are a stain on the Assembly's reputation.

[Defwa]

Because murder in any other country does usually not affect yours? This might be true.

"Bigtopians killing Bigtopians in Bigtopia is irrelevant to us because it is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It's not international. Any incidence of Bigtopians killing foreigners or vice versa while in Bigtopia is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It is not international. Criminals crossing borders generally involves cross-jurisdiction cooperation and extradition law, none of which involves a ban on killing. I'd love to hear an example to the contrary."

Now why should we allow Bigtopians to continue their murderous barbarity?
On top of not impacting those outside, we must recognize that some times there is a cultural significance to it.

In countries where murder isn't explicitly illegal, there's usually a reason for that. Honor killings may be an acceptable medium of punishment for crimes. Duels may be legal and storied ways of resolving disputes. Fetuses may be considered people but the nation still allows abortion. Euthanasia requires a degree of murder.

Old Hope, you currently leave no openings for that. At the same time, some nations don't want all that legalized (i mean for the parts they can choose to ban) so a blanket allowance is unacceptable as well.

"Bigtopians killing Bigtopians in Bigtopia is irrelevant to us because it is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It's not international. Any incidence of Bigtopians killing foreigners or vice versa while in Bigtopia is under Bigtopian jurisdiction. It is not international. Criminals crossing borders generally involves cross-jurisdiction cooperation and extradition law, none of which involves a ban on killing. I'd love to hear an example to the contrary."

I don't think your opinion represents a majority in the World Assembly. Some laws should apply in the whole World Assembly because they are a stain on the Assembly's reputation.

Where have you been given a supportive statement?

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't think your opinion represents a majority in the World Assembly.

"No, but it appears to reflect the majority of opinions in these debate chambers, and I'd like to think of us regulars as representing the more reasonable powers in the WA. If you can point out how this is an issue that requires international oversight, I'd be delighted to hear it, but even the pacifists disagree with you.

"Ambassador Landfree, we shouldn't interfere because either Bigtopia has outlawed murder and therefore has a national enforcement mechanism to deal with it, or has not outlawed murder, and has a reason such as you've listed...

"And also because Bigtopians are disgusting, irredeemable barbarians who don't bathe and likely fornicate with their cousins, and we're all better off with them killing each other to death...if it wasn't for them, I'd still be flying..."

[Defwa]

I don't think your opinion represents a majority in the World Assembly.

"No, but it appears to reflect the majority of opinions in these debate chambers, and I'd like to think of us regulars as representing the more reasonable powers in the WA. If you can point out how this is an issue that requires international oversight, I'd be delighted to hear it, but even the pacifists disagree with you.

"Ambassador Landfree, we shouldn't interfere because either Bigtopia has outlawed murder and therefore has a national enforcement mechanism to deal with it, or has not outlawed murder, and has a reason such as you've listed...

"And also because Bigtopians are disgusting, irredeemable barbarians who don't bathe and likely fornicate with their cousins, and we're all better off with them killing each other to death...if it wasn't for them, I'd still be flying..."

Damn useless literally lousy bigtopian rats

OOC: was agreeing with you via rhetorical question

[Gogito]

You wouldn't dare...

We disagree immediately. Killing shoukd be recommended, so the strongest prevail.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: was agreeing with you via rhetorical question

OOC I missed the tone of that entirely...sorry...

[Leetmerica]

To be fair, guys, he's still a new user.

[Old Hope]

Now why should we allow Bigtopians to continue their murderous barbarity?
On top of not impacting those outside, we must recognize that some times there is a cultural significance to it.

In countries where murder isn't explicitly illegal, there's usually a reason for that. Honor killings may be an acceptable medium of punishment for crimes. Duels may be legal and storied ways of resolving disputes. Fetuses may be considered people but the nation still allows abortion. Euthanasia requires a degree of murder.

Old Hope, you currently leave no openings for that. At the same time, some nations don't want all that legalized (i mean for the parts they can choose to ban) so a blanket allowance is unacceptable as well.

Honor killings are not banned under this resolution if they are legally allowed executions
Duels are not banned under this resolution if all partipiciants consent to being killed(which they usually don't. They want to win), but Duels are an unacceptable way to resolve disputes anyway.
Abortion is not banned by this resolution, either. Please look at the text again.
Euthanasia is not forbidden when the one being killed consents.
I have read some resolutions and found some passed resolutions forbidding or mandating something that would have mostly local effects.

[Chester Pearson]

To be fair, guys, he's still a new user.

Your point being?

[The Federal Triumvirate of Xing]

Rather than a ban on outright killing, you should put up a proposition for the removal of war, unless agreed upon by the WA.

[Wrapper]

Is anyone here who supports this idea?

Apparently not. Aside from an unsatisfactory writing style that is difficult to follow, a confusing numbering system, a title not in agreement with the resolution, and questionable category/strength, it appears no one here agrees that this is an international issue worthy of our legislation either.

Murder is illegal pretty much everywhere, so, what does this actually accomplish, other than making mercy killing, dueling, collateral damage in war, etc., punishable by the same jail term one would give to a serial killer, a mass murderer, or Charles Paisley, the baby crusher?

[Separatist Peoples]

Rather than a ban on outright killing, you should put up a proposition for the removal of war, unless agreed upon by the WA.

"No."

Now why should we allow Bigtopians to continue their murderous barbarity?
On top of not impacting those outside, we must recognize that some times there is a cultural significance to it.

In countries where murder isn't explicitly illegal, there's usually a reason for that. Honor killings may be an acceptable medium of punishment for crimes. Duels may be legal and storied ways of resolving disputes. Fetuses may be considered people but the nation still allows abortion. Euthanasia requires a degree of murder.

Old Hope, you currently leave no openings for that. At the same time, some nations don't want all that legalized (i mean for the parts they can choose to ban) so a blanket allowance is unacceptable as well.

Honor killings are not banned under this resolution if they are legally allowed executions
Duels are not banned under this resolution if all partipiciants consent to being killed(which they usually don't. They want to win), but Duels are an unacceptable way to resolve disputes anyway.
Abortion is not banned by this resolution, either. Please look at the text again.
Euthanasia is not forbidden when the one being killed consents.
I have read some resolutions and found some passed resolutions forbidding or mandating something that would have mostly local effects.

"So what's the point of this dreck? And what resolutions are those?"

[Old Hope]

"So what's the point of this dreck? And what resolutions are those?"

5 examples:Resolution 9, Resolution 21,Resolution 27,Resolution 201, Resolution 287

[-The West Coast-]

Nobody can ban killing. It's a physical and mental impossibility. This shouldn't get past the draft.

[Wrapper]

"So what's the point of this dreck? And what resolutions are those?"

5 examples:Resolution 9, Resolution 21,Resolution 27,Resolution 201, Resolution 287

Ummm... what? All of those have global effects. GAR#9, among other instances, applies to armed conflict between nations. GAR #21 assures that all peoples in all nations make enough to, at least minimally, feed their children and not go hungry. GAR #27 prohibits the infringement upon peaceful protest. And so on. All global issues that have the greatest effect on do-nothing or oppresive governments.

All your proposal does is "ban killing" -- except it doesn't ban killing, it criminalizes murder, which is already criminalized in virtually every nation. That clause will affect virtually no one. However, the proposal also imposes ridiculously equal sentences on acts that are not equal -- i.e., the punishment does not fit the crime -- which has an undesirable effect on virtually everyone.

Are we making any sense here, Ambassador?

[Old Hope]

5 examples:Resolution 9, Resolution 21,Resolution 27,Resolution 201, Resolution 287

Ummm... what? All of those have global effects. GAR#9, among other instances, applies to armed conflict between nations. GAR #21 assures that all peoples in all nations make enough to, at least minimally, feed their children and not go hungry. GAR #27 prohibits the infringement upon peaceful protest. And so on. All global issues that have the greatest effect on do-nothing or oppresive governments.

All your proposal does is "ban killing" -- except it doesn't ban killing, it criminalizes murder, which is already criminalized in virtually every nation. That clause will affect virtually no one. However, the proposal also imposes ridiculously equal sentences on acts that are not equal -- i.e., the punishment does not fit the crime -- which has an undesirable effect on virtually everyone.

Are we making any sense here, Ambassador?

Yes, you are.

[Separatist Peoples]

"So what's the point of this dreck? And what resolutions are those?"

5 examples:Resolution 9, Resolution 21,Resolution 27,Resolution 201, Resolution 287

"9 deals with a fundamental human rights with an issue for which there is no mitigating situation to merit it's use, unlike with killing. See Angela Landfree's response for details. Resolution 21 levels the economic playing field such that international trade is facilitated, and is an international issue. Resolutions 27 and 201 deal with protections for people from state governments, not from other people. Since your proposal allows government-sanctioned execution, your proposal is in no way similar to these. Resolution 287 deals with sites who's importance, the impacts on education and scientific research has strong potential to cross borders, though I personally find WA involvement in cultural preservation to be a waste of time. Try again."

[Chester Pearson]

Ummm... what? All of those have global effects. GAR#9, among other instances, applies to armed conflict between nations. GAR #21 assures that all peoples in all nations make enough to, at least minimally, feed their children and not go hungry. GAR #27 prohibits the infringement upon peaceful protest. And so on. All global issues that have the greatest effect on do-nothing or oppresive governments.

All your proposal does is "ban killing" -- except it doesn't ban killing, it criminalizes murder, which is already criminalized in virtually every nation. That clause will affect virtually no one. However, the proposal also imposes ridiculously equal sentences on acts that are not equal -- i.e., the punishment does not fit the crime -- which has an undesirable effect on virtually everyone.

Are we making any sense here, Ambassador?

Yes, you are.

Is any of it getting through to you is the greater question here.....

[Old Hope]

Yes, you are.

Is any of it getting through to you is the greater question here.....

I am not currently planning to work on this proposal.

[Inzijard]

Is any of it getting through to you is the greater question here.....

I am not currently planning to work on this proposal.

Cave Johnson, we're done here.

[Cedoria]

Is anyone here who supports this idea?

No