[DRAFT] Appropriate Punishment Act

[Flibbleites]

Appropriate Punishment Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZING that different societies treat crime and punishment in different ways, and adopt different attitudes to which sentences may be appropriate,

BELIEVING that criminal punishments should be appropriate to the crime committed,

AWARE that that is not always the case in some nations,

The WA hereby:

1) REQUIRES that all WA member nations' criminal punishments fit the crime committed,

2) DISALLOWS disproportionate sentencing for relatively minor crimes in WA member nations,

3) ENCOURAGES nations to apply diplomatic pressure on nations that impose excessive punishments on petty criminals,

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal punishments as long as the punishment complies with clause 1.

Considering the talk about repealing the Convention on Execution, I guess it's time to dust off this old draft I had filed away.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Support. it is a fine blocker Bob, and should close the issue up nicely.

[Greater Rashland]

Support. I strongly recommend to pass this, but edit it a little bit more.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Vague enough to be acceptable. Excellent. Full support."

[Sainterre]

Even though it has a bit of gray area, we give it our support.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The WA hereby:

1) REQUIRES that all WA member nations' criminal punishments fit the crime committed,

2) DISALLOWS disproportionate sentencing for relatively minor crimes in WA member nations,

3) ENCOURAGES nations to apply diplomatic pressure on nations that impose excessive punishments on petty criminals,

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal punishments as long as the punishment complies with clause 1.

Why only capital punishments? Shouldn't any punishment fit the crime committed?

Any why only clause 1? Shouldn't any death sentences issued also not be disproportionate?

If you're getting the feeling that clauses one and two would be redundant if they both addressed all crimes, I'm not getting the exact feeling. Even if there's a bit of overlap, it never hurts to emphasize on human rights -- particularly considering the proposal will likely hit a bump during the floor debate over "vague wording."

[Caracasus]

Not bad, perhaps a clause recommending nations have an extra layer of judgement or recourse to appeals for prison sentences longer than 20 years or the death penalty. You'd have to word it better than I have, but I think you get the idea.

[Separatist Peoples]

Not bad, perhaps a clause recommending nations have an extra layer of judgement or recourse to appeals for prison sentences longer than 20 years or the death penalty. You'd have to word it better than I have, but I think you get the idea.

"Why? Why should extra appeals be granted for a 20 year sentence and not 19 year sentences? I can easily see why extra appeals would be undesirable for already burdened judicial systems."

[Caracasus]

Not bad, perhaps a clause recommending nations have an extra layer of judgement or recourse to appeals for prison sentences longer than 20 years or the death penalty. You'd have to word it better than I have, but I think you get the idea.

"Why? Why should extra appeals be granted for a 20 year sentence and not 19 year sentences? I can easily see why extra appeals would be undesirable for already burdened judicial systems."

Honestly? A number we picked out of a hat as a possible benchmark. Essentially the aim would be to ensure that very punitive sentences have to go through another level of scrutiny before being passed. Given that these very punitive punishments would not be used for everyday crimes, we would like to see a level of safety to ensure against miscarriages of justice. The time could be set to 25 years and the principle would be the same.

We also fail to see how a justice system could be anything but if it would refuse a right to appeal for prisoners sentenced to death.

[Bears Armed]

We approve of this.

"My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time—
To let the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!"


Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly.


_________________________________________________________________________


OOC: This may be a 'first' for many of the people present. How many of the other diplomats here have ever heard an anthropomorphic Giant Panda singing Gilbert & Sullivan?

^_^

[Losthaven]

Losthaven strongly disapproves of this track. General platitudes about sentences "fitting the crime" is not sufficient to protect any rights. Nations could, in good faith, punish possession of a controlled substance with long term incarceration, or theft with the loss of the offending hand, as sentences "fitting the crime" within the context of that culture.

We respect ambassador Flibble and his many contributions to this Assembly, but we don't think this area of law should be closed off with such short shrift. We would support a more comprehensive bill on proportional punishment - including one that largely leaves that question for member nations to decide - but the protections afforded here are minimal to the point of nonexistence, and the need for protection in this area is manifest.

- Myron Stokov-Mercier, WA General Counsel

It's spelled "Appropriate", deary.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We're concerned at the prospect of a veritable flood of repressive nations interpreting what counts as "disproportionate punishment" and "minor crimes" so narrowly as to render this resolution toothless. I grant there's nothing that right now prevents (for example) a multi-year prison sentence for simple non-violent drug dealing, but we couldn't vote for something that didn't make a bit of a stronger effort.

OOC: if this whooshed over my head and it's intended as nothing more than a big legislative brick wall, then ignore the above and consider me resolutely opposed.

[Dibeg]

why the blocker?

[Separatist Peoples]

why the blocker?

"To prevent obnoxious authors from delving into the national judiciary unnecessarily."

[Flibbleites]

The WA hereby:

1) REQUIRES that all WA member nations' criminal punishments fit the crime committed,

2) DISALLOWS disproportionate sentencing for relatively minor crimes in WA member nations,

3) ENCOURAGES nations to apply diplomatic pressure on nations that impose excessive punishments on petty criminals,

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal punishments as long as the punishment complies with clause 1.

Why only capital punishments? Shouldn't any punishment fit the crime committed?

Any why only clause 1? Shouldn't any death sentences issued also not be disproportionate?

Uh, it's not limited to capital punishment (heck the term capital punishment doesn't even appear anywhere in the text). It says "criminal punishment" which would cover everything from mass murder to littering.

If you're getting the feeling that clauses one and two would be redundant if they both addressed all crimes, I'm not getting the exact feeling.

And once again, they do address all crimes.

Even if there's a bit of overlap, it never hurts to emphasize on human rights -- particularly considering the proposal will likely hit a bump during the floor debate over "vague wording."

Isn't debating "vague wording" pretty much par for the course for my proposals?

"Why? Why should extra appeals be granted for a 20 year sentence and not 19 year sentences? I can easily see why extra appeals would be undesirable for already burdened judicial systems."

Honestly? A number we picked out of a hat as a possible benchmark. Essentially the aim would be to ensure that very punitive sentences have to go through another level of scrutiny before being passed. Given that these very punitive punishments would not be used for everyday crimes, we would like to see a level of safety to ensure against miscarriages of justice. The time could be set to 25 years and the principle would be the same.

We also fail to see how a justice system could be anything but if it would refuse a right to appeal for prisoners sentenced to death.

Well, in that case, maybe you should write a proposal about that?

Losthaven strongly disapproves of this track. General platitudes about sentences "fitting the crime" is not sufficient to protect any rights. Nations could, in good faith, punish possession of a controlled substance with long term incarceration, or theft with the loss of the offending hand, as sentences "fitting the crime" within the context of that culture.

We respect ambassador Flibble and his many contributions to this Assembly, but we don't think this area of law should be closed off with such short shrift. We would support a more comprehensive bill on proportional punishment - including one that largely leaves that question for member nations to decide - but the protections afforded here are minimal to the point of nonexistence, and the need for protection in this area is manifest.

- Myron Stokov-Mercier, WA General Counsel

And under this proposal if you think that Rightnutistan's criminal punishments are inappropriate you not only have the right, you are encouraged to apply diplomatic pressure on them to change their laws.

It's spelled "Appropriate", deary.

That's what happens when your initial draft is done in Notepad, although why Firefox didn't flag the misspellings the first time around is beyond me.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Ugh. What's wrong with my eyes lately? That was awful.

Still don't know why criminal punishments ought only comply with Clause 1 and not Clause 2.

[Barapam]

"We understand that this draft aims against unnecessary harsh punishments, but since the intent is for the time to fit the crime, so to say, what about very mild punishments? Can they be considered appropriate? If we take an extreme example, would a murder punished with a small fine be in line or not with this proposal?"

[Whovian Tardisia]

"We understand that this draft aims against unnecessary harsh punishments, but since the intent is for the time to fit the crime, so to say, what about very mild punishments? Can they be considered appropriate? If we take an extreme example, would a murder punished with a small fine be in line or not with this proposal?"

I believe the term "disproportionate" works both ways; a small punishment for a big crime is just as bad as a big punishment for a small crime, according to this proposal.

[Flibbleites]

"We understand that this draft aims against unnecessary harsh punishments, but since the intent is for the time to fit the crime, so to say, what about very mild punishments? Can they be considered appropriate? If we take an extreme example, would a murder punished with a small fine be in line or not with this proposal?"

I believe the term "disproportionate" works both ways; a small punishment for a big crime is just as bad as a big punishment for a small crime, according to this proposal.

Actually, the way it's worded it does focus on excessive punishments for minor crimes rather than the opposite. This is mainly because I highly doubt that there would be many nations, if any at all, that would make something like murder a crime and then allow murderers to get away with just getting a slap on the wrist.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Aistaan]

The WA hereby:

1) REQUIRES that all WA member nations' criminal punishments fit the crime committed,

2) DISALLOWS disproportionate sentencing for relatively minor crimes in WA member nations,

3) ENCOURAGES nations to apply diplomatic pressure on nations that impose excessive punishments on petty criminals,

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal punishments as long as the punishment complies with clause

So my question here is that shouldn't crime and criminal activity be handled by the governments of individual nations only? I mean to say that the WA should not have to create barriers on punishment, because the criminal code is different in different countries. For example, country A finds heresy a major problem and orders execution to heretics, while a country B doesn't even consider heresy a problem, let alone a crime. How does this proposal, if it were to become a resolution, tackle the issue of varying criminal codes?

[Whovian Tardisia]

The WA hereby:

1) REQUIRES that all WA member nations' criminal punishments fit the crime committed,

2) DISALLOWS disproportionate sentencing for relatively minor crimes in WA member nations,

3) ENCOURAGES nations to apply diplomatic pressure on nations that impose excessive punishments on petty criminals,

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal punishments as long as the punishment complies with clause

So my question here is that shouldn't crime and criminal activity be handled by the governments of individual nations only? I mean to say that the WA should not have to create barriers on punishment, because the criminal code is different in different countries. For example, country A finds heresy a major problem and orders execution to heretics, while a country B doesn't even consider heresy a problem, let alone a crime. How does this proposal, if it were to become a resolution, tackle the issue of varying criminal codes?

I believe, Ambassador, this proposal allows nations to decide for themselces what defines a major or minor crime. However, some standards could be set, eg. Theft is less serious than Murder. Is there a committee that exists that could be granted the ability to set such standards, or would one have to be created?

[Aistaan]

So my question here is that shouldn't crime and criminal activity be handled by the governments of individual nations only? I mean to say that the WA should not have to create barriers on punishment, because the criminal code is different in different countries. For example, country A finds heresy a major problem and orders execution to heretics, while a country B doesn't even consider heresy a problem, let alone a crime. How does this proposal, if it were to become a resolution, tackle the issue of varying criminal codes?

I believe, Ambassador, this proposal allows nations to decide for themselves what defines a major or minor crime. However, some standards could be set, eg. Theft is less serious than Murder. Is there a committee that exists that could be granted the ability to set such standards, or would one have to be created?

That is true. But there are very few and broad crimes that can be covered in this way. Law has numerous other interpretations. For example, "theft at gunpoint" obviously leads to "harm or attempt to harm a fellow human being", which almost equals the standard of murder, while "harm implied in case of self defense (if proved)" is equivalent to no crime at all. Who is to decide this? Every nation, according to its Penal Code, has its own description.
Also, in "petty crimes" the concepts like "trespassing", "stealing" etc. stand almost equally, yet, on the matter of intent, trespassing is dealt with much more heavily than stealing. How would the committee decide on aspects such as this?

[Caracasus]

I believe, Ambassador, this proposal allows nations to decide for themselves what defines a major or minor crime. However, some standards could be set, eg. Theft is less serious than Murder. Is there a committee that exists that could be granted the ability to set such standards, or would one have to be created?

That is true. But there are very few and broad crimes that can be covered in this way. Law has numerous other interpretations. For example, "theft at gunpoint" obviously leads to "harm or attempt to harm a fellow human being", which almost equals the standard of murder, while "harm implied in case of self defense (if proved)" is equivalent to no crime at all. Who is to decide this? Every nation, according to its Penal Code, has its own description.
Also, in "petty crimes" the concepts like "trespassing", "stealing" etc. stand almost equally, yet, on the matter of intent, trespassing is dealt with much more heavily than stealing. How would the committee decide on aspects such as this?

We are not sure that any committee would oversee this, or should oversee this. It would be impossible, and unwanted, for the WA to mandate mitigating or aggravating circumstances surrounding a crime for every nation, which is what you are talking about here (for example, theft at gunpoint - at gunpoint becomes an aggravating circumstance making the crime more serious).

We are under the impression that the ambassador has proposed this legislation to deter states from handing out harsh sentences for relatively minor offenses. An eight year prison term for holding up a shop with a handgun, under this legislation would be fine. An eight year prison term for shoplifting however, would not. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are found in almost every legal system in existence, so we imagine that an awareness of them does not have to be written into this legislation.

[Aistaan]

That is true. But there are very few and broad crimes that can be covered in this way. Law has numerous other interpretations. For example, "theft at gunpoint" obviously leads to "harm or attempt to harm a fellow human being", which almost equals the standard of murder, while "harm implied in case of self defense (if proved)" is equivalent to no crime at all. Who is to decide this? Every nation, according to its Penal Code, has its own description.
Also, in "petty crimes" the concepts like "trespassing", "stealing" etc. stand almost equally, yet, on the matter of intent, trespassing is dealt with much more heavily than stealing. How would the committee decide on aspects such as this?

We are not sure that any committee would oversee this, or should oversee this. It would be impossible, and unwanted, for the WA to mandate mitigating or aggravating circumstances surrounding a crime for every nation, which is what you are talking about here (for example, theft at gunpoint - at gunpoint becomes an aggravating circumstance making the crime more serious).

We are under the impression that the ambassador has proposed this legislation to deter states from handing out harsh sentences for relatively minor offenses. An eight year prison term for holding up a shop with a handgun, under this legislation would be fine. An eight year prison term for shoplifting however, would not. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are found in almost every legal system in existence, so we imagine that an awareness of them does not have to be written into this legislation.

I do not question the intent of the proposal, All I ask is the relative gravitas that this sort of resolution should carry, seems lacking in the above posted draft. I find it very understandable, that the GA would want to put up some mandates on criminal punishment. I only don't see why nations are not capable of handling this themselves. I think that Law and Order are a very national, and hence restricted topic.
Also, would the creation of such an organization not delay the delivery of Justice? Every exemption provided will have to reinvestigated to find the apparent seriousness of the crime..... It seems like too much of work.

[Caracasus]

We are not sure that any committee would oversee this, or should oversee this. It would be impossible, and unwanted, for the WA to mandate mitigating or aggravating circumstances surrounding a crime for every nation, which is what you are talking about here (for example, theft at gunpoint - at gunpoint becomes an aggravating circumstance making the crime more serious).

We are under the impression that the ambassador has proposed this legislation to deter states from handing out harsh sentences for relatively minor offenses. An eight year prison term for holding up a shop with a handgun, under this legislation would be fine. An eight year prison term for shoplifting however, would not. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are found in almost every legal system in existence, so we imagine that an awareness of them does not have to be written into this legislation.

I do not question the intent of the proposal, All I ask is the relative gravitas that this sort of resolution should carry, seems lacking in the above posted draft. I find it very understandable, that the GA would want to put up some mandates on criminal punishment. I only don't see why nations are not capable of handling this themselves. I think that Law and Order are a very national, and hence restricted topic.
Also, would the creation of such an organization not delay the delivery of Justice? Every exemption provided will have to reinvestigated to find the apparent seriousness of the crime..... It seems like too much of work.

Forgive us ambassador, it is very early, and our coffee machine is broken but we cannot see where in this legislation a committee is formed. At present, all we can see in this resolution is a requirement for nations not to excessively punish their citizens for minor offences.

We do not believe that in its current form, the resolution would involve itself in the internal justice system of nations beyond requiring them not to execute or incarcerate for decades prisoners sentenced for minor crimes.