[Draft] Capital Punishment Accord

[Tinfect]

OOC:
With all the half-baked replacements and repeal attempts floating around, I figured I'd try my hand at a reasonable middle ground, hopefully one that both appeases the 'execution is evil' crowd, and is acceptable to reasonable states.

Capital Punishment Accord

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Strong

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that many Member-States utilize execution as a punishment for crimes,

Aware that Execution carries severe ramifications of both an ethical and political nature,

Seeking to eliminate egregious abuses of execution, without unduly limiting the rights of Member-States to manage National Criminal Justice systems,

Hereby defines Execution, for the purposes of this resolution, as; any State sanctioned and enacted death of a citizen or non-citizen as punishment for a crime committed,

Prohibits Member States from;

• Sentencing the any citizen or non-citizen to execution, or enacting any executions, without first achieving conviction in a Criminal Trial,
• Placing any citizen or non-citizen in the custody of a non-member state so as to bypass the provisions of this Resolution,

Further Prohibits Member States from;

• Sentencing any pregnant convicts to be executed,
• Any convicts lacking the mental capacity to comprehend their crime,
• Any convict under the age of majority,

[Still OOC:]
You may have noticed that this is basically just Convention on Execution all over again.
That's because it's an early draft, and I don't really know how to finish it off.

I want to prohibit Member-States from executing people for things like, jaywalking, or punching some prick's lights out in a bar fight, but I can't think of a way to do that without creating a list of 'things it is okay to execute for', and I'd very much like to have some way to ensure that an overzealous state can't quickly execute someone for a crime they may not have committed, but it's rather late at the moment and I'm rather drawing a blank on that as well.

As always, feedback is appreciated, and suggestions I can actually use will be shamelessly stolen worked into the draft in some form, with crediting if you're feeling like going for it.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad categorically opposes any replacement that does not absolutely outlaw execution."

[Tinfect]

"Sciongrad categorically opposes any replacement that does not absolutely outlaw execution."

"And the Imperium, as with many 'moral stands' taken by Sciongrad's representatives finds that position almost childishly naive. You would oppose sensible legislation simply on the grounds that, unlike your preferred version, it actually stands a chance at passing? We are quite interested in the logic that leads one to believe that no legislation regulating such things is preferable to anything short of an outright ban."

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad categorically opposes any replacement that does not absolutely outlaw execution."

"And the Imperium, as with many 'moral stands' taken by Sciongrad's representatives finds that position almost childishly naive. You would oppose sensible legislation simply on the grounds that, unlike your preferred version, it actually stands a chance at passing? We are quite interested in the logic that leads one to believe that no legislation regulating such things is preferable to anything short of an outright ban."

"There are several problems with your argument. First of all, I have never argued that I would prefer no legislation to a lukewarm compromise. Secondarily, I am not convinced that the middle road is, ipso facto, the most likely to succeed at vote. There are several examples of different issues that actually demonstrate the opposite to be true. A compromise on biological weapons did not pass, yet a total ban did. A resolution that allows pregnancies to be terminated well into the third trimester passed with flying colors. Simply because something is inoffensive to both sides absolutely does not suggest it will pass because that assumes two preconditions that may not necessarily be true: first, that there are an equal number of death penalty supporters and opponents in the World Assembly, and second, that a compromise will attract voters from both sides. I do not believe this is true. Until an attempt to ban execution outright is made, any argument that I am 'childishly naive' is totally speculative and grounded in faulty argumentum ad centrum reasoning.

Sciongrad believes execution is a violation of human rights. We would not support a compromise resolution on slavery or genocide. We will not accept one on execution - at least not until it is empirically proven that such a resolution cannot succeed."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Sciongrad believes execution is a violation of human rights. We would not support a compromise resolution on slavery or genocide. We will not accept one on execution - at least not until it is empirically proven that such a resolution cannot succeed."

On the other hand, we agree with Kant. The death penalty is the only acceptable punishment for certain crimes. Our main issue with it is its permanence. Therefore, procedures to reduce the chances of 'getting it wrong' ought be promoted.

[Tinfect]

"First of all, I have never argued that I would prefer no legislation to a lukewarm compromise."

"I will take this moment to point out your prior statement."

"Secondarily, I am not convinced that the middle road is, ipso facto, the most likely to succeed at vote. There are several examples of different issues that actually demonstrate the opposite to be true. A compromise on biological weapons did not pass, yet a total ban did. A resolution that allows pregnancies to be terminated well into the third trimester passed with flying colors. Simply because something is inoffensive to both sides absolutely does not suggest it will pass because that assumes two preconditions that may not necessarily be true: first, that there are an equal number of death penalty supporters and opponents in the World Assembly, and second, that a compromise will attract voters from both sides. I do not believe this is true. Until an attempt to ban execution outright is made, any argument that I am 'childishly naive' is totally speculative and grounded in faulty argumentum ad centrum reasoning."

"Comparing execution to Biological Weapons is absolutely ridiculous, the two are entirely incomparable. In any case, it is equally foolish, or perhaps even moreso, to assume that a resolution so foolishly radicalized as what you advocate would pass. The Imperium would rather see those sensible Nations able to carry out affairs as necessary, and those nations that wish to believe themselves on a moral high ground of some sort to believe so, without unduly interfering with the powers of the State."

Sciongrad believes execution is a violation of human rights. We would not support a compromise resolution on slavery or genocide. We will not accept one on execution - at least not until it is empirically proven that such a resolution cannot succeed."

"Then your Government has an extremely warped view of what constitutes a Right. However, that has already been established in prior debates, so I will not linger upon it. In any case, if your delegation seeks only to proselytize a foolish position, rather than debate the draft, your presence is not necessary."

Sciongrad believes execution is a violation of human rights. We would not support a compromise resolution on slavery or genocide. We will not accept one on execution - at least not until it is empirically proven that such a resolution cannot succeed."

On the other hand, we agree with Kant. The death penalty is the only acceptable punishment for certain crimes. Our main issue with it is its permanence. Therefore, procedures to reduce the chances of 'getting it wrong' ought be promoted.

OOC:
I believe I've rather mentioned that such a thing is exactly what I'm after, I'm just not quite able to figure out how to go about it.

[Sciongrad]

Comparing execution to Biological Weapons is absolutely ridiculous, the two are entirely incomparable. In any case, it is equally foolish, or perhaps even moreso, to assume that a resolution so foolishly radicalized as what you advocate would pass. The Imperium would rather see those sensible Nations able to carry out affairs as necessary, and those nations that wish to believe themselves on a moral high ground of some sort to believe so, without unduly interfering with the powers of the State."

"They are different insofar as they are different issues, but that argument completely neglects my point. You have argued that the center course is the only viable political option. I have demonstrated that this is not always the case. You have not provided any evidence to substantiate the claim that the center course is the political default for any issue, let alone execution. Relentlessly accusing me of naivety is not an argument."

"Then your Government has an extremely warped view of what constitutes a Right. However, that has already been established in prior debates, so I will not linger upon it. In any case, if your delegation seeks only to proselytize a foolish position, rather than debate the draft, your presence is not necessary."

"Umm, if you're arguing that Sciongrad's positions on basic legal rights and national sovereignty are 'extreme,' you are in the minority. And if by stating that it is 'established that our views are extreme,' you mean the Imperium disagrees with our views, I suppose you're right. However, Sciongrad's views on national sovereignty, legal rights, and self-determination are mainstream. They are also not germane to this particular discussion.

I will also note that it is poor debate etiquette to simply ignore contrary opinions. This assembly does not work that way. I do not intend on debating the merits or ethics of execution as I understand that I will not change anyone's mind - my initial contribution in fact was merely a statement expressing our views. However, we still find it to be a violation of decorum to ask that an ambassador with contrary views stop debating against you. That may say more about your delegation's preparedness to defend this draft than about how 'proselytizing' my delegation is."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:
...I want to prohibit Member-States from executing people for things like, jaywalking, or punching some prick's lights out in a bar fight, but I can't think of a way to do that without creating a list of 'things it is okay to execute for', and I'd very much like to have some way to ensure that an overzealous state can't quickly execute someone for a crime they may not have committed, but it's rather late at the moment and I'm rather drawing a blank on that as well.

OOC: You figure out a way to do that, lemme know - I'll probably shamelessly reword it to salvage my asset forfeiture draft

[Losthaven]

"Sciongrad categorically opposes any replacement that does not absolutely outlaw execution."

This is our sentiment.

[Araraukar]

Further Prohibits Member States from;

• Sentencing any pregnant convicts to be executed,
• Any convicts lacking the mental capacity to comprehend their crime,
• Any convict under the age of majority,

Why the exceptions?

[Demostopia]

I for one veto this, Throwing Criminals in with the Giant Demostopian great wolves has been a nation pass time since the middle ages!

[Sciongrad]

Further Prohibits Member States from;

• Sentencing any pregnant convicts to be executed,
• Any convicts lacking the mental capacity to comprehend their crime,
• Any convict under the age of majority,

Why the exceptions?

"Why are there exceptions against executing children, pregnant women, and the mentally disabled?"

[Wallenburg]

Why the exceptions?

"Why are there exceptions against executing children, pregnant women, and the mentally disabled?"

"Yes," says Ogenbond plainly. "Why are there? Children and the mentally disabled are usually considered legally incompetent, are they not? How could you sentence them to death in the first place if they cannot be convicted?"

[Tinfect]

Why the exceptions?

"Why are there exceptions against executing children, pregnant women, and the mentally disabled?"

"The Imperium finds it prudent to maintain, at least, the provisions of the standing resolution on the matter, until such times as the goal of the draft can be better expressed."

[Sciongrad]

"Why are there exceptions against executing children, pregnant women, and the mentally disabled?"

"Yes," says Ogenbond plainly. "Why are there? Children and the mentally disabled are usually considered legally incompetent, are they not? How could you sentence them to death in the first place if they cannot be convicted?"

"Usually."

"Why are there exceptions against executing children, pregnant women, and the mentally disabled?"

"The Imperium finds it prudent to maintain, at least, the provisions of the standing resolution on the matter, until such times as the goal of the draft can be better expressed."

"I agree, I was asking that rhetorically."

[Araraukar]

"Yes," says Ogenbond plainly. "Why are there? Children and the mentally disabled are usually considered legally incompetent, are they not? How could you sentence them to death in the first place if they cannot be convicted?"

OOC: ^This. I should've worded it better, but was in a hurry.

IC: I don't see why being pregnant should prevent someone from being executed.

[Leppikania]

"Yes," says Ogenbond plainly. "Why are there? Children and the mentally disabled are usually considered legally incompetent, are they not? How could you sentence them to death in the first place if they cannot be convicted?"

OOC: ^This. I should've worded it better, but was in a hurry.

IC: I don't see why being pregnant should prevent someone from being executed.

"I would assume it's because of ethical concerns that arise from executing both the woman and the baby she is carrying.

"Upon further thought, though, that clause could be circumvented by forcing the woman to abort the fetus prior to her execution."

[Wallenburg]

"Yes," says Ogenbond plainly. "Why are there? Children and the mentally disabled are usually considered legally incompetent, are they not? How could you sentence them to death in the first place if they cannot be convicted?"

OOC: ^This. I should've worded it better, but was in a hurry.

IC: I don't see why being pregnant should prevent someone from being executed.

"In Wallenburg, common practice is to execute the criminal after the pregnancy has ended. We've never actually had to put that into motion, since we've never had someone receiving the death penalty while pregnant, but the theory still stands."

[Wallenburg]

"I would assume it's because of ethical concerns that arise from executing both the woman and the baby she is carrying.

"Upon further thought, though, that clause could be circumvented by forcing the woman to abort the fetus prior to her execution."

"Depending on the nature of the pregnancy, that would violate the clauses of On Abortion."

[Araraukar]

"In Wallenburg, common practice is to execute the criminal after the pregnancy has ended."

Why would you want to allow lawbreaker genes¹ to survive? Especially as death penalty usually is used just for the most egregious of crimes.

However, if that was the author's intention, then that one might be acceptable. The other exceptions wouldn't, on grounds already stated.

OOC: I'm trying my best to not let Araraukar's non-WA status get in the way too much, but this whole argument has no point of contact for PPU (killing a single plant of the hivemind, by the hivemind, is no worse than a human cutting their hair), and Araraukar actually follows the same principles as the WA resolution(s) when it comes to capital punishment. Only "what gets you executed" varies due to different cultural values - for example there's no such thing as treason in Araraukar, but causing an ecological catastrophe (to the tune of Exxon Valdez) intentionally or due to negligence, gets you the death penalty.

OOC disclaimer: This is entirely Janis's comment, not mine. Read further into the thread to see where that comes from.

[Wallenburg]

"In Wallenburg, common practice is to execute the criminal after the pregnancy has ended."

Why would you want to allow lawbreaker genes to survive? Especially as death penalty usually is used just for the most egregious of crimes.

However, if that was the author's intention, then that one might be acceptable. The other exceptions wouldn't, on grounds already stated.

Ogenbond's eyes widen in horror. "And they call me backwards! My God, Ambassador, that is a horrifically brutal idea! Newborns are not condemned to be criminals by their family blood. Sweet mother of Notch..."

[Tinfect]

Why would you want to allow lawbreaker genes to survive? Especially as death penalty usually is used just for the most egregious of crimes.

"Ambassador, criminal status is not hereditary."

However, if that was the author's intention, then that one might be acceptable. The other exceptions wouldn't, on grounds already stated.

"On what grounds can your government justify the execution of the mentally incompetent or children? And if your answer is 'to remove them from the gene pool', I do not believe there can be any benefit to continuing this discussion."

OOC: I'm trying my best to not let Araraukar's non-WA status get in the way too much, but this whole argument has no point of contact for PPU (killing a single plant of the hivemind, by the hivemind, is no worse than a human cutting their hair), and Araraukar actually follows the same principles as the WA resolution(s) when it comes to capital punishment. Only "what gets you executed" varies due to different cultural values - for example there's no such thing as treason in Araraukar, but causing an ecological catastrophe (to the tune of Exxon Valdez) intentionally or due to negligence, gets you the death penalty.

OOC:
This is something of a tangent, but, in the Imperium, mass ecological catastrophe is part of day-to-day operations when it comes to colonization. We don't even usually bother to remove native species before altering the Atmosphere to something we can actually live with. Obviously, due to some WA meddling, nowadays we'd have to repopulate the native species elsewhere, but the Imperium has no shortage of useless worlds to dump random species on, and as it turns out, there really is no such thing as a 'unique ecosystem' at a certain scale.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Sciongrad categorically opposes any replacement that does not absolutely outlaw execution."

Bell clears his throat and jerks his head in the direction of the Sciongrad delegation.

[Araraukar]

Ogenbond's eyes widen in horror. "And they call me backwards! My God, Ambassador, that is a horrifically brutal idea! Newborns are not condemned to be criminals by their family blood. Sweet mother of Notch..."

I wasn't talking about newborns. I was talking about fetuses. You know, unborn babies? I know for a fact your species does gestate - unless you were lying to me earlier. In any case, nobody's condemned because of what fuck-ups their parents were, but again, the issue is the pregnant individual, not their possible offspring.

OOC: Not going very far into this OOCly (and please everyone remember I don't RP Araraukar exactly according to my RL opinions!), but societal status in real life is unfortunately often inherited via things like unemployment, area where one lives their childhood/youth, the parents' values and world view, etc. If the parent is a criminal, views crime that benefits them as "not so bad" and passes on this world view to their offspring, the chances of that offspring becoming criminal themselves are much higher. This is just the justification for the RP, not me, the player, thinking it's written in stone.

In Araraukar would-be parents must pass a series of tests to acquire a parenting licence, which lets them have children. Any children born to parents without licence are taken away from them and given to people who have the licence but are unable to produce children on their own. The biological parents (yes, both) are then punished for breaking the law. But I'm not bringing this part into the debate, it's just background information for my IC ambassador's point of view. She's a single parent herself (no husband/significant other, that's why she's insistent on the title "miss").

"Ambassador, criminal status is not hereditary."

Perhaps your world is a perfect one and it isn't. In our world (OOC: and in RL) it often is, to one degree or another. My nation tries to be as fair as possible, and prevent problems arising, but we're not alone on our planet and thus have to deal with other nations and other peoples.

The other exceptions wouldn't, on grounds already stated.

"On what grounds can your government justify the execution of the mentally incompetent or children?"

It doesn't. When I said "already stated", I meant this:

"Children and the mentally disabled are usually considered legally incompetent, are they not? How could you sentence them to death in the first place if they cannot be convicted?"

OOC: This is something of a tangent, but, in the Imperium, mass ecological catastrophe is part of day-to-day operations when it comes to colonization.

OOC: Well, yeah, but your nation is an interstellar one. Araraukar's bound to one planet, and even then it's just one nation among many. I RP as though both the population and the land area are about twice that of India. The population isn't evenly spread out, though, to preserve as much "wilderness" as possible.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Sciongrad categorically opposes any replacement that does not absolutely outlaw execution."

Bell clears his throat and jerks his head in the direction of the Sciongrad delegation.

Parsons looks at him and is afraid that the good ambassador was being hanged by an invisible rope.

"Ambassador, criminal status is not hereditary."

Perhaps your world is a perfect one and it isn't. In our world (OOC: and in RL) it often is, to one degree or another. My nation tries to be as fair as possible, and prevent problems arising, but we're not alone on our planet and thus have to deal with other nations and other peoples.

OOC: I agree. Too much of the time, the unfair starting places of different social classes and the inequitable distribution of opportunity creates structural barriers against heritability of crime... certain neighbourhoods and areas, from a sociological lens, have an effect of producing crime, even with very different inhabitants over a long period of time. Social disorganisation theory may be relevant here.