[DITCHED] Proscription on Executions

[Sciongrad]

"Ambassador Schultz has consistently argued that one cannot support imprisonment if they oppose the death penalty on account of its irreversibility. I'm not exactly sure how else we're supposed to interpret that."

"The Ambassador has argued that such a position is hypocritical. That hardly equates to a demand that one either support capital punishment or oppose imprisonment, as was previously asserted. It is quite possible to be a hypocrite. Some would even find it preferable."

"It is only hypocritical if we accept that policy can only be made based on one-dimensional ideological absolutes. I reject that. Sciongrad wants the fewest innocent people to die as a result of punishment, within reason. We can simultaneously support imprisonment and reject the death penalty while also placing a premium on protecting the lives of the innocent."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Yes, that's actually exactly what that means."

"I don't think we're on the same page about what reversal means in this context. Can the punishment be undone? Execution? No. Imprisonment? Yes! Exoneration is reversing a punishment. No one here is suggesting that reversal means physically undoing the punishment. "

"No, that's a lessening of punishment. Someone who gets out of prison early due to good behavior didn't have their punishment reversed, merely lessened. It's the same for those who were found innocent."

"Apples and oranges. Letting someone out of prison early was, firstly, included in their sentence, i.e. 10 years with the possibility of parole. That cannot be a reversal because the punishment was carried out fully. But even then, "lessening" a punishment is a reversal of the initial punishment. You seem to be under the impression that reversibility in this context means a convicted individual needs to physically receive back what the punishment took from them (e.g. time, the memory of pain, death). No one is arguing that. When we say reversibility, we mean whether or not the individual can be exculpated and exonerated."

"A person can be exonerated even after they've been executed. So, if exoneration is the requirement to be reversible, executions are reversible."

"My question to you is why you think it is acceptable for people to serve prison sentences that can never be reversed, but want to prohibit executions for the same reason. If people die in prison and exoneration never helps them out, isn't that reason to eliminate prisons?"

"The intent of a prison sentence is generally not the kill the prisoner. Execution necessarily prevents the possibility of exoneration. Its intent is to be final. Imprisonment does not necessarily involve death, and any death that occurs is typically not deliberate. In fact, extant legislation requires member nations to ensure that prisoners are healthy. Even life sentences allow prisoners the possibility of exculpation and exoneration.

"The intent of execution is not to kill an innocent person. But you are arguing that because there are cases where something unintended happened, execution should be banned. So I argue that, if that is your reasoning, why do you not oppose prison sentences because something unintended happens sometimes?"

But as I have said maybe 30 times, Sciongrad does not formulate its criminal justice policy based on competing one dimensional absolutes. Disabuse yourself of the notion that a nation must support the most extreme possible position to be intellectually consistent. Do people die in prison? Sure, that is not the intent, but sure.

"And yet you want nations to ban execution for the reason that because some innocent people occasionally die, when that was not the intent? Who is supporting the most extreme possible position here?"

But significantly fewer innocent people die by the hands of the state than if Sciongrad executed its prisoners.

"How many fewer?"

I will also note that it's quite telling that you've never actually defended your position from criticism that it regularly kills the innocent."

"Alright. Execution in Excidium Planetis does not regularly kill the innocent. I won't argue that it is perfect, but high resolution video and advanced forensic techniques have allowed our law enforcement and judicial system to sentence the correct person in the vast majority of cases. For those very rare cases where a person was wrongly executed, I simply don't see it as an issue requiring a complete ban on executions. Just as you overlook the rare cases of the innocent dying in prison because the benefit of prisons outweighs the harm in false convictions, Excidium Planetis overlooks the rare cases of those being wrongly executed because the benefits of Execution outweigh the potential harm. I'd rather an innocent man die than ten thousand murderers live."

[Sciongrad]

"A person can be exonerated even after they've been executed. So, if exoneration is the requirement to be reversible, executions are reversible."

"The legal rights of the dead are not the object of this discussion. You know quite well that when we say exoneration, we also mean freeing the prisoner."

"The intent of execution is not to kill an innocent person. But you are arguing that because there are cases where something unintended happened, execution should be banned. So I argue that, if that is your reasoning, why do you not oppose prison sentences because something unintended happens sometimes?"

"For the 500th time, SCIONGRAD DOES NOT FORMULATE POLICY BASED ON COMPETING ONE DIMENSIONAL ABSOLUTES. Execution necessarily and arbitrarily ends one's due process. Prison does not. If someone dies in prison, it is not because the state willed it so. Fewer innocent people will die without execution than with it. I honestly don't know how else to say this."

...the benefits of Execution outweigh the potential harm...

"Would you care to expand on the benefits of execution?"

"And yet you want nations to ban execution for the reason that because some innocent people occasionally die, when that was not the intent? Who is supporting the most extreme possible position here?"

"If you believe it is more important that the state kill the guilty than protect the innocent, you are."

"I'd rather an innocent man die than ten thousand murderers live."

"Sciongrad will not debate the value of the lives of innocent people."

[Jarish Inyo]

Why should tax payers be burden with housing, feeding and medical for life when evidence shows that an individual is guilty or that individual has confessed?

[Separatist Peoples]

Why should tax payers be burden with housing, feeding and medical for life when evidence shows that an individual is guilty or that individual has confessed?

"Because evidence can be wrong."

[Aclion]

"That is your opinion, Ambassador. Some here consider certain criminals too despicable or dangerous to be allowed to live."

"That is the kind of mentality that turns execution into a tool of oppression. The very idea that the government can, with shocking ease, consider an individual unworthy of life is just as bad as considering an individual unworthy of any number of other rights. If you trade "live" with any number of other rights the World Assembly has recognized, the entire claim becomes a lot more dark. Too despicable or dangerous to face trial. Too despicable or dangerous to have the right to freedom of assembly. Too despicable or dangerous to have the right to a particular bodily sovereignty. Ok, that one doesn't quite roll off the tongue, but you get the gist. Indeed, the death penalty is the ultimate violation of bodily sovereignty.

"That line of thinking is exactly what the World Assembly has been trying to stamp out, ambassador. Can you not see that?"

If only nations had to meet some sort of standard in order to levy punishment on them.

[Ovybia]

Why should tax payers be burden with housing, feeding and medical for life when evidence shows that an individual is guilty or that individual has confessed?

"Because evidence can be wrong."

"That is not true, ambassador. Evidence, by definition, cannot be non-evidence. The problems may occurs with the conclusions from the evidence."

[Jarish Inyo]

And if the individual confessed? Should the tax payers have to pay for that individual for the rest of their life?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Because evidence can be wrong."

"That is not true, ambassador. Evidence, by definition, cannot be non-evidence. The problems may occurs with the conclusions from the evidence."

"I see we're going to be pedantic for pedantry's sake. Out of curiosity, what possible benefit has that picked nit provided to the discussion?"

And if the individual confessed? Should the tax payers have to pay for that individual for the rest of their life?

"Can you prove that the individual did not confess to protect another? Out of a misplaced sense of guilt for another issue? For the sake of martyrdom? There are reasons one might do so falsely. It is not justice to serve these situations with a healthy dose of death."

[Ovybia]

"That is not true, ambassador. Evidence, by definition, cannot be non-evidence. The problems may occurs with the conclusions from the evidence."

"I see we're going to be pedantic for pedantry's sake. Out of curiosity, what possible benefit has that picked nit provided to the discussion?"

It's clarified the discussion. With enough evidence carefully considered, it is possible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the existence of evidence can be doubted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be impossible.

[Jarish Inyo]

It is justice to apply the death penalty. It's an injustice to make tax payers pay for said individuals for the rest of their natural lives.

And yes, you can prove if someone is confessing to the changes. There are things that only the police and criminal would know. After all, the police don't make everything they know known to the public.

[Tinfect]

"If it is the stance of Sciongrad that the use of execution must be prohibited where there is the possibility of innocents being executed, we must question why your government opposes execution in those cases where there is no doubt, such as for high-treason, or crimes of war?
Where there is overwhelming evidence of the crimes, such that there can be no doubt that is not deliberately constructed without basis, such as those, why must a Member State be prevented from delivering the appropriate sentence?"

[Sciongrad]

"If it is the stance of Sciongrad that the use of execution must be prohibited where there is the possibility of innocents being executed, we must question why your government opposes execution in those cases where there is no doubt, such as for high-treason, or crimes of war?
Where there is overwhelming evidence of the crimes, such that there can be no doubt that is not deliberately constructed without basis, such as those, why must a Member State be prevented from delivering the appropriate sentence?"

"The death penalty's irreversibility is not the only reason Sciongrad's opposes it. Sciongrad also objects to the notion that the state should be able to kill its own citizens."

[Tinfect]

"The death penalty's irreversibility is not the only reason Sciongrad's opposes it. Sciongrad also objects to the notion that the state should be able to kill its own citizens."

"Then your Government would support the ability of a state to execute War Criminals not holding citizenship in the prosecuting Nation? In any case, the citizens of a state are subject to its laws, and the protections and requirements thereof. The state is perfectly justified in the execution of those that violate the laws they are subject to.
While the Imperium sees the logic, and supports the position that oppressive states must not be allowed to execute citizens for basic crimes, we fail to see the reasoning by which one would oppose the execution of those that violate the few highest laws held by a reasonable State."

[Excidium Planetis]

"A person can be exonerated even after they've been executed. So, if exoneration is the requirement to be reversible, executions are reversible."

"The legal rights of the dead are not the object of this discussion. You know quite well that when we say exoneration, we also mean freeing the prisoner."

"Alright. So then, if a person is charged a fine and later found to have been innocent, they can't be 'exonerated', making fines, the most easily reversible punishment, not reversible according to your meaning of exonerated. Clearly, there are problems with this definition of exonerated, which doubtless arise from the fact that you tailored that definition to serve as an argument against execution.

"So, execution necessarily results in an eventual state in which a person is no linger able to be freed. You then defined exoneration as including freeing someone, so that you could then say that those sentenced to execution cannot be exonerated. Do you see the problem here?

"I would go on about how by that definition of exonerated, many who either served out their prison time in full or died in prison cannot be exonerated, but this argument is going in circles."

"The intent of execution is not to kill an innocent person. But you are arguing that because there are cases where something unintended happened, execution should be banned. So I argue that, if that is your reasoning, why do you not oppose prison sentences because something unintended happens sometimes?"

"For the 500th time, SCIONGRAD DOES NOT FORMULATE POLICY BASED ON COMPETING ONE DIMENSIONAL ABSOLUTES.

"I'm not talking about Sciongrad's policy. I am merely pointing out that the argument you use here against execution can be used against prison sentences, but no one accepts the argument as valid when used against prison sentences, even though the argument is the same. That's a double standard."

Execution necessarily and arbitrarily ends one's due process. Prison does not.

"Death arbitrarily ends one's due process, and death is inevitable. The state cannot prevent the death of a prisoner any more than they can prevent a wrongful execution. In both cases, it is merely bad luck which results in an innocent person serving a sentence which can never be reversed. But you insist on banning execution because of a few cases of bad luck, and do not insist on banning prison sentences because of that bad luck."

If someone dies in prison, it is not because the state willed it so.

"If an innocent person is executed, it is not because the state willed it so. If you are to argue that the state's lack of ill intent absolves it of any wrongdoing, then there is no wrong in execution."

Fewer innocent people will die without execution than with it. I honestly don't know how else to say this.

"More innocent people will die, because criminals will get a second chance to commit a crime."

...the benefits of Execution outweigh the potential harm...

"Would you care to expand on the benefits of execution?"

"No repeat offenders; lower prison costs allowing funding to be diverted to other, better things, such as education."

"And yet you want nations to ban execution for the reason that because some innocent people occasionally die, when that was not the intent? Who is supporting the most extreme possible position here?"

"If you believe it is more important that the state kill the guilty than protect the innocent, you are."

"I believe the state should kill the guilty to protect the innocent. I don't think that's an extreme position."

"I'd rather an innocent man die than ten thousand murderers live."

"Sciongrad will not debate the value of the lives of innocent people."

"And yet you enact policies which are more dangerous for the innocent. You do hold to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', right? Then all your citizens who walk free and have not been convicted are innocent people, and their lives are put at risk each time you release a violent criminal to the public."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I see we're going to be pedantic for pedantry's sake. Out of curiosity, what possible benefit has that picked nit provided to the discussion?"

It's clarified the discussion. With enough evidence carefully considered, it is possible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the existence of evidence can be doubted, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be impossible.

"It was pointless. Instead f saying the evidence was wrong, I can now clarify to say the conclusions derived were wrong. You could have made your point without picking nits. When considering all the evidence, it is equally possible to derive an incorrect determination."

It is justice to apply the death penalty. It's an injustice to make tax payers pay for said individuals for the rest of their natural lives.

And yes, you can prove if someone is confessing to the changes. There are things that only the police and criminal would know. After all, the police don't make everything they know known to the public.

"It is not justice to kill the innocent. Unless your people are claiming papal infallibility, mistakes can be made. So long as mistakes can be made, execution is an unacceptable risk to the very concept of justice."

[Jarish Inyo]

And it's just to force people to pay to keep the guilty housed, fed and healthy?

[Separatist Peoples]

And it's just to force people to pay to keep the guilty housed, fed and healthy?

"Because that is what taxpayers do: pay money to benefit society, even if it does not necessarily benefit them directly. The alternative is libertarian anarchy, which is nigh impossible for a modern day, centralized WA member to accomplish. Certainly, the enforcement of WA law makes a true anarchy impossible.

"Besides, depending on the abilities of your law enforcement to maintain order, the end result is a de minimis amount of money per individual. How many individuals has Jarish Inyo incarcerated?"

[Sandaoguo]

It's as eloquent as a response to a facetious and bad faith argument needs to be.

"I don't think you know what 'facetious' means, Ambassador."

My undying hope is that people who make these kinds of arguments are actually sitting at their chairs laughing about it, and don't think they're being clever or insightful.

There is literally no point in trying to argue that I need to oppose all imprisonment if I oppose executions because they can't be reversed upon exoneration. And yes, that's exactly what you're arguing when you call me a hypocrite.

I've been here far too long to entertain that style of play. Getting twisted up in philosophical mind games is pointless. We're here to legislate and debate actual policy. If I wanted to waste hours debating philosophy instead of improving text and running a campaign, I'd go back to school.

[Wallenburg]

"I don't think you know what 'facetious' means, Ambassador."

My undying hope is that people who make these kinds of arguments are actually sitting at their chairs laughing about it, and don't think they're being clever or insightful.

"Ambassador, I am not laughing. If you were paying attention, you could tell that. Furthermore, I hardly see how an ad hominem line of attack is in any way a suitable response to my statement."

There is literally no point in trying to argue that I need to oppose all imprisonment if I oppose executions because they can't be reversed upon exoneration.

"I did not make that argument, nor is it relevant to my statement. Again, you would know this if you were paying attention."

And yes, that's exactly what you're arguing when you call me a hypocrite.

"I never called you a hypocrite. Try again, preferably with less lying."

I've been here far too long to entertain that style of play. Getting twisted up in philosophical mind games is pointless. We're here to legislate and debate actual policy. If I wanted to waste hours debating philosophy instead of improving text and running a campaign, I'd go back to school.

"How the hell is the definition of 'facetious' a matter of philosophical debate? Ambassador, your arguments rest on pillars of sand at best and, more often, nothing at all."

[Araraukar]

"It is only hypocritical if"

OOC: It's hypocritical, but like Wallenburg already said, that's ok. Politicians tend to be hypocritical in real life, it's fine to RP as one.

You won't (at least ICly) agree to death penalty, nor will SP. That's also fine. Now can we please stop going around in circles?

IC: Anyone who's ok with killing people in a war but is against the death penalty, clearly needs to do some arguing with theirself. However, anyone who's willing to trust their justice system enough to sentence someone into a prison for life, should be willing to trust their justice system enough to sentence someone to death. The idea is that both will end with the prisoner dying in prison. One just happens sooner than the other. Usually.

[Losthaven]

"It is only hypocritical if"

OOC: It's hypocritical, but like Wallenburg already said, that's ok. Politicians tend to be hypocritical in real life, it's fine to RP as one.

You won't (at least ICly) agree to death penalty, nor will SP. That's also fine. Now can we please stop going around in circles?

IC: Anyone who's ok with killing people in a war but is against the death penalty, clearly needs to do some arguing with theirself. However, anyone who's willing to trust their justice system enough to sentence someone into a prison for life, should be willing to trust their justice system enough to sentence someone to death. The idea is that both will end with the prisoner dying in prison. One just happens sooner than the other. Usually.

One also allows for the possibility that a mistake can be recognized and corrected. The other only allows for the possibility that a mistake can be recognized. When talking about the difference between life and death, that's a pretty relevant difference.

[Kaboomlandia]

Kenny's proposal is passing by miles, so this is scrapped unless C&P gets repealed sometime.

[Separatist Peoples]

Kenny's proposal is passing by miles, so this is scrapped unless C&P gets repealed sometime.

"Hopefully it does. However, its not very likely. Justice will have to wait another day, I guess."

[SchutteGod]

Justice will have to wait another day, I guess."

Or more accurately, three days from never. Because the World Assembly will never pass a law stripping nations of their right to execute dangerous criminals.