[DITCHED] Proscription on Executions

[Sciongrad]

"You based your opposition to the death penalty on it being 'torture' and irreversible. The ambassador from Excidium Planetis explained how imprisonment could be considered torture and irreversible. You then countered that by saying, 'Well, it isn't the same!'. That is special pleading."

"Almost everything you said in that statement was incorrect. Sciongrad does not oppose the death penalty because we believe it is torture, it opposes whipping as a punishment because it is torture. Ambassador Schultz accused Sciongrad of opposing prison sentences because we believe execution should be proscribed despite the fact that I have explained on several occassions - including at least once to you - why prison sentences are more reversible than executions and that Sciongrad does not base its criminal justice policies on absolute principles. And finally, your analysis of my counter argument is reductive. I countered that Sciongrad does not develop policy based on absolute principles. Sciongrad believes execution should be proscribed in part because it is irreversible. It recognizes that imprisonment is also, to a significantly lesser extent, irreversible. However, someone that has been exonerated of a crime can still live their life if they were sentenced to prison and a just government can compensate them. Execution is absolutely irreversible. Claiming that my argument is "special pleading" is only true if nations are totally incapable of viewing policy issues with a modicum of nuance. Sciongrad does not subscribe to the warped absolutism that you and ambassador Schultz have been peddling this entire debate."

[Separatist Peoples]

Sciongrad does not subscribe to the warped absolutism that you and ambassador Schultz have been peddling this entire debate."

"The entire Sciongrad delegation is welcome to join me at the Bar for a respite from the warped absolutism. It has driven me to drink."

[Kaboomlandia]

I've filed to yank this:

1. My telegram campaign was kind of half-assed (I only got to about five pages of delegates because I was lazy).
2. I'm not going to beat Kenny's proposal to quorum running a manual campaign.

I may or may not re-add Clause 3 in to clarify on extrajudicial killings.

[Herby]

I've filed to yank this:

1. My telegram campaign was kind of half-assed (I only got to about five pages of delegates because I was lazy).
2. I'm not going to beat Kenny's proposal to quorum running a manual campaign.

I may or may not re-add Clause 3 in to clarify on extrajudicial killings.

What? Nooooo, they got a legality challenge on their hands! You gotta jump right back in line dude in case his gets pulled!

[SchutteGod]

Yeah, this proposal worries me so much. Even if mine does get pulled, I'm gonna have so much fun watching this thing crash and burn before I resubmit.

In fact, if it does end up crashing and burning, I might not even resubmit at all. Because if it turns out that the WA is as hell-bent against a capital punishment ban as I think it is, then we may as well just let nations go back to burning people at the stake. FREEDOM!

[Excidium Planetis]

"You based your opposition to the death penalty on it being 'torture' and irreversible. The ambassador from Excidium Planetis explained how imprisonment could be considered torture and irreversible. You then countered that by saying, 'Well, it isn't the same!'. That is special pleading."

"Almost everything you said in that statement was incorrect. Sciongrad does not oppose the death penalty because we believe it is torture, it opposes whipping as a punishment because it is torture. Ambassador Schultz accused Sciongrad of opposing prison sentences because we believe execution should be proscribed despite the fact that I have explained on several occassions - including at least once to you - why prison sentences are more reversible than executions and that Sciongrad does not base its criminal justice policies on absolute principles.

"I never accused your nation of opposing prison sentences. I asked a rhetorical question to highlight your inconsistent reasoning. You oppose the death penalty for being irreversible but do not oppose prison sentences for being irreversible.

"And let's not pretend that they are. You can never give back someone the time they lost in prison, barring time manipulation. 100% irreversible.

"Now, you may yet argue that while not irreversible, a person wrongly sentenced to prison can at least have a part of their sentence eliminated, going free early because their guilt was cleared. But this is not the case when a prisoner died in prison, as you can't free a dead person.

"I will anticipate your counter argument: such cases are the exception rather than the rule, most prison sentences can be cut short when a wrongful conviction is revealed. But I respond with the argument that wrongful convictions leading to execution are the exception rather than the rule, and you favor banning capital punishment for fear of a few irreversible mistakes but do not favor banning prisons for fear of a few irreversible mistakes."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

:lol: Yeah, this proposal worries me so much. Even if mine does get pulled, I'm gonna have so much fun watching this thing crash and burn before I resubmit.

In fact, if it does end up crashing and burning, I might not even resubmit at all. Because if it turns out that the WA is as hell-bent against a capital punishment ban as I think it is, then we may as well just let nations go back to burning people at the stake. FREEDOM!

Do note that a number of nations were also opposed to appealing previous legislation. Claiming that those opposed to this proposal are burning people at the stake is a false dichotomy.

The Confederacy opposes this proposal on the grounds that it is an unjustified violation of autonomy. However, we would support a proposal that would put restrictions on how an execution is performed to insure the least amount of suffering, and possibly mandate that any nation with the capability of doing so implement a method of reversing an execution should their method of execution make such a thing possible.

[Bears Armed]

"Sciongrad does not oppose the death penalty because we believe it is torture, it opposes whipping as a punishment because it is torture."

And yet for urrs Bears, prolonged imprisonment is 'torture' -- often resulting in madness -- and whipping is therefore the more humane option..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Naturally, it goes without saying that from our previous statements that we oppose an outright ban on executions. A greater series of regulations and guarantee of just and due process is something which this delegation would support, even something so far as a ban on crimes not considered treason or murder, but not an outright ban irrespective of national context.

[Sandaoguo]

Judges are no more infallible or amoral than jurors.

There is no way to ensure innocent people will not be executed. That's what this boils down to. Absent that, there's is no justification to allow execution.

There is no way to ensure innocent people will not be imprisoned. That's what this boils down to. Absent that, there's is no justification to allow imprisonment.

If somebody is imprisoned wrongly, and evidence appears to show that, then that person can be set free and given just restitution. If that person was executed instead, then what can be done? "Oops, our bad"?

[Excidium Planetis]

There is no way to ensure innocent people will not be imprisoned. That's what this boils down to. Absent that, there's is no justification to allow imprisonment.

If somebody is imprisoned wrongly, and evidence appears to show that, then that person can be set free and given just restitution. If that person was executed instead, then what can be done? "Oops, our bad"?

"If a man is sentenced to 20 years in prison, serves 19 and then dies in prison, and is later exonerated, what can be done? 'Oops, our bad'?"

[Umeria]

Requires that all member states immediately cease and desist executing criminals under any circumstances.

Um, I don't know why this wasn't pointed out before, but why is it limited to criminals? If a government wants to execute someone, they could just order their death without arresting them first, and it would be legal. Right?

[Glen-Rhodes]

If somebody is imprisoned wrongly, and evidence appears to show that, then that person can be set free and given just restitution. If that person was executed instead, then what can be done? "Oops, our bad"?

"If a man is sentenced to 20 years in prison, serves 19 and then dies in prison, and is later exonerated, what can be done? 'Oops, our bad'?"

Accidents of nature aren't an argument. The real question here is what can be done for the wrongfully imprisoned. Compensation, housing, job placement, job training, education...

None of that can be done if the state kills them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Excidium Planetis]

"If a man is sentenced to 20 years in prison, serves 19 and then dies in prison, and is later exonerated, what can be done? 'Oops, our bad'?"

Accidents of nature aren't an argument. The real question here is what can be done for the wrongfully imprisoned. Compensation, housing, job placement, job training, education...

None of that can be done if the state kills them.

"It isn't nature's fault that the man wrongfully served 19 years in prison. That was the fault of the state, which cannot repay the man for his time.

"Also, what if the man died because he was in prison? Say he was killed by an inmate. The state then is directly responsible for A) making an innocent man serve 19 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and B) the man dying, thus ensuring he cannot be compensated for his sentence.

"The argument remains: Prison time cannot be returned to the wrongfully convicted. To denounce the death penalty because it can't be reversed and yet support prisons is hypocrisy."

[Sandaoguo]

"The argument remains: Prison time cannot be returned to the wrongfully convicted. To denounce the death penalty because it can't be reversed and yet support prisons is hypocrisy."

This is dumb.

On the one hand, you have somebody who can live out the rest of their life. On the other, you have a dead corpse.

QED.

[Excidium Planetis]

"The argument remains: Prison time cannot be returned to the wrongfully convicted. To denounce the death penalty because it can't be reversed and yet support prisons is hypocrisy."

This is dumb.

On the one hand, you have somebody who can live out the rest of their life.

You still can't give them back their time.
Also, if they died in prison, so they have no 'rest of their life' to live.

[Wallenburg]

"The argument remains: Prison time cannot be returned to the wrongfully convicted. To denounce the death penalty because it can't be reversed and yet support prisons is hypocrisy."

This is dumb.

"How eloquent and sagacious of you to say that, Ambassador."

On the one hand, you have somebody who can live out the rest of their life. On the other, you have a dead corpse.

QED.

"And if the prisoner dies before his sentence is rescinded?"

[Sciongrad]

You still can't give them back their time.

"That's not what anyone is arguing. Simply because one can't receive lost time back doesn't mean the punishment is irreversible. Being exonerated and freed is a partial reversal of the punishment. A just government will also compensate these individuals. Due process can continue while the individual is in prison and they can continue to benefit from the introduction of new exculpatory evidence. Capital punishment is irrevocable. It cannot be reversed. A prison sentence can be reversed, even if one can't regain lost time."

Also, if they died in prison, so they have no 'rest of their life' to live.

"The purpose of imprisonment is not to be an irrevocable punishment. Of course it is tragic when the innocent die in prison, but their sentence was not intended to be irreversible. A prison sentence is not inherently irreversible. Capital punishment is. Capital punishment, by its very nature, is irrevocable and limits an individual's due process by arbitrarily placing state imposed barriers on when that individual can continue to receive it. While an innocent person may or may not die in prison, an innocent person sentenced to death will always die. Especially in nations with limited appeals processes, individuals sentenced to death do not have the benefit of being exonerated down the road. So yes, innocent people might die in prison, but the nature of their punishment is not meant to be irreversible and they always benefit from the possibility of exoneration. A death sentence is meant to be irreversible and necessarily ends an individual's ability to be exonerated."

EDIT: grammar

[Excidium Planetis]

You still can't give them back their time.

"That's not what anyone is arguing. Simply because one can't receive lost time back doesn't mean the punishment is irreversible.

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

Being exonerated and freed is a partial reversal of 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."

A just government will also compensate these individuals.

"A just government would compensate the families of those wrongly executed. But compensation isn't the same as reversal, is it? After all, a mother can never spend time watching her children grow up after they've already grown into adults while she was serving a sentence for a crime she didn't commit, and money can't fix that."

"The purpose of imprisonment is not to be an irrevocable punishment. Of course it is tragic when the innocent die in prison, but their sentence was not intended to be irreversible. A prison sentence is not inherently irreversible.

"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?"

While an innocent person may or may not die in prison, an innocent person sentenced to death will always die.

"Ambassador, everyone dies, but that's hardly a profound statement. An individual sentenced to Execution may or may not be exonerated prior to their execution date."

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is dumb.

"How eloquent and sagacious of you to say that, Ambassador."

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

If you want to argue that I either need to support execution or oppose imprisonment altogether, you're not a serious person worth the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Excidium Planetis]

"How eloquent and sagacious of you to say that, Ambassador."

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

"Bad faith? We aren't complying with a resolution here, we are discussing the merits of execution versus a prison sentence."

If you want to argue that I either need to support execution or oppose imprisonment altogether, you're not a serious person worth the time.

"That's not my argument. For example, states which argue that the state has no right to take the lives of citizens, even those who are murderers, are justified in supporting prisons and opposing execution. States which focus on rehabilitation of criminals are also justified in doing so. States which believe executions are more costly are also justified, if they can demonstrate that the cost is actually higher than keeping the criminal in prison.

"My argument is that reversibility is not a sound reason to support prison over execution."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Schultz tries to ignore the Type 1 Reality Rift in the corner.

[Sciongrad]

"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."

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

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."

"Ambassador, everyone dies, but that's hardly a profound statement. An individual sentenced to Execution may or may not be exonerated prior to their execution date."

"Their execution date arbitrarily limits their due process. Someone cannot be exonerated after the state has killed them."

"Bad faith? We aren't complying with a resolution here, we are discussing the merits of execution versus a prison sentence."

"The term 'bad faith' does not exclusively refer to interpreting resolutions."

[Wallenburg]

"How eloquent and sagacious of you to say that, Ambassador."

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."

If you want to argue that I either need to support execution or oppose imprisonment altogether, you're not a serious person worth the time.

"Neither I nor Ambassador Schultz has argued that. Do not pretend that we have."

[Sciongrad]

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

"Don't be fresh. Dr. Castro is suggesting that Ambassador's Schultz is making an argument in bad faith. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to assume that he also believes Ambassador Schultz must be facetious to make such a ridiculous argument."

"Neither I nor Ambassador Schultz has argued that. Do not pretend that we have."

"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."

[Wallenburg]

"Neither I nor Ambassador Schultz has argued that. Do not pretend that we have."

"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."