[DRAFT] Appropriate Punishment Act

[Glen-Rhodes]

What is a 'relatively minor crime'? What is 'disproportionate sentencing'? They're subjective, that's what they are.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

...only if you assume that all member states have screwy bureaucracies like the CSA telling them what to do.

The language is well within the bounds of reasonable nation theory; i.e., no "reasonable nation" could argue with a straight face that cutting out a suspect's tongue is a "proportionate" sentence for the "relatively minor crime" of spitting on the sidewalk.* As this resolution is intended as a "blocker" to give nations appropriate latitude on criminal sentencing rather than micromanaging the process, making the resolution top-heavy with definitions is not the route we want to follow here.

*hmm, has the WA banned cruel and unusual punishments yet?

[Glen-Rhodes]

The language is well within the bounds of reasonable nation theory; i.e., no "reasonable nation" could argue with a straight face that cutting out a suspect's tongue is a "proportionate" sentence for the "relatively minor crime" of spitting on the sidewalk.*

It wouldn't harm that nation to do so, especially if they already do it, in comparison to how much it would 'harm' them to institute fair punishments. So, I don't think the reasonable nation theory/convention would mean anything here. Yes, the likes of us would laugh them out of the hall, but that doesn't force them to change their ways.

As this resolution is intended as a "blocker" to give nations appropriate latitude on criminal sentencing rather than micromanaging the process, making the resolution top-heavy with definitions is not the route we want to follow here.

Making the resolution completely useless in doing anything other than preventing the World Assembly from doing something shouldn't be the route you want to follow, either.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It wouldn't harm that nation to do so, especially if they already do it, in comparison to how much it would 'harm' them to institute fair punishments. So, I don't think the reasonable nation theory/convention would mean anything here. Yes, the likes of us would laugh them out of the hall, but that doesn't force them to change their ways.

Were this comment not in the face of years of Moderation rulings that reasonable nation theory, in fact, means everything, and that resolutions do not need to be written to satisfy the conceits of unreasonable nations, I might be taking you seriously here. But hey, why start now?

Making the resolution completely useless in doing anything other than preventing the World Assembly from doing something shouldn't be the route you want to follow, either.

Good thing that's not what we're doing.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Were this comment not in the face of years of Moderation rulings that reasonable nation theory, in fact, means everything, and that resolutions do not need to be written to satisfy the conceits of unreasonable nations, I might be taking you seriously here. But hey, why start now?

Sure, resolutions don't have to be written 'to satisfy the conceits of unreasonable nations', but an 'unreasonable nation' in this case is pretty much any nation ever. There is nothing in the proposal that suggests what on earth a 'disproportionate sentence' is. In Glen-Rhodes, executing rapists is a bit much, but in other nations it's not.

Extrapolate that out: in some nations, it's perfectly proportionate to execute a man who has an affair with another man's virgin fiancé; in others nations, it's not. Just because it's not reasonable to OMGTKK does not mean it's not reasonable elsewhere. Ignoring that is just a plain old bad idea. This proposal would do nothing but legislate the status quo and prevent the WA from actually being effective in penal law, which I'm guessing is the entire point.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Enn]

OOC: Definitely in favour of this. Clear and to-the-point. I'm not sure as yet how I'm going to extricate myself from the IC hole I've dug however. Might be time for Enn's new government to start making demands.

[Urgench]

Were this comment not in the face of years of Moderation rulings that reasonable nation theory, in fact, means everything, and that resolutions do not need to be written to satisfy the conceits of unreasonable nations, I might be taking you seriously here. But hey, why start now?

Sure, resolutions don't have to be written 'to satisfy the conceits of unreasonable nations', but an 'unreasonable nation' in this case is pretty much any nation ever. There is nothing in the proposal that suggests what on earth a 'disproportionate sentence' is. In Glen-Rhodes, executing rapists is a bit much, but in other nations it's not.

Extrapolate that out: in some nations, it's perfectly proportionate to execute a man who has an affair with another man's virgin fiancé; in others nations, it's not. Just because it's not reasonable to OMGTKK does not mean it's not reasonable elsewhere. Ignoring that is just a plain old bad idea. This proposal would do nothing but legislate the status quo and prevent the WA from actually being effective in penal law, which I'm guessing is the entire point.

- Dr. B. Castro

How exactly could it be a good thing for the WA to be effective in penal law as your Excellency puts it? Why should it be in the business of issuing sentence guidelines and why if the WA started down that road could it logically be restricted to capital punishment? Surely it would have to issue sentencing guidance for every crime known to the law, no? The WA is not a world government and should not by some creeping sense of entitlement usurp every function of its member states governments. No good argument could be produced to us to suggest that the WA should begin the process of totally reordering the judicial and penal systems of its member states, and we have always been either opposed to such efforts or ambivalent about them.

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

How exactly could it be a good thing for the WA to be effective in penal law as your Excellency puts it? Why should it be in the business of issuing sentence guidelines ...

A thing called human rights.

... and why if the WA started down that road could it logically be restricted to capital punishment? Surely it would have to issue sentencing guidance for every crime known to the law, no?

If this body sees it fit to do so. I probably would not support such resolutions. After all, I have continually lobbied for allowing nations to choose whether or not capital punishment is legal in their nations, but to prevent the gross misuse of it (and thus upholding common human rights principles).

The WA is not a world government and should not by some creeping sense of entitlement usurp every function of its member states governments. No good argument could be produced to us to suggest that the WA should begin the process of totally reordering the judicial and penal systems of its member states, and we have always been either opposed to such efforts or ambivalent about them.

I am assuming, then, that the CSKU stands in opposition to Mr. Flibble's proposal? It 'prevents' -- and I use the term loosely -- misuse, while still upholding choice. It's a simplified version of what Mr. Heir and I have worked on. However, in this case, striving to 'K.I.S.S.' is really just a race to the bottom.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Eraplevok]

Glen-Rhodes is right, useless piece of legislation. The proposal is all relative.

Who decides what is fair? This would require a judiciary body of the WA which I oppose. A judiciary body implies that the WA doesnt trust member nations to be just. It also means WA judisprudence comes before a nation's judisprudence. Soon the WA will find some way to form an executive body or "executive" body to enforce its laws, because it no longer trusts it's member nations to enforce law. The judiciary body of the WA will only be oppression

[Enn]

Glen-Rhodes is right, useless piece of legislation. The proposal is all relative.

Who decides what is fair? This would require a judiciary body of the WA which I oppose. A judiciary body implies that the WA doesnt trust member nations to be just. It also means WA judisprudence comes before a nation's judisprudence. Soon the WA will find some way to form an executive body or "executive" body to enforce its laws, because it no longer trusts it's member nations to enforce law. The judiciary body of the WA will only be oppression

... or, on the other hand, it leaves member-states to come to their own conclusions as to how best to meet the requirements of this proposal. Much like most passed resolutions, excepting those with committees.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

[Flibbleites]

Glen-Rhodes is right, useless piece of legislation. The proposal is all relative.

Who decides what is fair? This would require a judiciary body of the WA which I oppose. A judiciary body implies that the WA doesnt trust member nations to be just. It also means WA judisprudence comes before a nation's judisprudence. Soon the WA will find some way to form an executive body or "executive" body to enforce its laws, because it no longer trusts it's member nations to enforce law. The judiciary body of the WA will only be oppression

... or, on the other hand, it leaves member-states to come to their own conclusions as to how best to meet the requirements of this proposal. Much like most passed resolutions, excepting those with committees.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn

And before anyone suggests it, I'm stating right now that I absolutly will not put a committee in this proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Represemtative

[Urgench]

A thing called human rights.

Issuing sentencing guidelines will not protect human rights Dr Castro. Besides this organisation has more than enough regulations regarding the proper administration of justice to afford significantly more protection of human rights in that context than issuing sentencing guidelines could ever hope to do.

If this body sees it fit to do so. I probably would not support such resolutions. After all, I have continually lobbied for allowing nations to choose whether or not capital punishment is legal in their nations, but to prevent the gross misuse of it (and thus upholding common human rights principles).

"Misuse" of execution is an entirely internally self contradictory concept. One either believes it is right to execute some kinds of criminal or one does not. What your Excellency describes as misuse is merely what your Excellency thinks is immoral. Make that point honestly and dispense with the euphemism of "misuse".

I am assuming, then, that the CSKU stands in opposition to Mr. Flibble's proposal? It 'prevents' -- and I use the term loosely -- misuse, while still upholding choice. It's a simplified version of what Mr. Heir and I have worked on. However, in this case, striving to 'K.I.S.S.' is really just a race to the bottom.

- Dr. B. Castro

No we support honoured Ambassador Flibble's proposal because the momentum behind regulation in this area has become apparently unstoppable (not least because of the honoured delegation of Glen Rhodes and other delegation's hysterical rush to compete with one another to abrogate national jurisprudence to ever greater extents), and honoured Ambassador Flibble's proposal forces member states to submit to the most reasonable level of regulation.


Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Issuing sentencing guidelines will not protect human rights Dr Castro. Besides this organisation has more than enough regulations regarding the proper administration of justice to afford significantly more protection of human rights in that context than issuing sentencing guidelines could ever hope to do.

If the CSKU does not think the execution of children is a human rights issue, then I suppose there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise.

"Misuse" of execution is an entirely internally self contradictory concept. One either believes it is right to execute some kinds of criminal or one does not. What your Excellency describes as misuse is merely what your Excellency thinks is immoral. Make that point honestly and dispense with the euphemism of "misuse".

So, again, I would imagine the CSKU would be against Ambassador Flibble's proposal, since it inherently tries to prevent the 'misuse' of criminal punishments. But that obviously is not so:

No we support honoured Ambassador Flibble's proposal because ... [his] proposal forces member states to submit to the most reasonable level of regulation.

But, unless Ambassador Flibble's intent is to create a weak resolution that no member nation really has to pay any attention to, his proposal not only approaches capital punishment the same way other delegations have, but his proposal also regulates the entire gamut of criminal punishment. So, 'the most reasonable level of regulation' must be synonymous, to the CSKU, with 'the highest level of regulation'. Which begs the question: why would other proposals, dealing with only a single criminal punishment, be of a less 'reasonable level of regulation', when the regulations within them are magnitudes lower than that found within this proposal?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Urgench]

If the CSKU does not think the execution of children is a human rights issue, then I suppose there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise.

There is no need to put words in our mouth Dr Castro, and besides we suspect you know full well we do not support execution of children. We have made the point already that we don't believe it is necessary to issue sentencing guidelines to prevent such abuses.

So, again, I would imagine the CSKU would be against Ambassador Flibble's proposal, since it inherently tries to prevent the 'misuse' of criminal punishments. But that obviously is not so:

And your Excellency suspects that we would be more favourable to the overweening nonsense produced by the honoured delegations of Glen Rhodes and Unibot?

But, unless Ambassador Flibble's intent is to create a weak resolution that no member nation really has to pay any attention to, his proposal not only approaches capital punishment the same way other delegations have, but his proposal also regulates the entire gamut of criminal punishment. So, 'the most reasonable level of regulation' must be synonymous, to the CSKU, with 'the highest level of regulation'. Which begs the question: why would other proposals, dealing with only a single criminal punishment, be of a less 'reasonable level of regulation', when the regulations within them are magnitudes lower than that found within this proposal?

- Dr. B. Castro

your Excellency is entitled to twist the truth to make your point, but we believe that this resolution is the most reasonable of all those currently before this organisation on the issue of capital punishment. It is a simple as that.

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

There is no need to put words in our mouth Dr Castro, and besides we suspect you know full well we do not support execution of children. We have made the point already that we don't believe it is necessary to issue sentencing guidelines to prevent such abuses.

Then how do you prevent them? This proposal does not prevent it (it doesn't even try to), and neither do any other previously passed resolutions.

And your Excellency suspects that we would be more favourable to the overweening nonsense produced by the honoured delegations of Glen Rhodes and Unibots?

More favorably, no; that's obviously your choice. But the reasons to stand in opposition to it and the other proposals don't align with the reasons you stand in favor of this one. I'm simply trying to point out that inconsistency.

your Excellency is entitled to twist the truth to make your point, but we believe that this resolution is the most reasonable of all those currently before this organisation on the issue of capital punishment. It is a simple as that.

And that is fine. But you cannot say that it doesn't carry with it less regulation than any of the other proposals, without somebody pointing out how illogical that statement is. Less words does not equal less regulation or less 'abrogation of national jurisprudence'. In this case, it just means less effectiveness.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Urgench]

There is no need to put words in our mouth Dr Castro, and besides we suspect you know full well we do not support execution of children. We have made the point already that we don't believe it is necessary to issue sentencing guidelines to prevent such abuses.

Then how do you prevent them? This proposal does not prevent it (it doesn't even try to), and neither do any other previously passed resolutions.

And your Excellency suspects that we would be more favourable to the overweening nonsense produced by the honoured delegations of Glen Rhodes and Unibots?

More favorably, no; that's obviously your choice. But the reasons to stand in opposition to it and the other proposals don't align with the reasons you stand in favor of this one. I'm simply trying to point out that inconsistency.

your Excellency is entitled to twist the truth to make your point, but we believe that this resolution is the most reasonable of all those currently before this organisation on the issue of capital punishment. It is a simple as that.

And that is fine. But you cannot say that it doesn't carry with it less regulation than any of the other proposals, without somebody pointing out how illogical that statement is. Less words does not equal less regulation or less 'abrogation of national jurisprudence'. In this case, it just means less effectiveness.

- Dr. B. Castro

As you see fit Dr Castro, as you see fit.


Yours,

[Flibbleites]

Issuing sentencing guidelines will not protect human rights Dr Castro. Besides this organisation has more than enough regulations regarding the proper administration of justice to afford significantly more protection of human rights in that context than issuing sentencing guidelines could ever hope to do.

If the CSKU does not think the execution of children is a human rights issue, then I suppose there is nothing I could do to convince you otherwise.

And I'm sure that any reasonable nation would consider the execution of a child to be an inappropriate punishment

"Misuse" of execution is an entirely internally self contradictory concept. One either believes it is right to execute some kinds of criminal or one does not. What your Excellency describes as misuse is merely what your Excellency thinks is immoral. Make that point honestly and dispense with the euphemism of "misuse".

So, again, I would imagine the CSKU would be against Ambassador Flibble's proposal, since it inherently tries to prevent the 'misuse' of criminal punishments. But that obviously is not so:

No we support honoured Ambassador Flibble's proposal because ... [his] proposal forces member states to submit to the most reasonable level of regulation.

But, unless Ambassador Flibble's intent is to create a weak resolution that no member nation really has to pay any attention to, his proposal not only approaches capital punishment the same way other delegations have, but his proposal also regulates the entire gamut of criminal punishment. So, 'the most reasonable level of regulation' must be synonymous, to the CSKU, with 'the highest level of regulation'. Which begs the question: why would other proposals, dealing with only a single criminal punishment, be of a less 'reasonable level of regulation', when the regulations within them are magnitudes lower than that found within this proposal?

- Dr. B. Castro

Could it be, because mine is the most "hands off" approach?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Seriously? You're playing the "Think of the children" card?

[Neutonica]

This delegate fully supports the intent of this proposal, and would like to congratulate Mr. Flibble on a job well done. This proposal, if it ever gets passed, would shut the whole capital punishment debate up, this delegate hopes.

However, as stated by Glen-Rhodes, "reasonable" is completely subjective, as with "disproportionate". What may be "reasonable" or "proportionate" to a particular country may not be so for a different one. Is cutting someone's fingers off for stealing a suitable punishment? If one looks from a particular point of view, it is completely fine. "An eye for an eye" and all that jazz. But if one believes that the judicial system should not harm or maim any persons when it comes to punishment, then obviously, the punishment becomes "unreasonable".

Furthermore, even the classification of certain acts as crimes may cause controversy. Take the example of the burqa ban. If these acts cannot be universally acknowledged as crimes, can there be a consensus for "reason" and "proportion" then?

If this "subjectivity" continues, then it would be akin to not having a binding resolution at all. Perhaps, it would be better if Mr. Flibble clearly defines what is meant by "reasonable" and "disproportionate", and add a clause limiting the proposal to universally acknowledged crimes, like murder, manslaughter, theft, and/or white-collar crime. Subsequently, WA delegates would be able to debate on those terms.

Before that is done, this delegate would not pronounce any judgment on the proposal.

Dr Isaac Corrigan
Delegate of Neutonica

[Quadrimmina]

This resolution does nothing to prevent a banning resolution. It's the most hands off because it almost does nothing. We are sorry to have to oppose it, in favor of our "Capital Punishment Accords".

[Glen-Rhodes]

Could it be, because mine is the most "hands off" approach?

So why bother with all the fluff about proportionality? Why not just write, "Nations should be allowed to execute whoever the hell they want, for whatever reason they want", if that's what your actually going for?

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Seriously? You're playing the "Think of the children" card?

OOC: Or think of the pregnant women, mentally ill, mentally challenged, etc. etc. Children are just waaay cuter.

[Hindopia]

I fully agree with Glen-Rhodes. Currently worded, this legislation will do little, if not nothing, to stop disproportionate punishments. Indeed, the word is subjective and therefore can be easily circumvented by member nations, rending the proposal useless.

Acting Ambassador James Vargas, for Hindopia

[Urgench]

And that is fine. But you cannot say that it doesn't carry with it less regulation than any of the other proposals, without somebody pointing out how illogical that statement is. Less words does not equal less regulation or less 'abrogation of national jurisprudence'. In this case, it just means less effectiveness.

- Dr. B. Castro

Let us be clear shall we Dr Castro? By your logic we should support one of the numerous other resolutions on this issue because they contain more words and contain exponentially greater amounts of micro-management of national sentencing guidelines, even though it is our expressed opinion that we do not support such measures?

And by your Excellency's use of the term "effectiveness" are we to read "wholly unnecessary and substantial interference in member states' jurisprudence and sentencing guidelines"? Or is "effectiveness" now an indication of how total the presumption contained within a resolution is that WA member states are incapable of being reasonable?


Yours,

[Manticore Reborn]

After reviewing the edited proposal, the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn feels that this proposal is about the best we are going to see coming from this august assembly. We therefore wish to go on record as in support of this draft.

[Philimbesi]

Or is "effectiveness" now an indication of how total the presumption contained within a resolution is that WA member states are incapable of being reasonable?

In addition to the assumed lack of reason, the ambassador forgets that for some of the nations in this body, effectiveness is measured by the ability of member nations to allow us to make the hard decisions for them. Concise resolutions devoid of sub-clauses and multiple definitions of terms that are pretty self explanatory in the first place, as well as those who don't create yet another precious GA committee are scary.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I fully agree with Glen-Rhodes. Currently worded, this legislation will do little, if not nothing, to stop disproportionate punishments. Indeed, the word is subjective and therefore can be easily circumvented by member nations, rending the proposal useless.

Heh... I'm reminded of a song my high-school buddies used to sing:

Strangers in the night...Rending my nalgas...

The word is "rendering".