[DRAFT] Appropriate Punishment Act

[Quelesh]

I'm relatively confident that Ambassador Flibble is drafting this proposal merely as a deterrent, and has no intention of actually submitting it. I'm also relatively confident that this proposal would be illegal if submitted.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Flibbleites]

I'm relatively confident that Ambassador Flibble is drafting this proposal merely as a deterrent, and has no intention of actually submitting it. I'm also relatively confident that this proposal would be illegal if submitted.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

And you'd be wrong, I don't draft anything unless I'm willing to submit it. And as for your claims of illegality, I've already addressed them and until the Secretariat tells me that my interpretation is wrong, I'm standing by it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Of course, I would not be involved in any such Secretariat decisions.

[Quelesh]

It seems pretty clear to me how the proposal is illegal. Clause 4:

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal penalties as long as the penalties comply with clauses 1 and 2.

allows member states to use any punishments they want, with absolutely no restrictions other than those in clauses 1 and 2.

Clauses 1 and 2:

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,

would be the only restrictions on member states' ability to impose criminal punishments. Clauses 1 and 2 do not prevent torture, so long as it "fits the crime," (with the determination of whether it does left to member state discretion), and so long as it's not a "disproportionate" punishment for a "relatively minor crime" (with what constitutes a relatively minor crime and what punishments are disproportionate being left to member state discretion).

Clause 4, therefore, allows torture, so long as the torture complies with clauses 1 and 2. In fact, I would also say that this proposal is illegal for contradicting GAR114 "On Female Genital Mutilation," because clause 4 allows, e.g., nonconsensual clitoridectomies as punishments for crimes (so long as it "fits the crime" and is not a "disproportionate" punishment for a "relatively minor crime").

It's also illegal for contradicting GAR19 "Child Protection Act," as clause 4 allows for the "sexual abuse of a child" as a punishment for a crime committed by the child, so long as clauses 1 and 2 are followed. In fact, it allows for the "sexual abuse of a child" (or even the execution of a child) as punishment for a crime committed by the child's parent, again so long as clauses 1 and 2 are followed.

There are likely a host of other extant resolutions that this proposal is illegal for contradicting.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Philimbesi]

Wouldn't reasonable nation theory stipulate that if the WA has already passed regulations against all that you've outlined it would make doing that not an Appropriate Punishment.

After all something that's illegal isn't appropriate correct?

Nigel S Youlkin
USP Ambassador

[Kryozerkia]

It seems pretty clear to me how the proposal is illegal. Clause 4:

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal penalties as long as the penalties comply with clauses 1 and 2.

allows member states to use any punishments they want, with absolutely no restrictions other than those in clauses 1 and 2.

Clauses 1 and 2:

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,

would be the only restrictions on member states' ability to impose criminal punishments. Clauses 1 and 2 do not prevent torture, so long as it "fits the crime," (with the determination of whether it does left to member state discretion), and so long as it's not a "disproportionate" punishment for a "relatively minor crime" (with what constitutes a relatively minor crime and what punishments are disproportionate being left to member state discretion).

Clause 4, therefore, allows torture, so long as the torture complies with clauses 1 and 2. In fact, I would also say that this proposal is illegal for contradicting GAR114 "On Female Genital Mutilation," because clause 4 allows, e.g., nonconsensual clitoridectomies as punishments for crimes (so long as it "fits the crime" and is not a "disproportionate" punishment for a "relatively minor crime").

It's also illegal for contradicting GAR19 "Child Protection Act," as clause 4 allows for the "sexual abuse of a child" as a punishment for a crime committed by the child, so long as clauses 1 and 2 are followed. In fact, it allows for the "sexual abuse of a child" (or even the execution of a child) as punishment for a crime committed by the child's parent, again so long as clauses 1 and 2 are followed.

There are likely a host of other extant resolutions that this proposal is illegal for contradicting.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Interesting interpretation, but that's all it is, is your own personal interpretation.

The rule on duplication means that there is no feasible and legal way for the Appropriate Punishment Act to contain any language prohibiting the practice of torture as it's is clearly already covered in resolution #9, which you've acknowledged. So, with that already covered, we can take the fourth clause to mean that a nation can determine the appropriate punishment for the crime, so long the adopted law is in compliance with all current General Assembly resolutions.

Your arguments surrounding resolution #19 is another fine example of grasping at a life preserver that's fast looking buoyancy. The Child Protection Act makes it very explicit that any form of child abuse, whether physical, mental or sexual is outright prohibited. The final provision of that resolution makes no secret of the fact that children will be removed from their parent's or guardian's custody if the provisions of the resolution are violated. You are right on the account that children could be executed for crimes they commit, but not as punishment for the crimes of the parent, as that would be disproportionate.

It's not a secret that you disagree with the proposal and would rather see your own proposal banning the practice of execution on the books, but you discredit your interpretations by ignoring the fact that unless a resolution has been repealed, a nation should theoretically be in compliance and therefore there is no reason to provide a second statement to outlaw torture in a bill that is clearly designed to address the topic of execution.

tl;dr - it doesn't contradict resolution #9.

[Moronist Decisions]

Thanks for the legal answer. However, I do have a question. If this were passed, would it block a replacement, say, of "Treatment of Inmates" if it were to be repealed?

[Bears Armed]

Meanwhile, in the Strangers' Bar...

[Quelesh]

Wouldn't reasonable nation theory stipulate that if the WA has already passed regulations against all that you've outlined it would make doing that not an Appropriate Punishment.

After all something that's illegal isn't appropriate correct?

This proposal would not require punishments to be "appropriate," despite the title. Punishments would only need to "fit the crime," and not be a "disproportionate" response to a "relatively minor crime."

Interesting interpretation, but that's all it is, is your own personal interpretation.

The rule on duplication means that there is no feasible and legal way for the Appropriate Punishment Act to contain any language prohibiting the practice of torture as it's is clearly already covered in resolution #9, which you've acknowledged. So, with that already covered, we can take the fourth clause to mean that a nation can determine the appropriate punishment for the crime, so long the adopted law is in compliance with all current General Assembly resolutions.

Clause 4 doesn't contain the requirement that the punishment be in compliance with existing international law, though. It just says "free reign," which implicitly includes torture, or anything else, no matter how outlandish.

You are right on the account that children could be executed for crimes they commit, but not as punishment for the crimes of the parent, as that would be disproportionate.

Not necessarily. If a person is convicted of murdering someone else's child, then that person's own child could be executed as punishment, and that would be "proportionate" (at least in a member state that sees children as property).

It's not a secret that you disagree with the proposal and would rather see your own proposal banning the practice of execution on the books, but you discredit your interpretations by ignoring the fact that unless a resolution has been repealed, a nation should theoretically be in compliance and therefore there is no reason to provide a second statement to outlaw torture in a bill that is clearly designed to address the topic of execution.

This proposal doesn't mention execution at all, though. It's not about execution, it's about criminal punishments, and specifically about allowing member states to do anything they want to people so long as it's for criminal punishment.

Thanks for the legal answer. However, I do have a question. If this were passed, would it block a replacement, say, of "Treatment of Inmates" if it were to be repealed?

Yes. (OOC: notamod.) "Treatment of Inmates" prohibits, e.g. withholding food and water from inmates, but this proposal allows for food and water to be withheld as a part of criminal punishment, so if Treatment of Inmates were ever repealed, it could not be replaced, because it would be illegal for contradicting this proposal.

If GAR9 were to be repealed, it would not be able to be replaced either. Even if Kryo's interpretation is accurate, upon the repeal of GAR9 this proposal would allow torture, which means that a proposal banning torture would be illegal for contradicting this one.

If GAR114 were to be repealed, it would not be able to be replaced. This proposal would then allow nonconsensual clitoridectomies as punishment for a crime, which means that a proposal banning nonconsensual clitoridectomies would be illegal for contradicting this one.

The same is true of GAR19. If GAR19 were repealed, this proposal would allow the violent rape of children as punishment for a crime, which means that a proposal banning forcible child rape would be illegal for contradicting this one.

In fact, I think that's another argument for the illegality of this proposal: it pretty much completely closes off the Human Rights category. This proposal would allow any human rights violation as a punishment for a crime, so just about any future Human Rights proposal would be illegal for contradicting this one.

I also think there's a category violation here: this proposal takes away human rights, in a very dramatic and severe fashion.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Philimbesi]

This proposal would not require punishments to be "appropriate," despite the title. Punishments would only need to "fit the crime," and not be a "disproportionate" response to a "relatively minor crime."

Right so... in other words... appropriate,

At least to those not trying to spin it against their views... even when they've been told they were wrong.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

@Quelesh: hence my previous suggestion:

So as not to violate GR's executions resolution or, potentially, other criminal-justice mandates passed by the WA:

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal penalties as long as the penalties comply with clauses 1 and 2 and conditions set by previous WA legislation.

[Quelesh]

@Quelesh: hence my previous suggestion:

So as not to violate GR's executions resolution or, potentially, other criminal-justice mandates passed by the WA:

4) ALLOWS WA member nations free reign in determining criminal penalties as long as the penalties comply with clauses 1 and 2 and conditions set by previous WA legislation.

That change would resolve the first legality issue I brought up, though Kryo says that it's not necessary. I think it would still be illegal anyway, though, due to category violation (it takes away human rights from people), and for essentially closing off the Human Rights category (any future proposal banning a human rights violation would be illegal for contradicting this one).

[Kryozerkia]

Thanks for the legal answer. However, I do have a question. If this were passed, would it block a replacement, say, of "Treatment of Inmates" if it were to be repealed?

It would probably depend on the wording.

@Quelesh: hence my previous suggestion:

So as not to violate GR's executions resolution or, potentially, other criminal-justice mandates passed by the WA:

Always a viable option, though it is implicit in my opinion. If used, it doesn't detract from the proposal and clarifies the language.

That change would resolve the first legality issue I brought up, though Kryo says that it's not necessary. I think it would still be illegal anyway, though, due to category violation (it takes away human rights from people), and for essentially closing off the Human Rights category (any future proposal banning a human rights violation would be illegal for contradicting this one).

On the one hand, yes, it does. On the other, it can be interpreted as protecting minor offenders against punitive punishment, which does protect their human rights. It is unreasonable to sentence someone to hard labour for jaywalking.

Clause 4 doesn't contain the requirement that the punishment be in compliance with existing international law, though. It just says "free reign," which implicitly includes torture, or anything else, no matter how outlandish.

It's implicit. Just as it's implicit with the implementation of GAR80 that science will be taught in addition to the curriculum already outlined as it's covered by GAR48.

Not necessarily. If a person is convicted of murdering someone else's child, then that person's own child could be executed as punishment, and that would be "proportionate" (at least in a member state that sees children as property).

However, the state would be violating GAR19 by taking the child away when the parent hasn't actually abused the child.

This proposal doesn't mention execution at all, though. It's not about execution, it's about criminal punishments, and specifically about allowing member states to do anything they want to people so long as it's for criminal punishment.

Again, it's implicit. Criminal punishment can be anything, subject to prior law. If the punishment is torture then the state is in violation of GAR9, only if GAR9 is repealed, otherwise torture is not an option for criminal punishment. Even without the "subject to prior international legislation" or similar language, the proposal's provisions are still restricted by prior legislation that hasn't been repealed.