[DITCHED] Proscription on Executions

[Kaboomlandia]

Proscription on Executions

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed By: Kaboomlandia

The World Assembly,

Noticing the moral divide surrounding the issue of capital punishment;

Knowing that sentencing convicted criminals to death is an irreversible judgment;

Aware that no species is infallible in their judgment, and that innocent beings may be wrongly put to death for crimes they did not commit;

Disturbed that some states resort to summary or extrajudicial killing to punish the accused;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines "execution" as a government-sanctioned punishment of death as a judicial sentence;
   
   
2. Requires that all member states immediately cease and desist executing criminals under any circumstances.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I am fully aware that this is currently illegal for contradiction. However, this is intended as a replacement if Christian Democrats' repeal passes.

Proscription on Executions

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed By: Kaboomlandia

The World Assembly,

Noticing the moral divide surrounding the issue of capital punishment;

Aware that no species is infallible in their judgment, and that innocent beings may be wrongly put to death for crimes they did not commit;

Disturbed that some states resort to summary or extrajudicial killing to punish the accused;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines "execution" as a government-sanctioned punishment of death as a judicial sentence;
   
   
2. Requires that all member states immediately cease and desist executing criminals under any circumstances;
   
   
3. Prohibits member states from summarily or extrajudicially killing the accused or convicted to bypass Clause 2.

[Wallenburg]

Illegal, and you know it.

[Kaboomlandia]

Illegal, and you know it.

It is now, but it won't be if CD's repeal gets through.

[Werftkrieg]

Proscription on Execution

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed By: Kaboomlandia

The World Assembly,

Noticing the moral divide surrounding the issue of capital punishment;

Aware that no species is infallible in their judgment, and that innocent beings may be wrongly put to death for crimes they did not commit;

Disturbed that some states resort to summary or extrajudicial killing to punish the accused;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines "execution" as a government-sanctioned punishment of death as a judicial sentence;
   
   
2. Requires that all member states immediately cease and desist executing criminals under any circumstances;
   
   
3. Prohibits member states from summarily or extrajudicially killing the accused or convicted to bypass Clause 2.

Thoughts?

Premier Tanner would like to know if you have any relatives that you are particularly fond of, and, if so, where do they live?

[Separatist Peoples]

Premier Tanner would like to know if you have any relatives that you are particularly fond of, and, if so, where do they live?

"That sounds dangerously like a threat to commit an act of war. Something that would go very poorly for your nation."

[Kaboomlandia]

Premier Tanner would like to know if you have any relatives that you are particularly fond of, and, if so, where do they live?

"That sounds dangerously like a threat to commit and act of war. Something that would go very poorly for your nation."

OOC: Yeah, when my defense spending ($80.972 trillion) is larger than your entire GDP ($74.9 trillion), declaring war may not be such a good idea...

[Araraukar]

OOC: Yeah, when my defense spending ($80.972 trillion) is larger than your entire GDP ($74.9 trillion), declaring war may not be such a good idea...

OOC: Just fire the Ignore Cannon and be done with the pissing contest.

[Sandaoguo]

I would vote for this. Very simple and to-the-point.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If this is a judicial measure to address executions, why would a ban on extrajudicial killing hold any force? Extrajudicial killings are already, by definition, not legally authorized."

[Ovybia]

This is exactly the reason why I am opposing CD's repeal. I was worried that the repeal would be used as an excuse to go extreme and ban all executions.

[Kaboomlandia]

"If this is a judicial measure to address executions, why would a ban on extrajudicial killing hold any force? Extrajudicial killings are already, by definition, not legally authorized."

The reason why I included that clause is that the only thing currently stopping summary or extrajudicial execution is the current Convention on Execution up for repeal, which also happens to be the only thing blocking this from being submitted.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If this is a judicial measure to address executions, why would a ban on extrajudicial killing hold any force? Extrajudicial killings are already, by definition, not legally authorized."

The reason why I included that clause is that the only thing currently stopping summary or extrajudicial execution is the current Convention on Execution up for repeal, which also happens to be the only thing blocking this from being submitted.

"If all executions are banned, then it would necessarily follow that extrajudicial and summary executions are also banned, then."

This is exactly the reason why I am opposing CD's repeal. I was worried that the repeal would be used as an excuse to go extreme and ban all executions.

"Not sure what is so extreme about removing a tool of oppression from the arsenal of oppressive governments."

[Kaboomlandia]

Point taken. Clause 3 removed.

[Mikoyansk]

"Why should the WA attempt to dictate national policy like this? We will oppose this measure as it once again, in common with the rest of the dribble coming from this body, attempting to legislate morality through tyranny by majority."

[Ovybia]

"Not sure what is so extreme about removing a tool of oppression from the arsenal of oppressive governments."

Why don't we ban guns? Those can also be used as a tool of oppression.

The real solution is to have a balance. Create a WA proposal that only allows execution for the worst crimes. And, whatever happened to the Reasonable Nation Theory? Do oppressive governments only exist when they suit your purpose, ambassador?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why should the WA attempt to dictate national policy like this? We will oppose this measure as it once again, in common with the rest of the dribble coming from this body, attempting to legislate morality through tyranny by majority."

"Because the World Assembly has a vested interest in limiting the tools of oppression. Issues of domestic jurisdiction, such as forced disappearance, torture, incarceration without trial, suppression of civil and political rights, and institutionalized discrimination are nonetheless considered international issues because they are tools used to deliberately oppress people that have no legitimate or moral use in governance. Execution is another tool of coercion a state can hold over the head of dissidents, undesirables, and political challengers, and the World Assembly has a vested interest in stopping it.

"Additionally, the World Assembly has taken a stand on ensuring and standardizing legal rights, such as habeus corpus, double jeopardy, and a variety of similar decisions. Execution is a punishment that has no means of recourse in the event that the defendant has been wrongfully accused. This makes it self, by definition, a punishment that denies an individual any chance at restitution. This is not acceptable in a civilized society that has alternatives."

"Not sure what is so extreme about removing a tool of oppression from the arsenal of oppressive governments."

Why don't we ban guns? Those can also be used as a tool of oppression.

The real solution is to have a balance. Create a WA proposal that only allows execution for the worst crimes. And, whatever happened to the Reasonable Nation Theory? Do oppressive governments only exist when they suit your purpose, ambassador?

"Firearms have a very legitimate use as a tool outside of oppression. Execution does not. That is a poor corollary, ambassador. Yet again you are abusing the Reasonable Nation Theory, which does not state that all nations operate as rational democracies with respect to human rights. It is a tool by which an author can judge whether a potential loophole is frivolous to attempt to close, such as criminalizing ant squashing in an animal cruelty law, or whether the loophole is genuine. It specifically states that a nation will not deliberately misinterpret a draft in such a manner as to be detrimental to themselves. Please stop talking about concepts you know nothing about, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

Why don't we ban guns? Those can also be used as a tool of oppression.

The real solution is to have a balance. Create a WA proposal that only allows execution for the worst crimes. And, whatever happened to the Reasonable Nation Theory? Do oppressive governments only exist when they suit your purpose, ambassador?

"Firearms have a very legitimate use as a tool outside of oppression. Execution does not. That is a poor corollary, ambassador. Yet again you are abusing the Reasonable Nation Theory, which does not state that all nations operate as rational democracies with respect to human rights. It is a tool by which an author can judge whether a potential loophole is frivolous to attempt to close, such as criminalizing ant squashing in an animal cruelty law, or whether the loophole is genuine. It specifically states that a nation will not deliberately misinterpret a draft in such a manner as to be detrimental to themselves. Please stop talking about concepts you know nothing about, ambassador."

"Execution has a legitimate use as a form of criminal justice."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Execution has a legitimate use as a form of criminal justice."

"It is a fundamentally unjust and flawed punishment, as I've outlined in a previous exchange, ambassador. So long as just alternatives exist, it is not a legitimate option. And just alternatives always exist."

[Wallenburg]

"Execution has a legitimate use as a form of criminal justice."

"It is a fundamentally unjust and flawed punishment, as I've outlined in a previous exchange, ambassador. So long as just alternatives exist, it is not a legitimate option. And just alternatives always exist."

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

[Imperium Anglorum]

"It is a fundamentally unjust and flawed punishment, as I've outlined in a previous exchange, ambassador. So long as just alternatives exist, it is not a legitimate option. And just alternatives always exist."

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

OOC: Or, if we borrow Kant's argument, the only just punishment for murder is death. Not punishing a murder by death is a miscarriage of justice.

[Separatist Peoples]

"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?"

[Wallenburg]

"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?"

"By your line of thinking, depriving a criminal of his freedom of movement is 'a tool of oppression'. Tell me, Ambassador, without prisons, how does your nation protect your people from criminals?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

"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?"

I think there is a very large difference between what the Wallenburgarian (?, beats me) said and what you've responded with. Probably the slippery slope here. However, I agree with the philosopher Kant (blah blah blah, complain complain, IC-OOC split, he now exists in my universe, so ha!) on this topic. A summary here, since the original is really really long— (Parsons puts it on the screen)

Kant absolutely insists on capital punishment of murderers. According to Kant "whoever has committed murder, must die" (Kant, 1996), because no matter how difficult life might be, it is still better than death: "However many they may be who have committed a murder, or have even commanded it, or acted as art and part in it, they ought all to suffer death" (Kant, 1996). A court decision is mandatory for punishing a murderer. A society that does not sentence a murderer to death turns into an accomplice of this crime.

Kant quotes the opinion of an Italian lawyer Beccaria Cesare that nobody has a right to deprive a person of a right to live, therefore death penalty is unjust. Kant sharply criticizes this opinion and calls it "Sophistic". According to Kant it is not clear why a state should not have a right to kill a murderer. He does not accept the argument that nobody would be willing to sign a contract with the state if it included a provision allowing the state to kill him.

In Kant's opinion a death penalty is justified only regarding murder and not any other crime, unless it causes a very substantial damage to the society. It is impossible to allow a situation where a murderer would be entitled to any legal rights and would be able to justify his actions. Kant believes that we cannot possibly replace capital punishment. If the death penalty is abolished what could be used instead? Life imprisonment is an extremely shameful measure, worse that a death penalty. Suppose there are two prisoners sentenced to death. One prefers death and the other is ready to accept shameful life in prison to survive. Whish one of the two is better? Kant thinks that the first: "I say that the man of honor would choose death, and the knave would choose servitude" (Kant, 1996). Based on this logic Kant concludes that by abolishing capital punishment we impose an even more severe punishment which is unfair because a murderer deserves death and not something worse.

A person sentenced to death might agree to allow usage of his body for medical experiments (if he hopes to survive). Such medical experiments might be beneficial to the society, but Kant considers this unacceptable because justice will not be justice if it is sold for a price.

According to Kant there are circumstances when a murderer deserves lighter penalty. E.g. sometimes a mother kills her child to avoid shame; people die fighting a duel to defend their honor etc. In these cases law provides for milder punishment but as the time passes, the society becomes more and more liberated from those indulgences and the principle requiring capital punishment for murderers is still valid.

If a criminal is not punished it means that the society has a controversial nature. This way the society undermines itself. If punishment of an innocent person is a mistake of justice administration, failure to punish a criminal indicates that the absence of justice, which is worse than mistake.

...

A punishment must always correspond to the crime. It is a mistake to impose different punishment for the same crime, even in those cases when the criminal has no honor. E.g. let's get back to the above example when one prisoner prefers death and the other shameful life imprisonment. A death sentence would be an equal punishment for the both, but a life imprisonment will not, because it would be a more severe punishment for the first prisoner, who prefers death. Therefore, when a sentence is passed on rebels a death sentence would be highest measure.

In Kant's opinion for a murderer sentenced to death it is unallowable to appeal for pardon or lighter punishment. If the murderer is pardoned or a lighter punishment is set, the justice will be in a ridiculous condition. Legal authorities have no right to allow such a situation but if they still choose to do so, it means that legal authorities contradict themselves. Legal authorities must not violate justice, arbitrariness regarding justice can not be allowed. A legal system must strictly abide by the law, because observation of laws is an expression of justice.

[Separatist Peoples]

"By your line of thinking, depriving a criminal of his freedom of movement is 'a tool of oppression'. Tell me, Ambassador, without prisons, how does your nation protect your people from criminals?"

"Incarceration. Which is not a tool of oppression, because the World Assembly has legislated sufficiently on the legal process to ensure that such a proceeding is fair and open, and which is fundamentally reversible, as we can release the wrongfully incarcerated immediately. Sufficient steps have been taken by the World Assembly to deprive members of using incarceration as a tool of oppression. The same cannot be said of execution, as no steps can be taken to redress such a punishment."

"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?"

I think there is a very large difference between what the Wallenburgarian (?, beats me) said and what you've responded with. Probably the slippery slope here. However, I agree with the philosopher Kant (blah blah blah, complain complain, IC-OOC split, he now exists in my universe, so ha!) on this topic. A summary here, since the original is really really long— (Parsons puts it on the screen)

Kant absolutely insists on capital punishment of murderers. According to Kant "whoever has committed murder, must die" (Kant, 1996), because no matter how difficult life might be, it is still better than death: "However many they may be who have committed a murder, or have even commanded it, or acted as art and part in it, they ought all to suffer death" (Kant, 1996). A court decision is mandatory for punishing a murderer. A society that does not sentence a murderer to death turns into an accomplice of this crime.

Kant quotes the opinion of an Italian lawyer Beccaria Cesare that nobody has a right to deprive a person of a right to live, therefore death penalty is unjust. Kant sharply criticizes this opinion and calls it "Sophistic". According to Kant it is not clear why a state should not have a right to kill a murderer. He does not accept the argument that nobody would be willing to sign a contract with the state if it included a provision allowing the state to kill him.

In Kant's opinion a death penalty is justified only regarding murder and not any other crime, unless it causes a very substantial damage to the society. It is impossible to allow a situation where a murderer would be entitled to any legal rights and would be able to justify his actions. Kant believes that we cannot possibly replace capital punishment. If the death penalty is abolished what could be used instead? Life imprisonment is an extremely shameful measure, worse that a death penalty. Suppose there are two prisoners sentenced to death. One prefers death and the other is ready to accept shameful life in prison to survive. Whish one of the two is better? Kant thinks that the first: "I say that the man of honor would choose death, and the knave would choose servitude" (Kant, 1996). Based on this logic Kant concludes that by abolishing capital punishment we impose an even more severe punishment which is unfair because a murderer deserves death and not something worse.

A person sentenced to death might agree to allow usage of his body for medical experiments (if he hopes to survive). Such medical experiments might be beneficial to the society, but Kant considers this unacceptable because justice will not be justice if it is sold for a price.

According to Kant there are circumstances when a murderer deserves lighter penalty. E.g. sometimes a mother kills her child to avoid shame; people die fighting a duel to defend their honor etc. In these cases law provides for milder punishment but as the time passes, the society becomes more and more liberated from those indulgences and the principle requiring capital punishment for murderers is still valid.

If a criminal is not punished it means that the society has a controversial nature. This way the society undermines itself. If punishment of an innocent person is a mistake of justice administration, failure to punish a criminal indicates that the absence of justice, which is worse than mistake.

...

A punishment must always correspond to the crime. It is a mistake to impose different punishment for the same crime, even in those cases when the criminal has no honor. E.g. let's get back to the above example when one prisoner prefers death and the other shameful life imprisonment. A death sentence would be an equal punishment for the both, but a life imprisonment will not, because it would be a more severe punishment for the first prisoner, who prefers death. Therefore, when a sentence is passed on rebels a death sentence would be highest measure.

In Kant's opinion for a murderer sentenced to death it is unallowable to appeal for pardon or lighter punishment. If the murderer is pardoned or a lighter punishment is set, the justice will be in a ridiculous condition. Legal authorities have no right to allow such a situation but if they still choose to do so, it means that legal authorities contradict themselves. Legal authorities must not violate justice, arbitrariness regarding justice can not be allowed. A legal system must strictly abide by the law, because observation of laws is an expression of justice.

OOC: That argument presupposes that all punishments must be the same, even for the same crime, failing to account for the fact that not all crimes are identical in reality. It also assumes infallibility on behalf of the court, to hand down a sentence that cannot be rescinded provided the court is in error. Its excellent philosophy, but it is not practical.

[Wallenburg]

"By your line of thinking, depriving a criminal of his freedom of movement is 'a tool of oppression'. Tell me, Ambassador, without prisons, how does your nation protect your people from criminals?"

"Incarceration. Which is not a tool of oppression, because the World Assembly has legislated sufficiently on the legal process to ensure that such a proceeding is fair and open, and which is fundamentally reversible, as we can release the wrongfully incarcerated immediately. Sufficient steps have been taken by the World Assembly to deprive members of using incarceration as a tool of oppression. The same cannot be said of execution, as no steps can be taken to redress such a punishment."

"Trust me, Ambassador, in Wallenburg we have legislated heavily on capital punishment to guarantee that it is only administered after a long, fair, and public process. In addition, we have essentially eliminated the possibility of wrongful conviction when execution is administered. Considering that our process does not need the opportunity to reverse such punishments, I cannot see how it would fit your definition of a 'tool of oppression'."