[PASSED] Repeal "Convention on Execution"

[Lancaster University]

While the state of Lancaster University is happy to see new legislation to further limit the possibilities of executions we feel we cannot vote for this as it doesn't go far enough, what we would like to see would be an abolition of the death penalty entirely. Until a substantial improvement can be made on 112 we feel replacing it would be an error.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

While the state of Lancaster University is happy to see new legislation to further limit the possibilities of executions we feel we cannot vote for this as it doesn't go far enough, what we would like to see would be an abolition of the death penalty entirely. Until a substantial improvement can be made on 112 we feel replacing it would be an error.

ARI: If you want to see an abolition of the death penalty, as we do, then the first step is to repeal the resolution in question. You should be voting in favor of this repeal.

[Lancaster University]

While the state of Lancaster University is happy to see new legislation to further limit the possibilities of executions we feel we cannot vote for this as it doesn't go far enough, what we would like to see would be an abolition of the death penalty entirely. Until a substantial improvement can be made on 112 we feel replacing it would be an error.

ARI: If you want to see an abolition of the death penalty, as we do, then the first step is to repeal the resolution in question. You should be voting in favor of this repeal.

Having looked at both 112 and the new resolution i disagree, i don't feel it offers a big enough step forward and it can be argued that if this passes the issue may be taken 'off the table' for a while with only a small amount of progress made towards my state's desired end goal.

[Separatist Peoples]

ARI: If you want to see an abolition of the death penalty, as we do, then the first step is to repeal the resolution in question. You should be voting in favor of this repeal.

Having looked at both 112 and the new resolution i disagree, i don't feel it offers a big enough step forward and it can be argued that if this passes the issue may be taken 'off the table' for a while with only a small amount of progress made towards my state's desired end goal.

"It isn't possible to legislate within a repeal. The only way to do this is to repeal and then replace it with a different resolution. There are several such drafts in existence being debated upon as we speak. Please, don't insist we do things that are procedurally impossible."

[Excidium Planetis]

While resolution number 112 is not perfect, there are many flaws with it, to repeal it and leave it with no replacement would be an incredible mistake, as the resolution provides a number of extremely important protections and guidelines when it comes to executions.

In case you haven't noticed, there are several drafts for replacement legislation in this forum.

"Some of which offer even less regulation on execution."

The final clause specifically says

Which is exactly what you are doing: construing the resolution to deny additional regulations.

It would be really great if you quoted the entire section and if you read my opening post. Your whole campaign against this proposal (if intentional) has been quite duplicitous -- full of half-truths that distort the original resolution as well as the aims of this repeal effort.

In 2012, Glen-Rhodes argued that Section 7 of his resolution lets the General Assembly limit the crimes for which the death penalty may be employed. This argument is faulty because Section 7 permits further international intervention only "to prevent miscarriages of justice." A miscarriage of justice is "the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit" (Wikipedia). Is it a miscarriage of justice to execute somebody for using cocaine? No, he actually committed the crime. The punishment is simply too harsh.

OOC:
Personally, I would have at least tried to pass further regulations on execution and see if the moderators ruled with Glen-Rhodes or with your interpretation, before repealing the only thing we had.

[Christian Democrats]

Personally, I would have at least tried to pass further regulations on execution and see if the moderators ruled with Glen-Rhodes or with your interpretation, before repealing the only thing we had.

Let me just note that Glen-Rhodes changed his interpretation of his own resolution after the fact to defend it against criticism. If we look at his original intent and at the original understanding of this Assembly, the purpose of the Convention on Execution is abundantly clear:

September 15, 2010: "Bear in mind there is really only a single definition of 'miscarriage of justice': broadly, the conviction of a person for a crime they did not commit; more specific to this resolution, the execution of a person for a crime they did not commit."

September 16, 2010: "Article 7 is either being misunderstood or mis-characterized. . . . It allows for additional regulations in protecting innocent people from being executed, which is what a miscarriage of justice is."

I agree with old GR. The term "miscarriage of justice" has one and only one meaning. In this repeal proposal, I'm not concerned with the execution of innocent people; rather, I'm concerned with "cases where a death sentence is too harsh, such as illegal drug possession or sexual impropriety." I'm concerned with the execution of guilty people for crimes where the death penalty is unwarranted.

[Aqua Popula]

Amendments are not allowed, but supplemental Resolutions are fine. There is no problem with having multiple resolutions on the same subject. This resolution stipulates WHO can by executed, and prevents certain workarounds. It is protection for specific demographics, with no limitations on what qualifies as an executable offence. But as stated, we could easily solve this problem with another resolution. Repealing this would be pointless.

No, repealing this legislation would do nothing to help ban or limit executions, but would certainly limit the oversight of these areas. What is actually needed is a resolutions stipulating what are executable offences, and preventing certain crimes from being prosecuted for the death penalty, or only allowing certain offences. (This would likely be extremely hotly debated, as some countries think that treason should be executable, while other think ONLY mass murders deserve to die, while others want executions based on religious standards...) These limits are what is lacking about the current resolution. As Christian Democrats said,

Is it a miscarriage of justice to execute somebody for using cocaine? No, he actually committed the crime. The punishment is simply too harsh.

Simply put, if you did not commit a crime, you will not (or should not) be punished. Most nations should agree this is a good thing. So long as the new resolution contains a stipulation that it will defer to other resolutions in order to prevent an execution from going forward, (For example, if a pregnant woman commits an executable offence, she will not be killed since pregnant women are protected by resolution #112-3a) these two resolutions could work in tandem, but remain independent, not violating the house of cards rule on resolutions.

As such, Aqua Popula feels there SHOULD be limits on what qualifies as an executable offence, but removing this bill will have little impact on this. If you want more restrictions on executions, repealing this would be like if you are trying to keep someone outside your house, so you unlock your door before you barricade it. I guess that in the end it might not matter much, but that lock couldn't hurt.

In short, the only reasons I see to repeal this is if you would like less regulated(or completely unregulated) executions, or if you absolutely have to have a single resolution with all information regarding executions, instead of 2.

[Christian Democrats]

Amendments are not allowed, but supplemental Resolutions are fine. There is no problem with having multiple resolutions on the same subject. This resolution stipulates WHO can by executed, and prevents certain workarounds. It is protection for specific demographics, with no limitations on what qualifies as an executable offence. But as stated, we could easily solve this problem with another resolution.

No, we can't. The Convention on Execution blocks future action, giving nations a "right to execute" individuals for any crime whatsoever.

What is actually needed is a resolutions stipulating what are executable offences, and preventing certain crimes from being prosecuted for the death penalty, or only allowing certain offences.

We agree.

As such, Aqua Popula feels there SHOULD be limits on what qualifies as an executable offence, but removing this bill will have little impact on this.

The repeal will have a great impact because the Convention on Execution is a blocker resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

Are there any members of the Communist Bloc here? I'm curious why TCB's delegate, Westnesia, is voting against this proposal. I was under the impression that leftists are opposed to the death penalty, unless Westnesia is a totalitarian communist (e.g., a Stalinist).

[Wallenburg]

Are there any members of the Communist Bloc here? I'm curious why TCB's delegate, Westnesia, is voting against this proposal. I was under the impression that leftists are opposed to the death penalty, unless Westnesia is a totalitarian communist (e.g., a Stalinist).

OOC: Stances on the death penalty don't really align with the left/right spectrum. After all, there are plenty of oppressive far-left and far-right regimes that employ execution.

[Christian Democrats]

Are there any members of the Communist Bloc here? I'm curious why TCB's delegate, Westnesia, is voting against this proposal. I was under the impression that leftists are opposed to the death penalty, unless Westnesia is a totalitarian communist (e.g., a Stalinist).

OOC: Stances on the death penalty don't really align with the left/right spectrum. After all, there are plenty of oppressive far-left and far-right regimes that employ execution.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. I just checked TCB's regional vote, and the residents are voting 45-110. More than 70% are voting pro-death penalty.

[Sandaoguo]

Just want to point out that I'm the author of the resolution and I've voted for the repeal.

[Losthaven]

Just want to point out that I'm the author of the resolution and I've voted for the repeal.

!!!

[Excidium Planetis]

Just want to point out that I'm the author of the resolution and I've voted for the repeal.

"Normally, that would cause me to change my stance, but I have a personal investment* in the defeat of this resolution. So I'm still against."

OOC:
*$1.57, to be exact.

[Christian Democrats]

Just want to point out that I'm the author of the resolution and I've voted for the repeal.

The Most Holy and Grand Empire is thankful for this support.

[Wallenburg]

Just want to point out that I'm the author of the resolution and I've voted for the repeal.

Sure you are, and I'm Barack Obama.

[Losthaven]

Just want to point out that I'm the author of the resolution and I've voted for the repeal.

Sure you are, and I'm Barack Obama.

OOC: Sandaoguo is a well known puppet of Glen-Rhodes.

[Christian Democrats]

Sure you are, and I'm Barack Obama.

OOC: Sandaoguo is a well known puppet of Glen-Rhodes.

Indeed.

[Wallenburg]

Sure you are, and I'm Barack Obama.

OOC: Sandaoguo is a well known puppet of Glen-Rhodes.

Why wouldn't Glen-Rhodes post as--well, you know--Glen-Rhodes?

[Ovybia]

Just want to point out that I'm the author of the resolution and I've voted for the repeal.

Sure you are, and I'm Barack Obama.

"Who is this Barack Obama you speak of, ambassador? Is that your name?"

"On this proposal itself, I am AGAINST because although the arguments presented in the proposal are valid, the alternatives are worst than the current WA law. Other WA members have already begun drafting proposals to ban execution altogether, an absolutely unacceptable attack at national sovereignty among other things. If Convention on Execution is repealed, this will give them an open door to spread their extremes on the NS world. If a reasonable replacement which has a chance of passing is drafted, then I will support this. Until then..."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Sandaoguo is a well known puppet of Glen-Rhodes.

Why wouldn't Glen-Rhodes post as--well, you know--Glen-Rhodes?

OOC: Not if they prefer to use the puppet Sandaoguo these days. This is no different than TDSR posting as West Rhetntukentekanenenanland or whatever it was.

[Wallenburg]

Sure you are, and I'm Barack Obama.

"Who is this Barack Obama you speak of, ambassador? Is that your name?"

Address OOC messages OOC, please.

[Christian Democrats]

"Who is this Barack Obama you speak of, ambassador? Is that your name?"

Address OOC messages OOC, please.

Was your post marked OOC?

[Wallenburg]

Address OOC messages OOC, please.

Was your post marked OOC?

Does Barack Obama sound IC to you? Were there quotes around my post? Was my post marked IC?

[Ovybia]

Was your post marked OOC?

Does Barack Obama sound IC to you? Were there quotes around my post? Was my post marked IC?

OOC: You were responding to an IC post and you didn't mark your response OOC.