[PASSED] Repeal "Convention on Execution"

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

The Star-pillaging Fleets of Excidium Planetis → tag: delegates
6 minutes ago

Honourable Delegate Christian Democrats,

I ask you, if you have not already done so, to support the repeal of Convention on Execution currently at vote.

For too long, the World Assembly has restricted the rights of nations to kill their own people. With Convention on Execution repealed, we will finally regain the right to execute people for any reason, without trial! GA#112 places needless burdens on member nations:

Convention on Execution unfairly requires not one, but two separate trials for those who face the death penalty, one to convict of a crime and a second to decide if the death penalty is appropriate. This is completely unnecessary.

GA#112 bans the execution of pregnant individuals, children, and the mentally handicapped. The strong arm of the law should apply to all individuals, regardless of their circumstances!

GA#112 prohibits summary execution, the killing of people without trial. Surely criminal scum should not be allowed to defend themselves in court when their guilt is clear?

Lastly, GA#112 leaves the door open for further WA regulation on execution, specifically in the final clause, which is unacceptable! With GA#112 repealed we can finally author a resolution which forever closes execution to further legislation, enshrining the right to unrestricted executions.

Make the right choice, nations: Vote FOR repealing GA#112!

ARI: Erm. What the hell? Is she seriously....

(Ahume taps him on the shoulder and points to a debate transcript.)

"Excidium Planetis is opposed. Convention on Execution protects our right to execute violent criminals rather than imprison them for life. Some may say that executing rapists is extreme. But we have a very, very low repeat offense rate."

ARI: (laughing) Oh, how clever. Very, very clever. Wad Ahume! You heard Ambassador Schultz's plea! Cast our vote in favor of this repeal, immediately!

[Losthaven]

Proud to support this historic effort to remove an obstacle to more comprehensive laws on execution. I will add that I am a big fan of Glen Rhodes and wish they would come by more often. That said, the Convention on Execution served a laudable purpose through a time when more progressive action on execution was not politically possible. Seeing that the electorate may now be ready to take the next step on this subject, I wish this law a fond farewell.

Losthaven votes FOR this repeal.

[Gens Eximus]

Gens Eximus is totally for the death penalty. It's actually mandatory for certain crimes.

[Louisistan]

"On behalf of 10000 Islands, I vote yay."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

The Confederacy believes that this is a national-level issue, not a world issue, and as such is opposed to the repeal.

Besides, repealing Convention on Execution with the intent to ban executions outright has no benefit to us. Our execution method, direct matter-to-energy conversion, is completely painless, instant, and allows for a backup of the individual's molecular and mental signature to be made, meaning that if a person has been exonerated posthumously after execution they can be brought back in a sense via a direct energy-to-matter replicator. On top of this, we ensure that all our bases are covered when investigating a crime. The Confederacy has rarely had a false conviction in its long history, and on top of that crime has generally been very low.

[MomoCarlile]

We are concerned with the concept that this repeal opens the door for the complete banning of capital punishment and that the author thinks the resolution in question provides no grounds for further restrictions.

First, the resolution in question only says that it negates all regulations passed before it, not that no new regulations can be passed. This is a difference that we have seen fit to express as it negates some points of the repeal. There is no need to repeal the legislation unless you are repealing one specific part of it, "grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution". If your goal is only to enforce more regulations, that could be done without repealing the legislation in question.

Second, as a nation that uses capital punishment for certain crimes, we cannot support a legislation that bans capital punishment. As that is the only way this repeal will logically go, we will be voting no.

[Herouth]

Herouth will not support such barbarism for repealing a law which makes the state more accountable to its people should not be banned rather encouraged. It is a law of nature of survival of the fittest but Herouth would like to ask why don't we stop surviving and start living?

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I have read the resolution, again, and again. I have to say I'm not convinced of the arguments for the repeal.

"Believing that international encouragement (instead of an international mandate) is insufficient ..."

The resolution reads as follows ...

"Encourages any nation that has legalized execution to restrict its use to the most extreme cases ..."

Given the near impossibility of defining the notion of "most extreme cases" it seems illogical to make it anything other than encourages. You can't mandate vagueness. This statement cannot be anything short of an encouragement. Even if you could condense a statement that could be of mandatory level there would have been no way (then or now) that it would have ever been passed.

What is the old saying, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I will not support a repeal based on it is not perfect when perfection is impossible.

"Convinced that this august body should take back the legal authority to limit the crimes ..."

What is this, a burn the candle on both sides argument? Either the clause is too weak or it is too strong; it can't be both. The only crime limiter is the above aforementioned clause.

I'm sorry d'boss'man but I'm voting against this even though you are my regional delegate.

[Lysandrion]

We are concerned with the concept that this repeal opens the door for the complete banning of capital punishment and that the author thinks the resolution in question provides no grounds for further restrictions.

First, the resolution in question only says that it negates all regulations passed before it, not that no new regulations can be passed. This is a difference that we have seen fit to express as it negates some points of the repeal. There is no need to repeal the legislation unless you are repealing one specific part of it, "grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution". If your goal is only to enforce more regulations, that could be done without repealing the legislation in question.

Second, as a nation that uses capital punishment for certain crimes, we cannot support a legislation that bans capital punishment. As that is the only way this repeal will logically go, we will be voting no.

Repealing this resolution will actually result in rmeoving all the limits on enforcement of capital punishment, which will allow for numerous abuses in the transition period before new law is voted. Therefore, as a state that has always enforced capital punishment with reluctance and under strong safeguards, Republic of Lysandrion cannot support the repeal.

My government's view on the issue is that the result sought by the author of repeal (prevention of excessive use of capital punishment) should and can be sufficiently achieved under existing WA law in the field of due process. This Assembly cannot dictate the states which crimes deserve this ultimate punishment, as doing so would mean those states may be subjected to rules completely alien to their culture and public morality.

Calling such nations "less civilised" (a notion used in the repeal) is nothing but a display of cultural chauvinism.

[Europe and Oceania]

"Excidium Planetis is opposed. Convention on Execution protects our right to execute violent criminals rather than imprison them for life. Some may say that executing rapists is extreme. But we have a very, very low repeat offense rate."

I agree with this. I voted against this repeal.

[Asitula]

This measure is going to absolutely sink me! It's bad enough I have to juice my boys with steroid cocktails just to match the hard power of my regional neighbors. Every other goddamn week I get Cheeki Breekiskaya's drunken, irradiated hicks wandering into the forests picking fights with my veterans! Have you ever seen a 7'4 hulking monster stalked by roaming winos armed to the teeth with poorly manufactured arms? The last thing I need is to have to herd all of these walking disasters into the same playpen for them to break out of and eat half my populace, just because a couple thousand bleeding hearts didn't bother to look across the pond and see that sometimes you just have to get dirty. Oppose!

[The Dolanets Islands]

This resolution does not define an "Extreme Case."'

[Separatist Peoples]

This resolution does not define an "Extreme Case."'

"Its a repeal...it doesn't need to."

[Christian Democrats]

There is no need to repeal the legislation unless you are repealing one specific part of it, "grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution".

It's not possible to repeal one clause in a resolution and leave the rest intact. GA rules are all or nothing.

If your goal is only to enforce more regulations, that could be done without repealing the legislation in question.

Actually, it can't. As long as the Convention on Execution is in place, nations may execute people for any crime whatsoever.

What is the old saying, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I will not support a repeal based on it is not perfect when perfection is impossible.

I agree with the saying, but the Convention on Execution isn't even good. It grants the government a "right to execute" for any crime, which is unjust, a violation of dignity and basic rights.

"Convinced that this august body should take back the legal authority to limit the crimes ..."

What is this, a burn the candle on both sides argument? Either the clause is too weak or it is too strong; it can't be both.

The original resolution is too weak insofar as it merely encourages nations not to use capital punishment unjustly. It is too strong insofar as it blocks future international action limiting use of the death penalty. There is no contradiction.

Calling such nations "less civilised" (a notion used in the repeal) is nothing but a display of cultural chauvinism.

I don't believe all cultures are equal in all ways, so I'm unpersuaded by your charge of "cultural chauvinism."

By the same token, one could defend cultures that segregate ethnic groups or mutilate women's genitalia.

This resolution does not define an "Extreme Case."'

"Its a repeal...it doesn't need to."

To add to Ambassador Bell's comment, it's a fault of the original resolution that "extreme cases" are not defined.

[Holy Britannian Imperial]

With execution we give an example to the people what will they get, should they not abide the law. Our Holy Empire is against this bull of crap!

[MLG Gaming]

This is a debate for national levels, not a worldwide one. Nations should be free to choose the punishment they see fit. So far 100% of all votes from The Alliance of Dictators have been against this repeal.

[MomoCarlile]

There is no need to repeal the legislation unless you are repealing one specific part of it, "grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution".

It's not possible to repeal one clause in a resolution and leave the rest intact. GA rules are all or nothing.

I know you can't. I was saying that line was the only logical reason anybody would need to repeal the legislation in the first place. More restrictions could be added to capital punishment with the current legislation.

If your goal is only to enforce more regulations, that could be done without repealing the legislation in question.

Actually, it can't. As long as the Convention on Execution is in place, nations may execute people for any crime whatsoever.

It gave the right to execute and says that it negates all legislation that came before. You could add further restrictions with new legislation without ever negating the old legislation. Two similar pieces of legislation that do different parts of a job written at different times can coexist. You just don't seem to want them to. You want to get rid of the previous legislation, probably for reasons already states, so you can draft new legislation that probably contradicts the old rather than furthering it.

[Tinfect]

"It would appear that, barring some change in the vote, this will pass, if by a slim margin. The Imperium is somewhat conflicted on this matter, as the Repeal of Resolution 112 'opens the door', so to speak, for legislation both intending to deny the State the right to effectively punish certain crimes, and Legislation that would allow for more effective regulation on the abuses of Execution. At this time, we are unwilling to unnecessarily risk several centuries worth of effective policy and stability in an attempt to prevent States that are likely already in non-compliance from executing criminals for whatever crimes they so desire. As such, we are voting against this legislation, but will abstain from the considered campaign against its passage."

[Christian Democrats]

It's not possible to repeal one clause in a resolution and leave the rest intact. GA rules are all or nothing.

I know you can't. I was saying that line was the only logical reason anybody would need to repeal the legislation in the first place. More restrictions could be added to capital punishment with the current legislation.

Actually, it can't. As long as the Convention on Execution is in place, nations may execute people for any crime whatsoever.

It gave the right to execute and says that it negates all legislation that came before. You could add further restrictions with new legislation without ever negating the old legislation. Two similar pieces of legislation that do different parts of a job written at different times can coexist. You just don't seem to want them to. You want to get rid of the previous legislation, probably for reasons already states, so you can draft new legislation that probably contradicts the old rather than furthering it.

No, that's wrong. We suggest that you reread the Convention on Execution, which:

Grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution in accordance with the regulations of this act, with deference to active regulations in previously passed resolutions.

New resolutions limiting the death penalty are blocked.

[WikiPlay]

Voted For

Let me think about this matter... Every year I travel to Indonesia and see on the daily news executions even for 1 xtc pill. There is no way out, even if you're innocent you have to wait to get a bullet in your head. Who likes this ?...

Extreme cases are murders, even then... execution is also murder...

The cold dream of a serial killer is suicide, like Marc Dutroux did try it several times to escape from his life in prison. To be honest, the tax money that you have to pay for this is neglected, if not then the government ask money if you have made a small mistake for the first time and the police will call you up at 8:00 a.m. to explain "why you are there". This personal approach works way better to prevent corruption, drug abuse, White-collar crimes,...

I mention the 'reverse effect' in free countries like: The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and other countries in this world where they are not too extreme. Compare the crime statistics...

Being 'Gay' is sufficient to face the death penalty in many countries like Bhutan, plenty of countries in the middle east,... often with a bullet in your face or aggressive techniques. That really don't solve anything.

[Reunified Osea]

Members, delegates, and representatives, I rise to speak on behalf of West Osea regards to the resolution currently at vote, to repeal GA Resolution number 112.
I will be casting my vote against this resolution. This is because this resolution, if passed, will mean that unless someone takes the initiative to write a new resolution, would leave no protections on any citizens, with regards to whether or not they will face execution.
In my nation, which was preceded by the United Kingdom, execution as a form of punishment in a trial has been outlawed for over a century. This is because it is our sincere belief that any persons life is not something for the state to take away. That would be a step towards letting the state choose who can live or die, which we have seen throughout our history, with states who take on such a responsibility committing the most heinous of crimes.
While we seek not to interfere with any nations who seek to use execution as a form of punishment in a crime, there must always be controls in place to ensure that not just anyone can be executed. 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.
If a living, breathing human's right to life is to remain their most basic human right, this resolution must not be passed.
As I have said before, I will be voting against this resolution, and I would encourage my colleagues, to do the same.

[Excidium Planetis]

I know you can't. I was saying that line was the only logical reason anybody would need to repeal the legislation in the first place. More restrictions could be added to capital punishment with the current legislation.


It gave the right to execute and says that it negates all legislation that came before. You could add further restrictions with new legislation without ever negating the old legislation. Two similar pieces of legislation that do different parts of a job written at different times can coexist. You just don't seem to want them to. You want to get rid of the previous legislation, probably for reasons already states, so you can draft new legislation that probably contradicts the old rather than furthering it.

No, that's wrong. We suggest that you reread the Convention on Execution, which:

Grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution in accordance with the regulations of this act, with deference to active regulations in previously passed resolutions.

New resolutions limiting the death penalty are blocked.

The final clause specifically says

Declares that this resolution shall not be construed to deny additional regulations on execution

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

[Lysandrion]

No, that's wrong. We suggest that you reread the Convention on Execution, which:

Grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution in accordance with the regulations of this act, with deference to active regulations in previously passed resolutions.

New resolutions limiting the death penalty are blocked.

The final clause specifically says

Declares that this resolution shall not be construed to deny additional regulations on execution

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

The problem is amendments to the existing resolutions are illegal under GA rules of procedure. However, as it has been pointed out above, supplementary legislation on the similar subject might not necessarily be considered an amendment and thus be perfectly feasible solution to the problem.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

No, that's wrong. We suggest that you reread the Convention on Execution, which:

Grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution in accordance with the regulations of this act, with deference to active regulations in previously passed resolutions.

New resolutions limiting the death penalty are blocked.

The final clause specifically says

Declares that this resolution shall not be construed to deny additional regulations on execution

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

OOC: As a not-entirely-neutral observer here, that campaign was also hilarious. One of the best examples of sarcasm I've seen in the WA for quite some time.