NationStates

EDIT: It's 2016 now. Also, this is noteworthy:

---

Okay, I gave this a try in 2012. I'm going to take another shot in 2015 but with a much more concise argument.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Repeal "Convention on Execution"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#112 | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that Resolution 112, Convention on Execution, "[g]rants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution,"

Further recognizing that Resolution 112 "[e]ncourages any nation that has legalized execution to restrict its use to the most extreme cases,"

Believing that international encouragement (instead of an international mandate) is insufficient to prevent less civilized governments from using their "right to execute" in cases where a death sentence is too harsh, such as illegal drug possession or sexual impropriety,

Convinced that this august body should take back the legal authority to limit the crimes to which member states may apply capital punishment,

Repeals Resolution 112, Convention on Execution.

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.

Intern Elisa: 'But repealing this resolution prevents us from declaring that the Psychotic Dictatorships who summarily execute everyone on their territory (and are in the WA) are in violation of WA law!'

OOC: Also, I don't think that the people who are going to be answering your poll are going to be representative of the majority of member nations. The majority seem to want to have their 'orc-ness', as CDSP described, preserved.

I know I'm going to look like an idiot asking this, but has the World Assembly ever passed a resolution banning disproportionate sentencing? If not, couldn't one always be introduced -- not just for execution, but any penalty that exceeds the crime committed -- and avoid the need for repealing this?

Bananaistan will fully support this and we are sure that the proposing delegation have something up their sleeve regarding "this august body [taking] back the legal authority to limit the crimes to which member states may apply capital punishment" which we are also likely to support.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I know I'm going to look like an idiot asking this, but has the World Assembly ever passed a resolution banning disproportionate sentencing? If not, couldn't one always be introduced -- not just for execution, but any penalty that exceeds the crime committed -- and avoid the need for repealing this?

Still paging through, but it's vaguely alluded to in Extradition Rights - if "[t]he punishment for the crime for which extradition is sought would not be administered in the nation from which extradition is requested" then that nation may refuse the extradition request. That's a bit tangential, of course...

"The Confederate Dominion has stopped utilizing the practice of execution a number of years ago. The decision was made that the inherent infallibility of individuals, regardless of the excellence of our system, makes an irreversible verdict a tragedy in waiting. However, the Confederate Dominion is incredibly leery of allowing the World Assembly to dictate national and sub-national criminal punishments. Whats more, since the majority of this repeal attempt hinges upon this reasoning, it seems incredibly unlikely that the majority of the Assembly will go for this. Perhaps the good ambassador should add additional reasoning that targets the technical aspects of the target resolution instead of relying on a moral position that a large part of the Assembly will likely not share."

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I know I'm going to look like an idiot asking this, but has the World Assembly ever passed a resolution banning disproportionate sentencing? If not, couldn't one always be introduced -- not just for execution, but any penalty that exceeds the crime committed -- and avoid the need for repealing this?

I don't think that'd be a good idea. A resolution banning "cruel and unusual" punishments, for example, would be so subjective that it would basically be toothless. Is it cruel and unusual, for instance, to execute a person for a major drug offense? In the real world, 25 nations, including the United States and China, answer "no." You or I might not consider this proportional, but a lot of people do.

With this limitation in mind, the only practical way to pursue fair punishment is on a case-by-case basis. The death penalty is one case.

Bananaistan wrote:Bananaistan will fully support this and we are sure that the proposing delegation have something up their sleeve regarding "this august body [taking] back the legal authority to limit the crimes to which member states may apply capital punishment" which we are also likely to support.

I have something from 2012 lying around somewhere in this forum. I'll find it and revive it if this proposal looks like it'll pass. I think we can go a couple of weeks without a replacement. A good amount of time for rigorous (re)drafting, debate, and scrutiny will be needed.

Separatist Peoples wrote:However, the Confederate Dominion is incredibly leery of allowing the World Assembly to dictate national and sub-national criminal punishments. Whats more, since the majority of this repeal attempt hinges upon this reasoning, it seems incredibly unlikely that the majority of the Assembly will go for this. Perhaps the good ambassador should add additional reasoning that targets the technical aspects of the target resolution instead of relying on a moral position that a large part of the Assembly will likely not share.

I tried this last time, and it failed. The technicalities muddied the core argument. This time, I'm not going to make the same mistake. This time, my argument is explicitly moral. I'm betting on an alliance between (1) people who oppose capital punishment and (2) people who oppose capital punishment except in cases of murder. Complete abolition would stand almost no chance in this body.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"the inherent infallibility of individuals"

Don't you mean "the inherent fallibility of individuals"?

*enters with a beautiful lady on each arm ..... reads over proposal .... *

Sounds good to me ..... far less paperwork and cheaper to execute criminals not to mention keeps crime rates low ...... approved .....

*exits with the ladies our work here is done ..... back to the pub we have drinking to do ..... *

Bears Armed wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"the inherent infallibility of individuals"

Don't you mean "the inherent fallibility of individuals"?

OOC: god dammit I hate this phones autocorrect. Yes.

The Federation is prepared to support this repeal.

Knowing that the authors have a replacement in mind only brings more troubling issues into play.

This is the draft they introduced back in 2012: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=170249&p=8765427#p8765427

It forbids the execution of any person not convicted of "murder." Such a one-size-fits-all statute on an overly complex issue like capital punishment would be, in our view, antithetical to this body's purpose.

Do the authors not believe, for example, that persons convicted of treason should face the death penalty? What about military justice, in cases of mutiny, or directly disobeying orders, resulting in the deaths of fellow officers -- which the accused may not have directly brought about, but still bear responsibility for their criminally irresponsible actions that resulted in needless death and further imperiled other military and/or civilian lives?

Hmm, I may have to dust off my Appropriate Punishment Act draft should this pass.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

My government would like to support this, but we are concerned that if the Convention on Execution was repealed no new resolution including further restrictions would be passed. Also we are not sure we could morally vote in favour of any resolution that allowed execution for any reason. We hold the position that there are no circumstances where the majority (or state) has the right to take the life of a person. We also believe that if only one innocent person is executed then the price for having execution is too high.

Caracasus would only support a repeal for "Convention on Execution" if it was likely to be replaced with a resolution that either banned executions. We feel that this is highly unlikely, so we would vote against this.

Now that I have a moderator ruling on another repeal that I was considering submitting, I'll submit this repeal proposal and Repeal "The Right to a Lawful Divorce" later in the week (when I have time to do a telegram campaign).

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Knowing that the authors have a replacement in mind only brings more troubling issues into play.

I said that I'd look at my 2012 proposal. If this repeal passes, I said that I'd engage in "rigorous (re)drafting."

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:This is the draft they introduced back in 2012: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=170249&p=8765427#p8765427

It forbids the execution of any person not convicted of "murder." Such a one-size-fits-all statute on an overly complex issue like capital punishment would be, in our view, antithetical to this body's purpose.

One thing I've had in mind is to write a proposal to ban capital punishment except in cases where a person's unlawful action or inaction resulted in the death of one or more other individuals.

Macwick wrote:My government would like to support this, but we are concerned that if the Convention on Execution was repealed no new resolution including further restrictions would be passed. Also we are not sure we could morally vote in favour of any resolution that allowed execution for any reason.

Let me get this straight. You could not, in good conscience, support a resolution that allows execution in any case (e.g., murder or treason); but you're reluctant to support the repeal of a resolution that allows execution in all cases (e.g., cocaine dealing or incest).

Caracasus wrote:Caracasus would only support a repeal for "Convention on Execution" if it was likely to be replaced with a resolution that either banned executions. We feel that this is highly unlikely, so we would vote against this.

Now, let me get this one straight. You'll vote to keep a resolution that allows execution in all cases because you believe the death penalty is always immoral.

You are quite correct ambassador. If you will follow our logic.

1) We strongly disagree with the death penalty.

2) We are fairly certain that the WA will never outlaw the death penalty

3) Therefore we will not vote to repeal legislation that curtails and restricts the use of the death penalty.

We are prepared to support this legislation

Caracasus wrote:You are quite correct ambassador. If you will follow our logic.

1) We strongly disagree with the death penalty.

2) We are fairly certain that the WA will never outlaw the death penalty

3) Therefore we will not vote to repeal legislation that curtails and restricts the use of the death penalty.

Resolution 112 restricts how the death penalty is applied, but it does not restrict when the death penalty is applied.

From the resolution:

6. Encourages any nation that has legalized execution to restrict its use to the most extreme cases and to provide a route for seeking commutation or pardon;

7. Declares that this resolution shall not be construed to deny additional regulations on execution, where seen necessary and proper by the World Assembly to prevent miscarriages of justice.

So, we have something in place encouraging nations to restrict execution to all but the most serious cases, and numerous other controls on the process of sentencing itself, including clauses ensuring that some cannot be executed (the mentally disabled, pregnant women and children). This is better than nothing, and we will not vote for nothing.

"The Queendom is vehemently oppo..." Lord Raekevik started before stopping himself and taking another look at his laptop. "My apologies to the Christian Democrats, force of habit... The Queendom is most delighted to support this repeal. Unlike some of my distinguished colleagues, I shall be casting our vote in favour of repealing the Convention of Execution precisely because the Queendom is opposed to capital punishment under any circumstances. That is the logic of the Alqanian delegation."

Christian Democrats wrote:Convinced that this august body should take back the legal authority to limit the crimes to which member states may apply capital punishment,

"Could the wording in this repeal argument perhaps be tweaked, so that it does not too heavily rely on member states wanting to limit capital punishment, but instead could appeal both to regulation and prohibition advocates? If the repeal could manage that, it may be more politically viable."

Flibbleites wrote:Hmm, I may have to dust off my Appropriate Punishment Act draft should this pass.

We will be urging the Flibbleites to do so if it appears that may happen.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Flibbleites wrote:Hmm, I may have to dust off my Appropriate Punishment Act draft should this pass.

We will be urging the Flibbleites to do so if it appears that may happen.

I second that.

Alqania wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Convinced that this august body should take back the legal authority to limit the crimes to which member states may apply capital punishment,

"Could the wording in this repeal argument perhaps be tweaked, so that it does not too heavily rely on member states wanting to limit capital punishment, but instead could appeal both to regulation and prohibition advocates? If the repeal could manage that, it may be more politically viable."

I agree, but what wording would you suggest? It seems to me that "limit" implies regulation or prohibition. In my view, we ought to seek a prohibition on the death penalty in all cases except the most severe. When capital punishment is available to member states, the way criminals are sentenced and the way they are killed should be regulated to ensure procedural fairness and a quick and painless death.

I am surprised that the ambassador from Christian Democrats can not follow the logic of my government’s position.

Perhaps I should assert our position – we would support the repeal of the Convention on Execution if we could be certain that it will be replaced with a total ban on member nations executing people. We do not believe that such a resolution would pass. We can not support any resolution that allows the execution of people. Therefore we can not support a resolution that allows people to be executed where their crime involve the death of another person or for any other reason. It would therefore give a false idea of the support you would have for such a replacement if I voted for this repeal.

Also if we voted for repeal the situation could end up worse than it is at present. The repeal could pass but no replace is passed and there would be no controls on execution even in the limited areas that the Convention provides.

Our position seems logical to us. We believe that our preferred position will not be accepted by the WA. We are not convinced that your preferred position will be accepted by the WA and we oppose your position. We oppose the current situation but believe if the current resolution is repealed the situation will end up worse than it is now.