[PASSED] Crime and Punishment

[SchutteGod]

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

We hereby accept your challenge. ~Dora Lee, Ambassador to the WA

---

Crime and Punishment
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod

Description: The World Assembly,

Reasserting its authority to protect basic civil rights, including the rights of the accused and condemned for even the most heinous and monstrous of crimes,

Acknowledging the great division among member states as to the morality of capital punishment,

Respecting the rights of nations who view capital punishment as a violation of their deepest held beliefs, and seeking to preserve the rights of said nations to shield their accused from immoral punishments,

Contending that minimal restrictions should be imposed upon member states to ensure that punishments for serious crimes are carried out humanely,

Defining for purposes of this resolution, "execution," "capital punishment," and "death sentence (or penalty)" as the forfeiture of a person's life, as carried out by a state or an agent of the state, as a formal punishment for a crime, and

Specifying for purposes of this resolution, that "nonviolent crime" does not include any offense related to treason, espionage, mutiny, or criminal negligence causing physical death or injury;

Hereby:

1. Declares that member nations may employ capital punishment as a sentence for the gravest and most serious of offenses, provided that such sentences do not violate any relevant point of international law within this or any previous General Assembly resolution still in effect;

2. Forbids member nations from issuing criminal sentences disproportionate to the crime committed;

3. Forbids member nations from sentencing convicted persons to any sort of cruel or barbaric punishment, including any form of torture, or the infliction of intense psychological harm or physical pain or suffering short of death;

4. Forbids member nations from executing any person for misdemeanors or nonviolent crimes;

5. Forbids member nations from executing children, pregnant persons, or persons of limited mental capacity;

6. Forbids member nations from sentencing any individual to death without due process;

7. Forbids member nations from carrying out summary executions;

8. Requires member nations to ban any form of execution that involves any physical pain or suffering that would be unnecessary to achieve a quick and relatively painless death;

9. Requires member nations to take every possible measure to ensure that innocent people are never executed, and further requires members to conduct regular studies of death-penalty cases to verify that proper legal procedures are followed before convicted persons are put to death;

10. Requires member nations to delay any execution wherein the accused may have been denied essential legal protections during their trial or appeal process, and not to carry out any death sentence until it can be verified that the convicted person was not unfairly or unlawfully condemned;

11. Requires member nations to treat the bodies of executed persons with respect, and to prevent the improper handling or desecration of their remains;

12. Forbids member nations from extraditing criminals to other jurisdictions not affected by this mandate, for purposes of avoiding their obligations under international law.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I see duplication with at least 4 still-extant resolutions at a quick glance (and possible contradiction with at least one more). You want me to file a GHR or would you prefer to withdraw it yourself?

[Wallenburg]

This proposal is needlessly wordy, and potentially contradicts existing legislation. We will not approve this. However, we will support it if it goes to vote.

[SchutteGod]

OOC: I see duplication with at least 4 still-extant resolutions at a quick glance (and possible contradiction with at least one more). You want me to file a GHR or would you prefer to withdraw it yourself?

You wish to enlighten us as to these resolutions, or just keep it to yourself?

[Kaboomlandia]

OOC: I see duplication with at least 4 still-extant resolutions at a quick glance (and possible contradiction with at least one more). You want me to file a GHR or would you prefer to withdraw it yourself?

You wish to enlighten us as to these resolutions, or just keep it to yourself?

Clause 3 duplicates GAR #9, Prevention of Torture. I'm unsure of the others.

[SchutteGod]

Prevention of Torture mostly deals with torture as a method of interrogation, not punishment. Besides which this is not primarily a resolution to ban torture, but contains many other provisions as well, so it cannot be duplication.

[The Sheika]

Prevention of Torture mostly deals with torture as a method of interrogation, not punishment. Besides which this is not primarily a resolution to ban torture, but contains many other provisions as well, so it cannot be duplication.

Going by the specific definition in GAR# 9

Declares:

1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity.

It bans torture as a method of interrogation as well as a method of personal punishment.

[SchutteGod]

Besides which this is not primarily a resolution to ban torture, but contains many other provisions as well, so it cannot be duplication.

[The Sheika]

Besides which this is not primarily a resolution to ban torture, but contains many other provisions as well, so it cannot be duplication.

Primary or not, you still have a clause that duplicates existing an existing resolution.

[Sciongrad]

Primary or not, you still have a clause that duplicates existing an existing resolution.

OOC: That is not how the duplication rule works.

[The Sheika]

Primary or not, you still have a clause that duplicates existing an existing resolution.

OOC: That is not how the duplication rule works.

OOC: I stand thankfully corrected.

[Araraukar]

3. Forbids member nations from sentencing convicted persons to any sort of cruel or barbaric punishment, including any form of torture, or the infliction of intense psychological harm or physical pain or suffering short of death;

This was already mentioned for Prevention of Torture.

4. Forbids member nations from executing any person for misdemeanors or nonviolent crimes;

"Nonviolent crime" can still lead to someone's death. (OOC: not a GHR argument, just pointing out that violence isn't perhaps the best choice of category to decide on.)

5. Forbids member nations from executing children, pregnant persons, or persons of limited mental capacity;

Wouldn't Legal Competence get in the way of even convicting children and mentally disabled? For a reasonable nation, anyway.

6. Forbids member nations from sentencing any individual to death without due process;

Fairness in Criminal Trials requires this.

7. Forbids member nations from carrying out summary executions;

This one I misremembered, I thought there was something in one of the war-related ones.

8. Requires member nations to ban any form of execution that involves any physical pain or suffering that would be unnecessary to achieve a quick and relatively painless death;

(OOC: Not a GHR point.) What would count as "relatively painless"? Firing squad? Hanging? Beheading? Poison gas chamber? Electric chair? Being eaten alive by really, really hungry ants? Anything if you've been put into medical coma first?

9. Requires member nations to take every possible measure to ensure that innocent people are never executed, and further requires members to conduct regular studies of death-penalty cases to verify that proper legal procedures are followed before convicted persons are put to death;

(OOC: Not a GHR point.) Wouldn't it make more sense to verify the procedures were followed before execution for each case, rather than do a study after?

10. Requires member nations to delay any execution wherein the accused may have been denied essential legal protections during their trial or appeal process, and not to carry out any death sentence until it can be verified that the convicted person was not unfairly or unlawfully condemned;

Convict Appellate Rights (the right to appeal in the first place) plus Fairness in Criminal Trials again (for not being allowed to deny them legal protections)?

11. Requires member nations to treat the bodies of executed persons with respect, and to prevent the improper handling or desecration of their remains;

This may be a bit far-reaching (OOC: for some reason I thought SP had gotten that thing of his made into a resolution already), but while destroying the remains might count as "disrespectful" or "desecration" for many, if necessary, according to Epidemic Response Act clause 3, it would be allowed. (OOC: It says "including but not limited to", and destroying infected persons bodies certainly counts as a reasonable measure to prevent an epidemic spreading.)

12. Forbids member nations from extraditing criminals to other jurisdictions not affected by this mandate, for purposes of avoiding their obligations under international law.

Extradition Rights, the "criminal" has the right to appeal the extradition request - and sounding by the weaseling that the WA nation would be doing according to this clause, the appeal would be accepted on the reasons listed as acceptable.

---

Primary or not, you still have a clause that duplicates existing an existing resolution.

OOC: That is not how the duplication rule works.

OOC: Except when you have enough of the "minor duplications".

---

Just a general OOC note: I really hate having to read Legalese, and after reading through most of those just now, I still honestly couldn't summarize most of them. For example, "No Penalty Without Law" sounds so simple until you actually read the damn thing...

[SchutteGod]

This may be a bit far-reaching

As are most of your duplication/contradiction claims, to be honest. At any rate, most of the provisions you're protesting were also in Convention on Execution. Should that resolution have been deleted too?

Also, you're forgetting the fact that this resolution permits executions as far as past resolutions allow. If any of the resolutions you cite were repealed, then what would stop member states from bringing back drawing and quartering, or even cutting out hearts atop a sacred pyramid?

[SchutteGod]

Also, Jiminy jillickers! Quorum is 124 approvals now?!? That's nearly as many as when I started playing, 11 years ago!

[Christian Democrats]

Notwithstanding SchutteGod's description of us as radical anti-death penalty activists in its recent communiqué to delegates, we have approved Crime and Punishment. First, we recognize and appreciate that this proposal doesn't use the language of rights to describe the state's authority to deprive criminals of life. Second, we believe that Sections 1-4, taken together, would permit the death penalty only for people who commit, attempt, or are involved in unlawful homicides, a great improvement over the Convention on Execution's so-called "right to execute" for any crime whatsoever. That said, we have filed a GHR due to a few technical concerns about this proposal, which we see as substantively sound.

[Araraukar]

This may be a bit far-reaching

As are most of your duplication/contradiction claims, to be honest.

You made me wade through Legalese, so your turn now; prove that you're not dismissing my complaints just because you can't rebut them individually.

At any rate, most of the provisions you're protesting were also in Convention on Execution. Should that resolution have been deleted too?

It was fine as it was, not perfect, but good enough. However, now that it is no more, the arguments can be re-presented.

Also, you're forgetting the fact that this resolution permits executions as far as past resolutions allow.

In the now-repealed resolution it said "restrict its use to the most extreme cases". It didn't say anything about "nonviolent". Frankly, the repealed one had a better wording on that.

If any of the resolutions you cite were repealed, then what would stop member states from bringing back drawing and quartering, or even cutting out hearts atop a sacred pyramid?

Why should something stop them from doing that? (OOC: Just making a point that this is not my OOC opinion.)

[Sciongrad]

As are most of your duplication/contradiction claims, to be honest.

You made me wade through Legalese, so your turn now; prove that you're not dismissing my complaints just because you can't rebut them individually.

OOC: The onus is on you to prove your claim. You can't expect the author to prove duplication doesn't exist when you haven't provided any substantive evidence that it does.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The onus is on you to prove your claim. You can't expect the author to prove duplication doesn't exist when you haven't provided any substantive evidence that it does.

OOC: He asked me to quote the resolutions I believed were being duplicated, and I did. And then he said they were all far-reaching, basing it on the only one of which I said it was perhaps a little far-reaching.

[SchutteGod]

Also, you're forgetting the fact that this resolution permits executions as far as past resolutions allow.

In the now-repealed resolution it said "restrict its use to the most extreme cases". It didn't say anything about "nonviolent". Frankly, the repealed one had a better wording on that.

If any of the resolutions you cite were repealed, then what would stop member states from bringing back drawing and quartering, or even cutting out hearts atop a sacred pyramid?

Why should something stop them from doing that? (OOC: Just making a point that this is not my OOC opinion.)

Thank you for completely ignoring my point. Which was that the language you call "duplicative" was included in part because past resolutions could be repealed, meaning nations could have free rein to bring back unjust and unseemly forms of execution if they so choose. The language is included so that does not happen.

[SchutteGod]

Although, I should note that now that the mods are involved, they almost certainly will rule this illegal -- because Lord knows that if there's ever an opportunity for them to fuck something up, they always take it. Your move Secretariat.

[Araraukar]

Thank you for completely ignoring my point. Which was that the language you call "duplicative" was included in part because past resolutions could be repealed, meaning nations could have free rein to bring back unjust and unseemly forms of execution if they so choose. The language is included so that does not happen.

OOC: Usually mild duplication is allowed when the proposal is expanding on the one it duplicates, which is why we can have additional anti-discriminatory ones despite CoCR existing. But yours isn't really expanding on all of the others, it's just repeating bits of them and uses them on something entirely different.

[SchutteGod]

You've completely ignored my point again. You want a medal or something?

[Separatist Peoples]

Notwithstanding SchutteGod's description of us as radical anti-death penalty activists in its recent communiqué to delegates, we have approved Crime and Punishment. First, we recognize and appreciate that this proposal doesn't use the language of rights to describe the state's authority to deprive criminals of life. Second, we believe that Sections 1-4, taken together, would permit the death penalty only for people who commit, attempt, or are involved in unlawful homicides, a great improvement over the Convention on Execution's so-called "right to execute" for any crime whatsoever. That said, we have filed a GHR due to a few technical concerns about this proposal, which we see as substantively sound.

"The C.D.S.P. shares this opinion entirely, and have approved thusly. Execution is morally abhorrent, but banning it is an impossible battle, especially during the summer. We will take what we can get."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Just to throw my two cents in on the matter, minor duplication has never been grounds to pull a proposal, so if you ask me, the Mods will likely rule in favour of this, if only because such a thing would be consistent with their previous statements, to my knowledge. I know you've had your run-ins with the Mods before, but perhaps it wouldn't do to insult them, rather than making your case.

I'll also point out that I did warn you to be careful with this, specifically where it overlaps with Prevention of Torture. In any case, if this does get pulled, none of the other attempts are getting any ground, it'd be a quick deal to pull out the offending clauses and resubmit, so we don't have too much pressure. The only other real contender is Railiana's abomination, which is such a hilarious failure that even his obscene reach can't possibly save it, in its current form.

[Wrapper]

Just to note a GHR has been received regarding a potential strength violation.