[PASSED] Crime and Punishment

[Losthaven]

Not sure why we repealed the Convention on Execution just to put in place another blocker that ensures the continued existence of the death penalty.

Precisely because the World Assembly assumed they were voting to remove all restrictions on the death penalty, not just setting it up so that extremists could try to ban it everywhere. This resolution seeks to correct that oversight.

Zealousness in the name of a moral good is the virtue of righteousness. I don't apologize for being on the ethical side of this issue. I'm disappointed that the WA has missed a good opportunity to make progress and instead opted to simply reaffirm its commitment to permitting a barbaric practice.

The death penalty does nothing to make people safer. It does nothing to promote reformation. It does nothing to promote restorative justice. It is often cruel - and the "humane" executions of one generation are often pointed to as examples of the most barbaric practices by the next. It is invariably painful, and even methods designed or intended to be less painful often go horribly awry; an inevitable consequence of the frailty and error of those tasked with carrying out executions.

Oh, and you have statistical evidence to verify these claims, that executions are "invariably painful" and "often" are botched? No? OK then.

Throughout history there are examples. They are not hard to find.

All attempts to justify execution come down to the same principle of retribution, of revenge, of somehow making society whole by taking from the convicted all that they have and all that they ever will.

Categorically false. Executions are a means of justice, not retribution. They are carried out not to avenge their victims, but to create a deterrent against other criminals getting the same ideas. And of course, there's the old maxim that capital punishment is 100% effective against repeat offenses.

The argument that the death penalty has some kind of deterrent effect is a well-known red herring. There is no evidence to suggest fear of the death penalty changes behavior. Of course, killing someone prevents them from doing anything ever again. Even if, later, you realize they were innocent all along. The appeal to preventing future crime via permanent death of the offender could be used to justify execution for even trivial offenses. There are other, less radical means of preventing future crimes. Ways that don't have the unfortunate side-effect of killing innocent people now and then.

[Railana]

To those who oppose this proposal and support a complete ban on capital punishment: what about societies that simply don't have the capacity to safely imprison people?

I'm thinking of small, impoverished communities; nomadic peoples; or even nations that have recently undergone conflict, national disasters, or other national emergencies that have severely damaged existing infrastructure and limited the power of the state to carry out its police functions. How should they deal with violent offenders and the like who simply cannot be allowed to continue to live in society without posing a serious threat to public safety?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

To those who oppose this proposal and support a complete ban on capital punishment: what about societies that simply don't have the capacity to safely imprison people?

I'm thinking of small, impoverished communities; nomadic peoples; or even nations that have recently undergone conflict, national disasters, or other national emergencies that have severely damaged existing infrastructure and limited the power of the state to carry out its police functions. How should they deal with violent offenders and the like who simply cannot be allowed to continue to live in society without posing a serious threat to public safety?

TY: Ummm. Dig a deep enough hole?

[Wallenburg]

"If your government is incapable of ascertaining the guilt of a suspected criminal, that is your own failure.

OOC: Can we all step back for a moment and realize that this argument - which almost all proponents of the death penalty in this forum have raised at least once - is indisputably godmoding.

OOC: How the fuck is an argument godmodding?

TY: Ummm. Dig a deep enough hole?

IC: "The pit of death?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not sure why we repealed the Convention on Execution just to put in place another blocker that ensures the continued existence of the death penalty.

Precisely because the World Assembly assumed they were voting to remove all restrictions on the death penalty, not just setting it up so that extremists could try to ban it everywhere. This resolution seeks to correct that oversight.

This exactly. I love agreeing with Kenny.

---

This proposal is too invasive! Repeal it now!

Things like this simply prove Kenny's point.

---

I will, however, say that Losthaven's response is one of the most rhetorically eloquent remarks I've read on this forum in a very long time. It reminds me of a speech I listened to in BP, a gloriously succinct and exquisitely pure voice speaking down from the heavens. There are avenues to criticise and I do not buy the claims made in it, but as far as rhetoric can go in a forum game, I have yet to see its equal.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Can we all step back for a moment and realize that this argument - which almost all proponents of the death penalty in this forum have raised at least once - is indisputably godmoding.

OOC: How the fuck is an argument godmodding?

OOC: Are you seriously asking me how it is godmoding to claim that one's criminal justice system is totally infallible and unimpeachable? Or how it is godmoding for such a perfect nation, which has found the keys to the mystery of the universe, to use their celestial, otherworldly powers as a basis for rejecting contrary arguments?

Arguments in the GA forum can constitute godmoding, that's how this forum works. "Examplistan opposes this resolution against leaded fuel because our people need it for nourishment and will die without out." "Testlandia cannot support this resolution against biological weapons because we use anthrax as fertilizer." That's godmoding. Arguments like that haven't, nor will they ever, be taken seriously. There are so many arguments you can use to support the death penalty. That your justice system is totally and indisputably infallible always and forever is not one of them.

To those who oppose this proposal and support a complete ban on capital punishment: what about societies that simply don't have the capacity to safely imprison people?

I'm thinking of small, impoverished communities; nomadic peoples; or even nations that have recently undergone conflict, national disasters, or other national emergencies that have severely damaged existing infrastructure and limited the power of the state to carry out its police functions. How should they deal with violent offenders and the like who simply cannot be allowed to continue to live in society without posing a serious threat to public safety?

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"It would logically follow that either all convicted criminals that would otherwise be imprisoned in a nation with the appropriate infrastructure in this system are executed or there exists some alternative punishment to prison. Neither scenario is a defense of the death penalty when it is used exclusively for the most egregious crimes."

[Railana]

"It would logically follow that either all convicted criminals that would otherwise be imprisoned in a nation with the appropriate infrastructure in this system are executed or there exists some alternative punishment to prison. Neither scenario is a defense of the death penalty when it is used exclusively for the most egregious crimes."

Alternate punishments, such as corporal punishment, may not be sufficient for violent offenders who intend to commit additional violent crimes. In such circumstances, the death penalty may be the only feasible option.

In addition, to be clear, we do not believe that a lack of facilities for imprisonment justifies the impositions disproportionate punishment on individuals; under all circumstances, the death penalty should be reserved for egregious crimes.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

OOC: How the fuck is an argument godmodding?

OOC: Are you seriously asking me how it is godmoding to claim that one's criminal justice system is totally infallible and unimpeachable? Or how it is godmoding for such a perfect nation, which has found the keys to the mystery of the universe, to use their celestial, otherworldly powers as a basis for rejecting contrary arguments?

Arguments in the GA forum can constitute godmoding, that's how this forum works. "Examplistan opposes this resolution against leaded fuel because our people need it for nourishment and will die without out." "Testlandia cannot support this resolution against biological weapons because we use anthrax as fertilizer." That's godmoding. Arguments like that haven't, nor will they ever, be taken seriously. There are so many arguments you can use to support the death penalty. That your justice system is totally and indisputably infallible always and forever is not one of them.

OOC: That isn't the argument you labelled as godmodding. Tinfect's claim was that, if a justice system cannot determine guilt, then the justice system is at fault, not the punishments it delivers.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That isn't the argument you labelled as godmodding. Tinfect's claim was that, if a justice system cannot determine guilt, then the justice system is at fault, not the punishments it delivers.

OOC: How on earth is following through a flawed system with a punishment that is irreversible not a fault in the punishment? Two wrongs do not make a right, and addressing the problem at both ends is something a legislative body can absolutely accomplish.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: That isn't the argument you labelled as godmodding. Tinfect's claim was that, if a justice system cannot determine guilt, then the justice system is at fault, not the punishments it delivers.

OOC: How on earth is following through a flawed system with a punishment that is irreversible not a fault in the punishment? Two wrongs do not make a right, and addressing the problem at both ends is something a legislative body can absolutely accomplish.

OOC: That is an awfully circular argument. You assume capital punishment to be bad, when you have yet to effectively demonstrate that to our ambassadors.

(Of course, I can't entirely blame you for that. Ogenbond isn't likely to change his mind.)

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: How on earth is following through a flawed system with a punishment that is irreversible not a fault in the punishment? Two wrongs do not make a right, and addressing the problem at both ends is something a legislative body can absolutely accomplish.

OOC: That is an awfully circular argument. You assume capital punishment to be bad, when you have yet to effectively demonstrate that to our ambassadors.

(Of course, I can't entirely blame you for that. Ogenbond isn't likely to change his mind.)

OOC: Honestly, I've given up that any rational debate on this subject can be had in this forum. This is why I've been spending time in General. Nobody claims their justice system is infallible there.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: That is an awfully circular argument. You assume capital punishment to be bad, when you have yet to effectively demonstrate that to our ambassadors.

(Of course, I can't entirely blame you for that. Ogenbond isn't likely to change his mind.)

OOC: Honestly, I've given up that any rational debate on this subject can be had in this forum. This is why I've been spending time in General. Nobody claims their justice system is infallible there.

OOC: If you want rational debate, NSG is literally the last place you should go on this site.

But, back to topic, I guess.

[Wallenburg]

--

[Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden]

OOC: That isn't the argument you labelled as godmodding. Tinfect's claim was that, if a justice system cannot determine guilt, then the justice system is at fault, not the punishments it delivers.

OOC: How on earth is following through a flawed system with a punishment that is irreversible not a fault in the punishment? Two wrongs do not make a right, and addressing the problem at both ends is something a legislative body can absolutely accomplish.

We believe in an "eye for an eye" system when it comes to murder.

[Tinfect]

There are so many arguments you can use to support the death penalty. That your justice system is totally and indisputably infallible always and forever is not one of them.

OOC:
I've never argued anything of the sort. If you just intend to fling around accusations of godmodding without any damn sense, I have no reason to discuss this further.

Despite our disagreements, I actually have a lot of respect for you, Sciongrad, you've got your position, you defend it well, and you've generally got sound backing. But I had hoped you'd actually read my posts rather than throwing me in with the rest of the opposition.

[Sciongrad]

There are so many arguments you can use to support the death penalty. That your justice system is totally and indisputably infallible always and forever is not one of them.

OOC:
I've never argued anything of the sort. If you just intend to fling around accusations of godmodding without any damn sense, I have no reason to discuss this further.

Despite our disagreements, I actually have a lot of respect for you, Sciongrad, you've got your position, you defend it well, and you've generally got sound backing. But I had hoped you'd actually read my posts rather than throwing me in with the rest of the opposition.

OOC: You're right, I was unfair to you in that post. I realize now that you weren't exactly making the argument that I thought you were - although many here have made that argument - and I didn't address it seriously. Of course, IC, Sciongrad still fundamentally disagrees with the basis of your argument - that being able to ascertain guilt correctly 100% of the time should be the expectation and punishments should reflect that expectation - but I do apologize if I may have misinterpreted what you meant.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Santos (nation: Sciongrad), I do have a question. There are cases where things are cut and dry. For example, the bombers of the Palace of Eastminster a few years ago were apprehended on the scene, security cameras picked up who they were, hundreds of witnesses saw them do it. The consensus between witnesses, records, forensics, etc. was clear. In the bombing in which our Prime Minister was assassinated by the CRA, the government imposed the statuatory sentence for high treason. I simply don't see how one could make a claim that courts get it wrong all the time, which is a requirement to claim that capital punishment ought be eliminated in all cases. There exists a middle ground wherein a nation can restrict capital punishment to very clear and obvious cases without having this problem with who actually did it — basically moving the bar for these cases from reasonable doubt to 'it would be unreasonable to even suggest that he didn't do it'.

[Solarmania]

WHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!??!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!/ How will my Morale Enforrcement Officers be employed? I'm against.

[Mousebumples]

We are grateful to the Secretariat for their thorough review of this case, and to the members and delegates who have voted in favor already. Of course, a majority of the support comes from just four voters, but we assume they are speaking for a larger group of supportive constituents.

You're welcome. But, yes, my vote is representative of my region, which I think had 2 dissenters of the dozen or so individuals that expressed their opinion on our off-site forum.

The original repeal of Convention on Execution brought back flashbacks of the years ago Habeas Corpus fiasco, so it's nice to see something reasonable proposed in it's place.

[Firsthome]

We, the Representatives of Firsthome, are wholly confused.
You first state that capital punishment is allowed, then go on, claiming that no sentence shall be disproportionate to the crime. What defines this? What if a group or person finds capital punishment disproportionate in practically any situation but mass murder, serial rape, and similar cases?
What if a mass murder with a gun is female, and is pregnant. Will you let ger child be born and put up for adoption? Who wants a murderer's child?
What about underage rapists and mass murderers, can they not be punished by those who will them?
The nation of Firsthome disagrees most with motions 1, 2, and 5, and thereofore votes in favor of nay

[Peoples Republic of Potatoes]

This is something every nation needs!

[SchutteGod]

We, the Representatives of Firsthome, are wholly confused.
You first state that capital punishment is allowed, then go on, claiming that no sentence shall be disproportionate to the crime. What defines this? What if a group or person finds capital punishment disproportionate in practically any situation but mass murder, serial rape, and similar cases?

Fine, if your nation considers capital punishment to be disproportionate in most cases, then ban it in most cases. This is not a resolution to force nations to authorize capital punishment in any case.

What if a mass murder with a gun is female, and is pregnant. Will you let ger child be born and put up for adoption? Who wants a murderer's child?

Because it's immoral to kill an innocent child along with its mother, even if the mother is a psychopath. It's up to you how to deal with adoptions and child care in your country; that is the subject for another resolution.

What about underage rapists and mass murderers, can they not be punished by those who will them?

You imprison them.

[Bears Armed]

What about underage rapists and mass murderers, can they not be punished by those who will them?

You imprison them.

And if your own laws allow it then there doesn't seem to be anything here to keep you from carrying out a death sentence once they actually reach adulthood...

[Federative Austrian Realms]

We believe that the proposal at vote is too invasive into member states' internal law systems and are therefore voting against it.
Additionally, we believe that the title of the proposal is misleading.

[Zarkanians]

Zarkanians stands against this bill. Invasive. Also incredibly vague. Words such as "disproportionate" and "barbaric" have little to no meaning in the context of international law, without being defined clearly within the document itself. Also strange that you disallow the execution of children, pregnant individuals and the mentally ill. Seems like you're trying to force the values of your own countries onto all members of the WA. Not good.

That said--unless you're going to start replacing our judges with WA candidates, good luck enforcing this. Or the ban on summary executions, for that matter.