[PASSED] Crime and Punishment

[The united slavian socialist republic]

hmmmm this doesn't seem good

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador, they are not a member nation."

"And you have a dossier on every individual who walks in here and can recognize them on sight? Heavens forbid that I assume a diplomat that takes the time to stand up and comment on an at-vote resolution might be doing so because they are a member."

Bell rolls his eyes so hard, it makes a noise.

Ogenbond stares at Bell flatly.

"I guess that's what I get for trying to help people."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ogenbond stares at Bell flatly.

"I guess that's what I get for trying to help people."

"If you want to help somebody, call a medic. Eye rolling isn't supposed to make a sound, and I am genuinely concerned for my health."

OOC: You know I'm messing with you, yeah? No hard feelings. I've noticed lately that my nation ranks something like...in the top 0.4% for Rudeness, so I'm trying to incorporate some of that in Bell in places it would be funny and not just off-putting. Guess I messed that one up.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, they are not a member nation."

"And you have a dossier on every individual who walks in here and can recognize them on sight? Heavens forbid that I assume a diplomat that takes the time to stand up and comment on an at-vote resolution might be doing so because they are a member."

Bell rolls his eyes so hard, it makes a noise.

"Christ, I knew methanol'd make you go blind, but I didn't know it gives you mechanical problems! You may wanna get that looked at!"

"That's a fair point, though - it's like we just let anyone walk in here and give an opinion. No security at all. No wonder they censured my ass for letting the interns run around unsupervised."

Steph looks up at the podium, realizing there's actually a vote going on.

"Oh. Umm. Support. I particularly like the proportionality clause, even if it is necessarily too vague to do all the work we wish it could."

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond stares at Bell flatly.

"I guess that's what I get for trying to help people."

"If you want to help somebody, call a medic. Eye rolling isn't supposed to make a sound, and I am genuinely concerned for my health."

"Call one yourself. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an execution to attend." Ogenbond rises and leaves the chamber. Gerald fills in for him, unsure what to say. "Umm, yeah, we're voting in favor. So...yeah."

OOC: You know I'm messing with you, yeah? No hard feelings. I've noticed lately that my nation ranks something like...in the top 0.4% for Rudeness, so I'm trying to incorporate some of that in Bell in places it would be funny and not just off-putting. Guess I messed that one up.

OOC: Well, duh. I've been here long enough to know that you aren't that abrasive as a player. Ogenbond, on the other hand, has never really cared for Benny in the first place.

[Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden]

We voted for this.

[Wrapper]

Ruling of the Secretariat

The Secretariat received a legality challenge claiming that the strength of "Significant" understates the proposal's scope. While the proposal does legislate on a relatively broad area of crime and punishment, it does not affect nations "in a dramatic way". Given that nations must already comply with existing legislation on torture, fair trials, and appellant rights, the effect of this proposal is less than it would be had such legislation not existed. Additionally, The Secretariat confirms that, although this proposal does overlap with at least three other existing resolutions, such overlap is minor, and not sufficient enough to significantly duplicate existing legislation. The proposal as submitted has been deemed legal.

[Araraukar]

Additionally, The Secretariat confirms that, although this proposal does overlap with at least three other existing resolutions, such overlap is minor, and not sufficient enough to significantly duplicate existing legislation.

OOC: An additional ruling without needing to submit a GHR or post in Moderation? I must be dreaming. (I'd ask someone to pinch me, but I've found that my dreams have gotten too smart and can work the pain of a pinch in without a hitch.) Thank you for taking the time.

And as PPU wouldn't have an IC opinion one way or another, I'll be voting for just for fun.

[SchutteGod]

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.

[Holy Jakelandion Empire]

I will leave the WA if this passes. Fuck off on how we see punishments.

[SchutteGod]

I will leave the WA if this passes. Fuck off on how we see punishments.

We take it you would prefer an all-out ban on the death penalty? Because that is what this resolution is intended to prevent.

[Oceanias Elena Inge Dreyden]

I will leave the WA if this passes. Fuck off on how we see punishments.

So much hostility.

[Tinfect]

I will leave the WA if this passes. Fuck off on how we see punishments.

"Your presence will not be missed."

[SchutteGod]

OT: You know something? I can't even find the Pride and Prejudice thread. Did it predate this forum?!

[Christian Democrats]

OT: You know something? I can't even find the Pride and Prejudice thread. Did it predate this forum?!

Bears Armed linked to it earlier . . . in this topic.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=60468

[La Grand Marcha]

Dear friends,

I am to the discuss why this aborhorent proposal should be voted against.
This proposal is undermining the sovereignty of nations and am baffled as to why nations should be in favour.
Sometimes the death penalty is necessary and there is no reason why criminals should be expected to have full human rights, they give them up once they commit crimes. Putting limitations of the death penalty will only encourage more to commit crimes.
Also arguing for what is and what isn't a good punishment is just further illustration of the interference that is taking place by the World Assembly.
I deplore that all nations think of this heavily when it comes to voting on this matter, it is an injustice to every country's sovereign right that such a thing could be proposed.

Kind regards,

Leader of La Grand Marcha and founder and president of United Erin

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Ah, here comes the people that didn't read the damned thing. I was wondering when they'd start funneling in.

[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.

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.

It is not possible to avoid the execution of innocent people in any system that allows execution. It is at best blindly naive and at worst willfully deceptive to claim that a system exists where only the truly guilty are executed. To allow execution is to make a devil's pact: that we will persist in killing some innocent so that we can also kill some guilty. Why would we make such a bargain? Is it so important to kill some guilty people that we would let ourselves become the murderers of innocent people?

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. This is not a legitimate penological interest. This is not the view of an enlightened society. This is the base and unreasoned emotional reaction of an unsophisticated mind, a mind that cannot or will not give up their guttural instincts to pursue real justice. It is a view steeped in the darkness of a bygone era, destined to one day be resigned to the chapter of our history reserved for those great mistakes of yesteryear. Much as we look back at ancestors who condoned slavery and shake our heads in sadness at their folly, so too will our children look back at us and our refusal to give up execution. They will look at us with distain, because we knew better and did not do enough to stop it. Or they will look at us with pity, because we were too dumb or complacent to do right.

Losthaven votes against.

[Katalaysia]

Dear friends,

I am to the discuss why this aborhorent proposal should be voted against.
This proposal is undermining the sovereignty of nations and am baffled as to why nations should be in favour.
Sometimes the death penalty is necessary and there is no reason why criminals should be expected to have full human rights, they give them up once they commit crimes. Putting limitations of the death penalty will only encourage more to commit crimes.
Also arguing for what is and what isn't a good punishment is just further illustration of the interference that is taking place by the World Assembly.
I deplore that all nations think of this heavily when it comes to voting on this matter, it is an injustice to every country's sovereign right that such a thing could be proposed.

Kind regards,

Leader of La Grand Marcha and founder and president of United Erin

Dear Leader of La Grand Marcha and Founder and President of United Erin,

It is indeed true that sometimes the death penalty may be considered necessary in some nations. Whilst we maintain the idea that rehabilitation should always be the main focus of the legal system, and that you cannot teach a dead man, we understand that many nations disagree with us on the former. We haven't yet had any disputes on the later, though some more mystical or technologically advanced nations may at a future date. However this proposal allows the death penalty for such cases up to the principle of 'An Eye for An Eye' which should be enough for any reasonable nation.

Furthermore, your allegations that discussions of the punishments given out by nations is an over-extension of the World Assembly rights are such that I disagree with them, as often punishments can have international reach, such as when a person holidaying or otherwise spending time in another country gets arrested in said country, rightfully or otherwise, and this proposal means that they can at least trust that they won't be shocked by an extraordinarily steep punishment for crimes that shouldn't see the death penalty. Nevertheless, I believe that justice is important enough to be discussed by the World Assembly outside of this issue, which, though I haven't checked the records carefully, should be covered better by another law.

In conclusion, I believe you are being overly hasty in your judgment of this proposal, and may want to reread and reconsider it.

International Relations Director of Katalaysia,
Amy Dyers

[Tinfect]

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.

"The original legislation was insufficient in ensuring that the abuses of the practice would be prohibited. This Resolution is quite effective on that front, and ensures that a State can execute those deserving of such."

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.

"The Imperium finds that a method which ensures instant death, is not painful in any measurable capacity. And in any case, Imperial Soldiers are trained not to miss."

It is not possible to avoid the execution of innocent people in any system that allows execution. It is at best blindly naive and at worst willfully deceptive to claim that a system exists where only the truly guilty are executed. To allow execution is to make a devil's pact: that we will persist in killing some innocent so that we can also kill some guilty. Why would we make such a bargain? Is it so important to kill some guilty people that we would let ourselves become the murderers of innocent people?

"If your government is incapable of ascertaining the guilt of a suspected criminal, that is your own failure. The Imperium has found that there is rarely any form of ambiguity whatsoever concerning Treason and Crimes of War."

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.

"That is entirely untrue, and childishly reductive."

This is not a legitimate penological interest.

"The Imperium finds that the enforcement of the law is an unquestionably legitimate penological interest."

This is not the view of an enlightened society. This is the base and unreasoned emotional reaction of an unsophisticated mind, a mind that cannot or will not give up their guttural instincts to pursue real justice. It is a view steeped in the darkness of a bygone era, destined to one day be resigned to the chapter of our history reserved for those great mistakes of yesteryear.

"It is good that lesser civilizations such as your own are aware of their failures.

This Resolution has the unwavering support of the Imperium, it is as near to the total restriction on the abuses of execution as is possible within the constraints of this Assembly, and allows for reasonable States to continue to properly enforce their laws."

[Sciongrad]

"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.

[Tinfect]

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?
Markhov is referring to the way the Imperium does things. All military members, Internal Security or otherwise, when on duty, are equipped with armour systems with built in camera systems, the recordings of which are broadcast directly to Operations Personnel, that handle the goings-on of the moment, and pass it on to Imperial Intelligence, which organizes and stores it.
There is, in almost all cases the Imperium has execution as a punishment, evidence that is about as indisputable as possible in Imperial Courts, because Military Forces are goddamn everywhere. War Crimes are incredibly easy to prove, and Treason is almost impossible to disprove assuming it is coming from government personnel.*
*Okay, I'll concede that I'm not the most well versed in courts proceedings, but Imperial Courts are hardly recognizable compared to RL ones.

I mean, I know that I'm running FT over here, but Body Cameras and oversight on Government personnel isn't anything that would be difficult in MT.

[SchutteGod]

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.

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.

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.

[Confederacy of Mandalorian Clans]

This proposal is too invasive! Repeal it now!

[Oscain]

Although I agree with most of the assembly's decisions I will not support this proposal. It is a nations right to choose what they do with their unruly citizens. The bill has good ideas, but it isn't the nations job to take care of the body it's the family's job. Plus it's fun to watch the evil people suffer. Revise this bill and I will support it.
~~~ SWIMS