[DEFEATED] Extrajudicial Punishment Ban

[Europe and Oceania]

We voted for this.

OOC:
Of course you did.

Lol.

[Railb]

[/quote]The Supreme Dominion of Regele Baular wishes to express its public appreciation for this support. It is a great testament to the World Assembly that well reasoned arguments can change minds to oppose all attempts at tyranny.[/quote]
Indeed they can!

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: This proposal is so super, man. Instead of spandex-wearing x-men from the middle of nowhere, we have incredible watchmen surfing the wave on a massive hulk, fighting crime and keeping the neighbourhood friendly. Ambassador Qzu, you must be some sort of wonder woman to write such a stellar piece of legislation.

Fairburn: Commencing self-destruct in five, Thor...

Neville: Fantastic!

Fairburn: I was joking.

Neville: I still wish it were true.

Fairburn: Na-na-na-na-NA-NA.

[Lexicor]

ARI: As much as we pacifists loathe the idea of self-defense, we feel compelled to point out that self-defense is not an act of punishment, it's an act of self-preservation. The idea isn't to punish the other person, it's to force them to stop attacking you.

"That still leaves problems with citizens arrests, and for that reason we remain opposed."

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: As much as we pacifists loathe the idea of self-defense, we feel compelled to point out that self-defense is not an act of punishment, it's an act of self-preservation. The idea isn't to punish the other person, it's to force them to stop attacking you.

"That still leaves problems with citizens arrests, and for that reason we remain opposed."

ARI: Are you joking? Is he joking? (Wad Ahume shrugs.) You do know the difference between arrest and punishment, don't you? Or does law enforcement in your nation frequently involve violence against suspects?

[Fauxia]

Neville: This proposal is so super, man. Instead of spandex-wearing x-men from the middle of nowhere, we have incredible watchmen surfing the wave on a massive hulk, fighting crime and keeping the neighbourhood friendly. Ambassador Qzu, you must be some sort of wonder woman to write such a stellar piece of legislation.

Fairburn: Commencing self-destruct in five, Thor...

Neville: Fantastic!

Fairburn: I was joking.

Neville: I still wish it were true.

Fairburn: Na-na-na-na-NA-NA.

Your signature says that these people are not your ambassadors.

[Wallenburg]

Neville: This proposal is so super, man. Instead of spandex-wearing x-men from the middle of nowhere, we have incredible watchmen surfing the wave on a massive hulk, fighting crime and keeping the neighbourhood friendly. Ambassador Qzu, you must be some sort of wonder woman to write such a stellar piece of legislation.

Fairburn: Commencing self-destruct in five, Thor...

Neville: Fantastic!

Fairburn: I was joking.

Neville: I still wish it were true.

Fairburn: Na-na-na-na-NA-NA.

Your signature says that these people are not your ambassadors.

OOC: I'm surprised you couldn't find the name Fairburn in there.

[Excidium Planetis]

Neville: I still wish it were true.

Fairburn: Na-na-na-na-NA-NA.

Your signature says that these people are not your ambassadors.

OOC:
On the contrary, Ambassador Fairburn is listed as the Ambassador not once, but twice, and Neville is clearly listed as the Assistant.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Actually, I'd forgotten to update my sig on that front. Should be fixed now.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not voting for or against, because of no strong feelings either way, and Araraukar not being in WA in IC doesn't give me an IC reason either.

[The Egyptian Pharocracial Suzerainty]

We have determined to vote against this Proposal upon the advice of Ambassador Rorschach.

"Never compromise, never relent, not even in the face of World Assembly disapproval."

OOC:

Rorschach should fit in here quite well...

Thank you, thank you.

Two shows a night, and we're here all week. Try the fish, and don't forget to tip your waitress.

(Jut don't get your waitress tipsy, as it makes it hard for her to serve the other World Assembly customers.)

[Roventia]

Frankly i believe that vigilantism is even better than our police force. I vote against this bill because we need both vigilantes and police to work together. And batman is my favorite hero.

[Lexicor]

"That still leaves problems with citizens arrests, and for that reason we remain opposed."

ARI: Are you joking? Is he joking? (Wad Ahume shrugs.) You do know the difference between arrest and punishment, don't you? Or does law enforcement in your nation frequently involve violence against suspects?

"It frequently does. Bloody Limewafflers."

OOC: Lexicor's in the middle of an insurgency.

[NovoUnitopius]

For now, I voted against, but only because I believe this is resolution is too broadly stated, and terms such as psychological harm or trauma need to be more specifically defined, so as not to open up legitimate actions such as non-violent detainment by police officers open to criminal or civil prosecutions. I certainly wouldn't vote for governments or police to have the ability to abuse citizens suspected of crimes, however I also don't want to make my police afraid to engage in any way with a suspect, (for fear of criminal or civil prosecution if the suspect claims psychological trauma from detainment), thereby making my citizens live in fear of a criminal minority that runs around unchecked.

[NovoUnitopius]

ARI: Are you joking? Is he joking? (Wad Ahume shrugs.) You do know the difference between arrest and punishment, don't you? Or does law enforcement in your nation frequently involve violence against suspects?

The problem here comes in where, if a suspect claims they suffered a "punishment" of psychological trauma during the arrest process, that turns the arrest process into a punishment itself. This resolution's intentions, and how it's worded as law, are two different things. The spirit of this law is good, however the letter of this law can leave it open to so much debate it would cause chaos in a court system.

[Fauxia]

OOC: Actually, I'd forgotten to update my sig on that front. Should be fixed now.

It is

[Fauxia]

For now, I voted against, but only because I believe this is resolution is too broadly stated, and terms such as psychological harm or trauma need to be more specifically defined, so as not to open up legitimate actions such as non-violent detainment by police officers open to criminal or civil prosecutions. I certainly wouldn't vote for governments or police to have the ability to abuse citizens suspected of crimes, however I also don't want to make my police afraid to engage in any way with a suspect, (for fear of criminal or civil prosecution if the suspect claims psychological trauma from detainment), thereby making my citizens live in fear of a criminal minority that runs around unchecked.

"You are 100% correct, ambassador."

OoC: Hey, 150 posts for me! (Realizes someone has 170,000+ posts; gulps)

[Holy Roman Universal Empire]

Inflicting mental harm? This is so overly broad and vague that nearly anything could fall under it. Very poorly written, unspecific, and subjective. VOTE NO. Rewrite and eliminate any reference to mental or psychological harm, and define solely based on physical harm, while keeping exemptions for self-defence and defence of others in justifiable circumstances. Then maybe, YES.

[NovoUnitopius]

Inflicting mental harm? This is so overly broad and vague that nearly anything could fall under it. Very poorly written, unspecific, and subjective. VOTE NO. Rewrite and eliminate any reference to mental or psychological harm, and define solely based on physical harm, while keeping exemptions for self-defence and defence of others in justifiable circumstances. Then maybe, YES.

Good idea. Narrow the scope to inflicting unnecessary punitive bodily harm of people suspected of a crime. Basically, a police officer can't beat you up, taze you, shoot you, or otherwise take out their frustration or anger on you while arresting you. They aren't there to inflict punishment, but rather, to detain you, so a proper court can lawfully punish you in a humane way under your country's law.

That has a much better chance of passing on it's own.

Later, if we want to iron out nitty gritty details of psychological harm that goes into "cruel and unusual" treatment, such as long stays in solitary confinement, I myself would volunteer to write up such a proposal and see if it made it to the resolution phase.

OOC: I would probably use Geneva Convention, psychological torture techniques as 'what not to do', as well as look at actual real world research on how psychologists view prisons in the USA, China, Japan, etc., and their punishment techniques, as well as some of the most common techniques used by police, FBI, and military to inflict long-term stress states, without using physical torture. IRL, I'm a psycholinguist, meaning I have work in psychology and linguistics, and I'm a deception expert who often has worked with law enforcement to find humane ways to get truthful statements from people, without ever having to stress them out, or physically torture them. Torture techniques for psyops (the dark side of this field) usually include isolation, sleep deprivation, lying, confusing the suspect, constant light sources, berating, arrest and humiliation in front of children and significant others unnecessarily, arresting a person at work unnecessarily, etc., and we'd have to look at that resolution entirely separately.

[Aclion]

Inflicting mental harm? This is so overly broad and vague that nearly anything could fall under it. Very poorly written, unspecific, and subjective. VOTE NO. Rewrite and eliminate any reference to mental or psychological harm, and define solely based on physical harm, while keeping exemptions for self-defence and defence of others in justifiable circumstances. Then maybe, YES.

Good idea. Narrow the scope to inflicting unnecessary punitive bodily harm of people suspected of a crime. Basically, a police officer can't beat you up, taze you, shoot you, or otherwise take out their frustration or anger on you while arresting you. They aren't there to inflict punishment, but rather, to detain you, so a proper court can lawfully punish you in a humane way under your country's law.

That has a much better chance of passing on it's own.

Later, if we want to iron out nitty gritty details of psychological harm that goes into "cruel and unusual" treatment, such as long stays in solitary confinement, I myself would volunteer to write up such a proposal and see if it made it to the resolution phase.

OOC: I would probably use Geneva Convention, psychological torture techniques as 'what not to do', as well as look at actual real world research on how psychologists view prisons in the USA, China, Japan, etc., and their punishment techniques, as well as some of the most common techniques used by police, FBI, and military to inflict long-term stress states, without using physical torture. IRL, I'm a psycholinguist, meaning I have work in psychology and linguistics, and I'm a deception expert who often has worked with law enforcement to find humane ways to get truthful statements from people, without ever having to stress them out, or physically torture them. Torture techniques for psyops (the dark side of this field) usually include isolation, sleep deprivation, lying, confusing the suspect, constant light sources, berating, arrest and humiliation in front of children and significant others unnecessarily, arresting a person at work unnecessarily, etc., and we'd have to look at that resolution entirely separately.

This proposal is not about preventing torture, it is about guaranteeing that no person is punished for a crime without the formal procedures already in place under WA law, including prohibitions against torture and right to trial.

This is outside the scope of this proposal and already covered by existing WA law.

[Imperium Anglorum]

For statistical purposes, it should be noted that this resolution went to vote around 3.30a on the day it was supposed to come to vote, due to a delayed major update. That delay has caused around an extra eight hours to be added to this resolution's voting time. This will skew the vote totals up.

[Jet Ferno]

Can we stop talking about batman for one second? The resolution was made to stop mobs from harming other people, but we could do this by giving money to education and the police. Sure, if the police is corrupt then it would be hard but that is where vigilantes come in.
IF YOU BAN HATE SPEECH YOU WILL BAN FREEDOM OF SPEECH
It is the same for this, if you do this then vigilante's would go down, which would affect population, compassion ect

[Wrapper]

"Extrajudicial Punishment Ban" was defeated 9,580 votes to 3,985.