[PASSED] Repeal "Crime and Punishment"

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Against accused can use the appeals court

[Wallenburg]

Justice is not merciful, and it never should be. I can get what you are thinking, but perhaps limitations may be imposed if you feel so strongly.

"Justice has to be merciful to be justice. Punishment in excess of what is necessary to accomplish a goal is itself unjust."

"Justice cannot be merciful, or it is not justice. Mercy is an act of forgiveness, of charity, of withholding deserved punishment. There exists a broad expanse between mercy and cruelty, and that is where justice resides. Do not mistake it for either extremity."

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan pledges its support for this and the proposed ban on capital punishment. Revenge is not justice."

- Ted

[Jocospor]

The Confederation of Corrupt Dictators can advise that it will be, perhaps predictably, voting against any manoeuvres that attempt to ban capital punishment.

Hail the Confederation!

Delegate's Office
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators

[Kenmoria]

“I find it somewhat amusing how your delegation is trying to repeal legislation on abortion on the basis of the WA overstepping its bounds and creating noncompliance, when a ban on capital punishment would do the same. I’m not saying I oppose such a ban, I don’t, but it’s an interesting situation. Anyway, full support of the proposal’s submission.”

[Kand Sovi]

I think that the repealing idea for this would be a good idea. Therefore, I feel accepted to change this.

[Kor Tele]

Has anybody here who voted for this resolution actually bothered to go back and read the very measure it's repealing?

[Xanthal]

The Federation supports the repeal of Crime and Punishment. We believe the half-measure that is GAR375 serves no just purpose for either the pro- or anti-death penalty camp. If judicial executions are unethical, then allowing them in certain circumstances makes no sense. If they are ethical, we see no compelling reason to single them out for sanction aside from other legitimate judicial processes or remedies.

That the international debate is hopelessly entangled in a punitive definition of justice is unfortunate, as the Xanthalian legal tradition has long regarded execution as an ethical and cost-saving alternative to life imprisonment when rehabilitation and relocation are not possible. For that reason it is the hope of our delegation that GAR375 will not be replaced in the manner that the repeal's author petitions, but if it is, a clear and definitive position from the World Assembly on the issue is still preferable to the current law, which has the primary effect of codifying substantively different treatment for defendants on the basis of arbitrary criteria and is offensive to justice by any definition not based purely in revenge.

Regardless of the outcome on this particular point of contention, we would be most pleased to see a general movement of the World Assembly away from the antiquated and discredited philosophy of the judiciary as a punitive institution and toward a positive, forward-looking model of justice in which the heinousness of the offense is not so important as finding the best possible outcome for the injured, the convicted, and the society in which both reside. In that endeavor- should the General Assembly choose to pursue it- Xanthal would be willing to provide advice gleaned from its many decades of experience in steering its own criminal justice system away from the retributive model.

[Lammas]

"Do not assume all nations are voting blindly, for the Lammasi response is well-considered and the Lammasi Representative feels insulted anyone should accuse this government of not, at the very least, being very familar with the contents of "Crime and Punishment".

Lammas supports the repeal of this proposal, to pave the way for a prompt follow-up proposal concerning the ban of capital punishment. Any of the contents of "Crime and Punishment" not covered by a complete ban of capital punishment (clauses 3 and 12), fall under the authority of previous proposals (torture per GA 9, extradition rights per GA 147)."

[Quebecshire]

Individually:

Not that this will likely affect much, but: General Assembly Resolution #375, titled "Crime and Punishment" is a satisfactory fusion of vagueness to allow for member nations to function as they see fit, but to also lay out a common-sense based international law on the topic. Regardless of my mixed views on the death penalty, this resolution is rather condescending and arrogant in some ways, notably through the phrase "morally problematic, unmerciful, and outdated practice" when referring to capital punishment. It is simply not the place of the World Assembly to decide how subjective/varying things such as morals and the appropriate time for something should be decided, which leads me back to my main point about how the resolution which this seeks to repeal is a fair compromise between vagueness and strict international law. The notion that the World Assembly should force member states to spend further money to keep dangerous individuals alive (following what has already been due process per resolution 375) and incarcerated for extended periods of time is simply overreach and a very unnecessary one at that.

Regionally:

The LCN Citizens' Assembly will likely hold a vote on how our World Assembly Delegate will be expected to vote.

[Uan aa Boa]

Has anybody here who voted for this resolution actually bothered to go back and read the very measure it's repealing?

Yes I have, but however good it was I would gladly repeal it in order to clear the way for a ban on capital punishment.

[Silverfalls]

This is a gross abuse of power for the WA. This should fall under the rule of individual nations, not the WA. This honestly feels like one nation trying to force everyone else to be like them, which is wrong.

[SchutteGod]

Just had a look-see at the transcript for the debate for the original resolution. You'd be surprised at how many prominent repeal proponents were actively pledging their full-throated support for the resolution two years ago. LOL. You do you, WA.

[Ru-]

With all due respect owed to the great work and judgement if United Massachusetts: Ru cautions against repealing an otherwise excellent and critical piece of legislation just to risk an attempt to end the death penalty for all WA nations. This body overreaches enough as it is. Against.

[Riverwinde]

Capitol Punishment should be left up to the individual states, not the WA. This is an excessive reach of the WA to force a minorities' view on a majority.

[Santaenia]

The Dictatorship of Santaenia agrees that banning capital punishment amounts to an unsolicited interference in our internal affairs. However, Santaenia does not object to the ban on that basis. We instead argue that the arguments for the ban presented in this resolution are predicated on highly subjective standards. Part e. of the resolution, for example, argues that “permitting the death penalty represents a rejection of the notion that life has intrinsic worth merely by virtue of its existence”, as if that were a reason to affirm in of itself rather than an imposition of a value upon other unwilling nations. Whether that value is shared depends on your nation’s societal values. Santaenians highly object to the idea that life carries intrinsic value by virtue of existence. We instead gauge the value of life based on whether preserving life in any given instance is beneficial to our society. Our morality system holds that preserving life for the sake of preserving life is a human attempt to combat against our natural instinct as animals to preserve ourselves when it is not in our collective interest to preserve a life.

I could continue demonstrating the subjective nature of each argument, but for the sake of efficiency, Santaenia makes this declaration: Rather than compile a list of subjective reasons why nations should adopt the repeal and a consecutive resolution afterwards (with no assurance of passage after the repeal is passed, a serious problem in of itself), argue instead why it is in the collective interest of World Assembly nations to adopt this resolution, irrespective of economic, cultural, and social differences.

[Xanthal]

The Dictatorship of Santaenia agrees that banning capital punishment amounts to an unsolicited interference in our internal affairs. However, Santaenia does not object to the ban on that basis. We instead argue that the arguments for the ban presented in this resolution are predicated on highly subjective standards. Part e. of the resolution, for example, argues that “permitting the death penalty represents a rejection of the notion that life has intrinsic worth merely by virtue of its existence”, as if that were a reason to affirm in of itself rather than an imposition of a value upon other unwilling nations. Whether that value is shared depends on your nation’s societal values. Santaenians highly object to the idea that life carries intrinsic value by virtue of existence. We instead gauge the value of life based on whether preserving life in any given instance is beneficial to our society. Our morality system holds that preserving life for the sake of preserving life is a human attempt to combat against our natural instinct as animals to preserve ourselves when it is not in our collective interest to preserve a life.

I could continue demonstrating the subjective nature of each argument, but for the sake of efficiency, Santaenia makes this declaration: Rather than compile a list of subjective reasons why nations should adopt the repeal and a consecutive resolution afterwards (with no assurance of passage after the repeal is passed, a serious problem in of itself), argue instead why it is in the collective interest of World Assembly nations to adopt this resolution, irrespective of economic, cultural, and social differences.

Given that the repeal is already at vote, critiques of its language seem belated. I suggest directing your efforts at the proposed replacement instead, as amendment of that document is still possible.

[The Palentine]

Sweet flaming asscrackers! Another bleeding heart repeal to let the delegates of the Festering Snakepit feel good and act morally superior. A pox on this repeal and the author of it! The Palentine votes against!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Indo States]

As of August 13, The Secretariat Agreed to President of IS vote in WA GA Resolution.

---

The Fatiman WA Division in Secretariat Council agrees that Voted "Yes". Which to Bring Back the "Reclusión perpetua" (Fatiman: Емпрісоннемент перпетуел tr. Emprisonnement perpetuel Indoesh: Ееувиге опслуитинг tr. Eeuvige opsluiting) in Indo States after Multiple Wars and Martial Law on March 5 of 2018 by Melissa Lyca II (Retired) that caused Removal of "Reclusión perpetua"

---

Also, the Indoesh National Police (INP-Politie) (Fatiman: Поліце натіонале tr. Police nationale Indoesh: Натионале политие tr. Nationale politie) and the Regional Court agreed to GA Resolution to Bring it back the Permanent Imprisonment. Following Case of Melissa Lyca Evangelisa-Lyons II for Genocide with others:

- Subversion of state power by organizing armed actions against the people and state power.
- Offense of destruction of public property by destroying and damaging buildings, explosions in cities, etc.
- Undermining the national economy.
- Trying to flee the country using funds of over $1 billion deposited in foreign banks. (Unlike Ceaușescu's Case)

[Silverfalls]

This is not something the WA should decide. It breaks our sovereignty. Next you'll be telling us how to dress and think.

[The Palentine]

This is not something the WA should decide. It breaks our sovereignty. Next you'll be telling us how to dress and think.

Trust me old bean, I've been involved with the Festering Snakepit since '05. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd make an attempt to do so. As a matter of fact a few years ago, one of the soft headed cretins here thought it would be a wonderful idea to limit the type, and ply of toilet paper. Thankfully it went nowhere, but it was scary to see the support it got.
Excelsior
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Gluebucket]

This is not something the WA should decide. It breaks our sovereignty. Next you'll be telling us how to dress and think.

I completely agree. This is something that should be decided on a nation by nation basis.

[Lisa]

With respect to the Author who made a very excellent proposal I would vote No because this proposition is only speaking about clause one of the resolution at question and if it is repealed would allow nations to pass the death penalty on misdemeanors and a few other points that I don't remember at this point.

Of there is some way to make an amendment to it repealing the clause at question I would gladly vote yes.

Unless this is that resolution in that case I am an idiot!!

[Hessere]

With respect to the Author who made a very excellent proposal I would vote No because this proposition is only speaking about clause one of the resolution at question and if it is repealed would allow nations to pass the death penalty on misdemeanors and a few other points that I don't remember at this point.

Of there is some way to make an amendment to it repealing the clause at question I would gladly vote yes.

Unless this is that resolution in that case I am an idiot!!

It's a repeal of the entire resolution.

[New Bremerton]

VOTE: Against

The Republic of New Bremerton strenuously objects to what it considers to be an uncharacteristic and frankly surprising attempt by an international body, particularly one so revered as the World Assembly, to micromanage and infringe on the sovereignty of countless nations, among them liberal democracies such as New Bremerton, that practice, to varying degrees, the admittedly controversial institution widely referred to as capital punishment or the death penalty.

Read the full statement here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1076344