NationStates

---

Repeal "Crime and Punishment"
Category: Repeal | Target: 375 GA | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

The General Assembly,

Lauding the various mandates within "Crime and Punishment" which seek to curb the inhumanities and cruelties associated with the provision of capital punishment in certain, more sinister nations,

Concerned, however, by Clause 1 of the target resolution, which effectively prevents a substantive ban on capital punishment across World Assembly member-states,

Convinced that such a ban would be desirable for the following reasons:

1. the finality of the death penalty prevents the state from correcting any errors made in the legal and conviction processes, thereby inevitably condemning to death certain innocent individuals,
2. a great many individuals facing the death penalty are unable to afford their own attorneys, and are often forced to rely on overburdened public defense mechanisms,
3. any long legal process associated with the death penalty is bound to extend the pain and frustrations of crime victims, rather than provide the closure they need and desire,
4. the predominantly retributive model of justice employed by the death penalty has failed to deter crime in any provable way,
5. permitting the death penalty represents a rejection of the notion that life has intrinsic worth merely by virtue of its existence,

Noting that such a ban has already been drafted and will be proposed in short order following the passage of this repeal,

Seeking, therefore, to empower this Assembly once again to ban the morally problematic, unmerciful, and outdated practice of capital punishment, does hereby repeal General Assembly Resolution #375, "Crime and Punishment."

So, this is a first draft. Thoughts?

OOC: I'd number your clauses. Lowercase letters are generally reserved for a sublist.

Also, b. worries me a little bit. Public Defender offices in the US rarely let new attorneys handle such cases, so "under-trained" isn't accurate. I don't see why it would be different ICly. I'd leave off that descriptor.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Also, b. worries me a little bit. Public Defender offices in the US rarely let new attorneys handle such cases, so "under-trained" isn't accurate. I don't see why it would be different ICly. I'd leave off that descriptor.

(I believe in agreement with the above,) In the US experience, at least, narrowing the statement solely to overburdened, would resolve this.

I'd think that the reference to "overburdened" is even a little beside the point -- the worry is that a great many individuals facing the death penalty are likely to be unable to provide themselves with the best possible legal defense, and that states will likely not provide them with the best possible legal defense, making them more likely to be wrongly convicted. This could be true in a state with no problem of overburdening in the public defense area, and seems like it would not be limited to being a concern about overburdened public defense specifically.

OOC: Clause one gives nations the power to employ capital punishment in the most extreme of cases
Nowhere does it prevent nations from not using the death penalty. United Mass, could you please explain in further detail why it may prevent nations from not instituting the death penalty?

Cute Puppies wrote:OOC: Clause one gives nations the power to employ capital punishment in the most extreme of cases
Nowhere does it prevent nations from not using the death penalty. United Mass, could you please explain in further detail why it may prevent nations from not instituting the death penalty?

Because that's not what he's targeting : 'Concerned, however, by Clause 1 of the target resolution, which effectively prevents a substantive ban on capital punishment across World Assembly member-states', while the word 'all' could certainly be put between 'across' and 'World'.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Cute Puppies wrote:OOC: Clause one gives nations the power to employ capital punishment in the most extreme of cases
Nowhere does it prevent nations from not using the death penalty. United Mass, could you please explain in further detail why it may prevent nations from not instituting the death penalty?

Because that's not what he's targeting : 'Concerned, however, by Clause 1 of the target resolution, which effectively prevents a substantive ban on capital punishment across World Assembly member-states', while the word 'all' could certainly be put between 'across' and 'World'.

OOC: Excuse my being an idiot.
Imperium Anglorum, do you feel a repeal like this may be too radical and overall beneficial for the WA? I think imposing a WA ban on capital punishment is a bit too much.

No thank you.

"I would do at least one reason not related to capital punishment; it is such a controversial issue that not allowing for the WA to impose a ban isn't really good enough in my eyes."

United Massachusetts wrote:permitting the death penalty represents a rejection of the notion that life has intrinsic worth merely by virtue of its existence

From the standpoint of death penalty proponents, the execution of murderers demonstrates a greater value for life than incarceration. This argument is unpersuasive.

United Massachusetts wrote:Seeking, therefore, to empower this Assembly once again to ban the morally problematic, unjust, and outdated practice of capital punishment, does hereby repeal General Assembly Resolution #375, "Crime and Punishment."

Capital punishment is morally problematic, certainly. However, it does not lack in justice; it lacks in mercy. In addition, the age of the practice has no bearing on its morality. Old practices can be morally good, and new practices can be morally bad.

Christian Democrats wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:permitting the death penalty represents a rejection of the notion that life has intrinsic worth merely by virtue of its existence

From the standpoint of death penalty proponents, the execution of murderers demonstrates a greater value for life than incarceration. This argument is unpersuasive.

The death penalty proponents are wrong. I lean towards including the argument.

United Massachusetts wrote:I lean towards including the argument.

I too lean towards including the argument.

I see no reason why the death penalty is 'outdated' It serves well to the society.

It deters citizens from commiting horendous crimes.
In most nations such as mine, the death penalty is safe, humane and sanitary.
Generally when one has been convicted of the most severe crimes, it is the right choice to sentence them to the death penalty, as it benefits the society. The convicted felon would no longer be a threat to citizens of the society.

I understand your worry that in some member nations, the method of the penalty could be outdated, but the death penalty in general serves an important purpose in keeping our nation safe.

"Given it appears the only reason you want to repeal this is to ban capital punishment, which we would not support, we must oppose this proposal unless other reasons are presented."

"Whilst we fully support the banning of capital punishment, and accept the reasons presented in the draft, East Gondwana must unfortunately oppose this repeal. Our reasoning for this is pragmatic: the target resolution is, in every other mandate a vital and necessary piece of legislation to protect citizens and minimise the damage of capital punishment. If this were repealed, it would need to be immediately replaced with every clause not pertaining to capital punishment included, as well as an immediate ban on capital punishment. Given the risk of a replacement failing or being a much watered down version, and the near impossibility of a lasting ban on capital punishment (even in the most optimistic view), it is too dangerous, in our opinion, to repeal this resolution, even if the motive is admirable."

"It is not in the interest of the World Assembly to cut down everything in order to get one thing. If the devil came to your nation, would you cut down every law to get him? If you did so, what stands between you and him? I on the other hand would run him through the thicket that is law. I believe that there is a path to ban capital punishment without repealing GA375. The repeal of GA375 sets a bad precedent".

New Keam wrote:"It is not in the interest of the World Assembly to cut down everything in order to get one thing. If the devil came to your nation, would you cut down every law to get him? If you did so, what stands between you and him? I on the other hand would run him through the thicket that is law. I believe that there is a path to ban capital punishment without repealing GA375. The repeal of GA375 sets a bad precedent".

"GAR#375 explicitly permits capital punishment. It cannot be banned without a repeal of GAR#375. It isn't possible."

I'd have to disagree with the draft resolution here. While looking over GAR 375, it does feel a bit... ambiguous? I think that every nation here has an inherent right to set their own laws. I don't think I need to expand upon why a resolution to ban capital punishment could potentially be, and will likely be, an infringement on national sovereignty. While GAR 375 I feel is a bit vague, it does at the very least provide some basic protections, and they are sufficient to provide the protections to the accused to ensure it is carried out fairly in states with a separate and independent judiciary.

I understand what you are trying to do here, which is why I sadly have to express my opposition. If the end goal was not to abolish the death penalty, I might have been in favor of this draft if it replaced GAR 375 with another resolution which would empower the GA, and the WA in general, to enforce the provisions of said article, for example by setting up a commission to investigate violations or misuse of the death penalty in member states. If the sole purpose of this is to repeal GAR 375 just to ban the death penalty, like it is suggested, then I have to be against this proposal on the grounds of National Sovereignty, as it would infringe upon the right of member states to set their own laws and punishment for their crimes.

Anyways, I hope my feedback was useful to you, and that it encourages you to rethink the draft resolution. Feel free to TG me if you have any more questions.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"GAR#375 explicitly permits capital punishment. It cannot be banned without a repeal of GAR#375. It isn't possible."

"Even so, we are cutting down everything on an attempt to gamble to get more. World Assembly politics might sideline the end objective after the repeal".

New Keam wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"GAR#375 explicitly permits capital punishment. It cannot be banned without a repeal of GAR#375. It isn't possible."

"Even so, we are cutting down everything on an attempt to gamble to get more. World Assembly politics might sideline the end objective after the repeal".

"No, we're cutting down a single law to replace it with another. That's how the GA works. Its how it has always worked. That a replacement may not pass is a risk, but it also presents the opportunity for an alternative replacement."

Opposed. One does not deserve to live after they willingly taken or preyed on innocent. The Empire will continue to punish those who do so with immediate death when found guilty.

"Sciongrad has historically opposed the death penalty and has supported efforts to prohibit it in international law. Yet Sciongrad remains cautious in supporting a repeal of Crime and Punishment. Some protection is better than none, and we are not certain a total prohibition would succeed. Sciongrad will likely abstain on the repeal, though it will vote for any replacement that seeks to outlaw execution."

Sciongrad wrote:"Sciongrad has historically opposed the death penalty and has supported efforts to prohibit it in international law. Yet Sciongrad remains cautious in supporting a repeal of Crime and Punishment. Some protection is better than none, and we are not certain a total prohibition would succeed. Sciongrad will likely abstain on the repeal, though it will vote for any replacement that seeks to outlaw execution."

This would be replaced by a resolution abolishing capital punishment.

Mate, I'm just so down to ban capital punishment.

Is it ready for submission?