[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment

[Frisbeeteria]

---

Ban on Capital Punishment
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Having already presented its rationale in GA 4XX,

Restating, however, that the death penalty institutionalizes a model of justice with only retributive value, a model inherently flawed in its assertion that violence and killing are best dealt with by more bloodshed,

Concerned that the use of capital punishment prevents nations from taking steps to correct errors in their legal process, the most grave and final sentence having already been delivered,

Believing that life sentences and other alternative punishments better provide criminals with the opportunities to repent for their wrongs and improve their habits,

Asserting that justice is best served without the death penalty, for it is cruel, condemns certain innocent people to death, and rejects the affirmation that all sapient life is valuable by its very existence,

The General Assembly, at long last, invoking its august power in this present session assembled, and by the advice and consent of its delegates and member nations, hereby:

1. Declares that no member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.
   
   
2. Mandates that member nations commute any death sentences handed down within their jurisdiction, and instead determine through their legal processes an alternative punishment,
   
   
3. Prohibits member nations from extraditing individuals to a foreign nation where they are likely to face execution or capital punishment inline with prohibited punishment above.

Co-authored by: Imperium Anglorum

[Sciongrad]

Full support!

[Likar]

(Image)

---

Ban on Capital Punishment
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Having already presented its rationale in GA 4XX, The General Assembly declares that no member nation shall employ a penalty of death for any crime, excluding war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Standing at 198 characters, I have fit an entire resolution into a tweet. I will be accepting further suggestions, especially those that decrease this abhorrently high character count.

Support

[United Massachusetts]

How do I decrease the character count?

[Bruke]

Nega: "The Royal Republic stands opposed to this proposed legislation, as it would unilaterally impose your sense of justice on the rest of the world. The Government has chosen to leave this power to the provinces, and it intends for that power to remain with the provinces. While your government's desire to abolish the death penalty is surely commendable, allow nations to do so at the speed and manner which is appropriate for them."

[Separatist Peoples]

The Ambassador Yun Junmai stands up.

"We fiercely reject this resolution, and encourage everyone who rejects this to not stand for this if it is passed. We propose that if this is passed, action is taken to show we are not going to stand for this."

"Because...?"

[United Massachusetts]

The Ambassador Yun Junmai stands up.

"We fiercely reject this resolution, and encourage everyone who rejects this to not stand for this if it is passed. We propose that if this is passed, action is taken to show we are not going to stand for this."

Such as?

We will note that our resolution is shorter than your argument.

[United Massachusetts]

Such as?

We will note that our resolution is shorter than your argument.

"Because...?"

"Simple, this is enforcing a vast capital punishment ban on all sorts of states, Fascist ones, Communist Ones, Monarchies, Anarchies even...We cannot tolerate this and we very much appreciate the World Assembly but this is a step too far."

Yeah. Capital punishment is a violation of human rights.

[United Massachusetts]

Yeah. Capital punishment is a violation of human rights.

"No that isn't that's an opinion, often by the left. Your statement is now pushing leftist beliefs on nations of vastly varying ideologies. We can't expect any nation that values international freedom of ideology to stand for this."

Is freedom of religion a human right? Or freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press?

How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

[Frisbeeteria]

How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

I've always liked this Robert Heinlein quote from Starship Troopers (the book, not that awful movie)

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

[United Massachusetts]

Is freedom of religion a human right? Or freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press?

How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

"Then are you proposing a war ban? What about a suicide ban? Assassinations? Those won't exactly work. Yes you can mitigate both through other means, but it's impractical. This isn't a country, it's a multinational body, you can't dictate how we all work if you want to provide a unfying force for many varying ideologies. This specifically isn't even that extreme even as well."

We do ban assassinations, first off. Secondly, wars can be just when they advance certain other criteria. This just war doctrine is crucial to Catholic social teaching.

Further, rights are secured against a government taking them away. Wherever possible, no government should deny man his fundamental freedoms, life among them.

It is always possible, and feasible for that mattter, to refrain from a death sentence. It is the WA's job to legislate on matters of securing human rights--it has done so before, and will do so again. We refuse to cater to the interests of genocidal communists, militant athiests, theocratic tyrants, or murderous fascists. Some ideologies are better than others.

How about the right to life, because that's the one at stake.

I've always liked this Robert Heinlein quote from Starship Troopers (the book, not that awful movie)

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

Of course there exist no absolute rights without exceptions. However, life is the most basic of rights:

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici (1988), no. 38

[United Massachusetts]

We do ban assassinations, first off. Secondly, wars can be just when they advance certain other criteria. This just war doctrine is crucial to Catholic social teaching.

Further, rights are secured against a government taking them away. Wherever possible, no government should deny man his fundamental freedoms, life among them.

It is always possible, and feasible for that mattter, to refrain from a death sentence. It is the WA's job to legislate on matters of securing human rights--it has done so before, and will do so again. We refuse to cater to the interests of genocidal communists, militant athiests, theocratic tyrants, or murderous fascists. Some ideologies are better than others.

"What about for Treason? Murder? Mass slaughter? Rape? Genocide?"

Yeah. We (either the WA in the case of rape and genocide, or reasonable nations in the other three cases) ban all of those as a means of protecting life, particularly the last one, since it is government-instigated.

EDIT: Are you asking whether the death penalty is a valid punishment for these crimes? For one, the answer is yes.

[United Massachusetts]

I'll respond tomorrow as to whether the death penalty is justified in cases of rape, murder, etc. As for now, my battery is running low.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You wanna reduce the character count? Do this: viewtopic.php?p=33900562#p33900562 . If you use it, give me a coauthor shout-out. Or:

No member state may execute any person under its jurisdiction.

Otherwise, I support the proposal.

If you need precedent, look no further than the UN Taxation Ban.

[Separatist Peoples]

"None of the crimes yet listed is an appropriate cause for judicially inefficient punishments," Bell yawns.

[Araraukar]

OOC: In IC Araraukar would resist this, since their laws actually have a law about how you basically sign away your right to life if you murder another. (Also has the same thing for treason, but that one's much more complicated.) OOCly I don't quite understand why executions should be banned (ignoring the "right to life" crap - see the quote Fris posted), if life-long imprisonment is still allowed. Life-long imprisonment, especially if it is necessary to keep the person in solitary confinement, is more akin to torture, especially as it ends in death as well.

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador," says Feren, dusting off a really quite thick coating of dust from his hat, "Do explain why the Imperium should be expected to support the lives of treasonists, serial pedophiles and murderers, and, others who are unable to be safely returned to society?"

[Kenmoria]

(Image)

---

Ban on Capital Punishment
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Having already presented its rationale in GA 4XX, The General Assembly bans member nations from employing a penalty of death for any crime, excluding war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Standing at 188 characters, I have fit an entire resolution into a tweet. I will be accepting further suggestions, especially those that decrease this abhorrently high character count.

"Full support, bit on the long side though. If you want to further reduce the character count, alter 'member nations' to 'WA states'."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Capital crimes call for capital punishment, Ambassador." Blackbourne remarks. "Excidium Planetis is opposed."

[Separatist Peoples]

"None of the crimes yet listed is an appropriate cause for judicially inefficient punishments," Bell yawns.

"Then you are heartless, and are pro-treason, genocide, and murder if you don't intend to punish them. If we can't torture them, if we can't kill them, there's no way we can create a deterrent stopping people from doing crime through fear."

"Oh. My. God." Bell's eyes go wide, and his mouth falls open. "You're right! There clearly is no alternative to either execution or torture for any of those crimes! Without execution and torture, society must clearly fall apart! What have I been doing to my country all this time?"

He resumes his previous, bored expression. "Or, you know, we can use imprisonment. Which has historically worked fine, and is reversible."

Yun Junmai snaps. "My own family was a victim of treason, genocide, and murder. This is a freaking multinational organization, not an empire!"

"Guess how much I care, ambassador, about your family. Go on, guess. I'll give you a hint: I don't succumb to emotional arguments, especially when they're as transparent as plastic wrap and about as sturdy. This is a multinational organization. You win a brownie point. Its a multinational organization that takes broad action to stop practices inimical to individual rights. Which is why genocide, torture, discrimination and mass oppression are illegal, and abortion, civil rights, and freedom of emigration are legal, despite despots and tinpot dictators making emotional cases to the contrary. Especially when they stand on the bodies of their own dead family to do so."

[Araraukar]

"Which is why genocide, torture, discrimination and mass oppression are illegal, and abortion, civil rights, and freedom of emigration are legal"

"Yet many resolutions require criminalization and severe punishments for a good number of things that are banned by the World Assembly. Why take away the harshest of punishments? Someone convicted of having tortured and killed countless of children just for their own sexual pleasure - in other words, crimes that have been degreed crimes by the World Assembly, but do not fall under "war crimes or crimes against humanity" - cannot in good conscience ever be let out or rehabilitated to the point where it would be fair to let them out of imprisonment. Why, then, should the society pay the upkeep of such a person for several decades? Why should the inmate be tortured - yes, you heard me, tortured, which is something the World Assembly has banned, because depriving a person of a social species from all social contact is nothing short of torture - for several decades? Or are you maybe suggesting that they should be encouraged to take their own lives, since euthanasia has not yet been banned and suicide has been expressly made legal? Do you honestly mean to encourage nations to move from humane, painless and quick death to suicide-by-coercion? What does that really change but the words in the law book? And if you seek to ban that, who can claim, after the person is dead, that they did not choose to die of their own volition?"

OOC: The above is on the lines of the official Araraukarian IC view of death penalty, not necessarily mine OOCly.

OOC EDIT: If I've misunderstood and the very short text doesn't stop a nation from declaring things "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" (since Araraukar would happily add sexual assault of children to that latter one) the things that currently would earn a death penalty, then ignore all of the above.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Which is why genocide, torture, discrimination and mass oppression are illegal, and abortion, civil rights, and freedom of emigration are legal"

[i]"Yet many resolutions require criminalization and severe punishments for a good number of things that are banned by the World Assembly. Why take away the harshest of punishments?

"Because the punishment is inherently irreversible, and mortal criminal justice is not infallible. And because execution meets none of the components of an effective criminal justice punishment. It is purely retributive, which is a piss-poor theory upon which to run a justice system."

Someone convicted of having tortured and killed countless of children just for their own sexual pleasure - in other words, crimes that have been degreed crimes by the World Assembly, but do not fall under "war crimes or crimes against humanity" - cannot in good conscience ever be let out or rehabilitated to the point where it would be fair to let them out of imprisonment.

"Pathos doesn't work on me, ambassador. You'd do well to find a different approach."

Why, then, should the society pay the upkeep of such a person for several decades?

"Separation from the public is a goal of criminal justice. Society spends money on all of those within it's care, even those who are unsavory. That's the point of society. Otherwise, we wouldn't spend money on silly things like medical care for prisoners or rehabilitation for drug users."

Why should the inmate be tortured - yes, you heard me, tortured, which is something the World Assembly has banned, because depriving a person of a social species from all social contact is nothing short of torture - for several decades?

"Imprisonment is not the same thing as isolation. This argument is intellectually dishonest."

Or are you maybe suggesting that they should be encouraged to take their own lives, since euthanasia has not yet been banned and suicide has been expressly made legal?

"Please point out where I suggested that, ambassador. If you're going to shove your things into my mouth, you gotta buy me dinner, first. Maybe just a couple drinks I dunno, its not like anybody else is offering these days."

Do you honestly mean to encourage nations to move from humane, painless and quick death to suicide-by-coercion?

"Strawman arguments are bad, ambassador."

What does that really change but the words in the law book?

"More straw."

And if you seek to ban that, who can claim, after the person is dead, that they did not choose to die of their own volition?"

"Found the hay field."

[Bananaistan]

"Found the hay field."

"You wouldn't actually find any straw in a hay field. You'd want the corn field for that. Unless you were actually looking for the literal straw man, in which case I'd direct you to the vegetable fields.

"We'd question the need for the ridiculously long preamble here. And the operative clause could be significantly shortened too."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Found the hay field."

"You wouldn't actually find any straw in a hay field. You'd want the corn field for that. Unless you were actually looking for the literal straw man, in which case I'd direct you to the vegetable fields.

"We'd question the need for the ridiculously long preamble here. And the operative clause could be significantly shortened too."

"Do I look like a farmer to you? Jeez, everybody is a critic..."

[Grays Harbor]

"You wouldn't actually find any straw in a hay field. You'd want the corn field for that. Unless you were actually looking for the literal straw man, in which case I'd direct you to the vegetable fields.

"We'd question the need for the ridiculously long preamble here. And the operative clause could be significantly shortened too."

"Do I look like a farmer to you? Jeez, everybody is a critic..."

Well, ... your office *is* the former 17th Floor men’s room ... just sayin’, my friend.