NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:18 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"There can be disincentives. if the prison system allows there to be. Loss of priveliges, longer times before release, solitary confinement and removal of visiting time can all function as good alternatives to the death penalty."

"Firstly, for individuals who have already had all those privileges removed, there are no further disincentives. All prison systems have a limit to the level of punishment an inmate can be given, after which point the only disincentive can be death.

"Secondly, the very presence of such amenities in prisons functions as an incentive to commit crimes. The only way prisons can deter the poor, and therefore most likely to turn to crime, from actually committing crimes is if prisons are worse than the impoverished situations would be criminals live in. When prisons are better than the surrounding society, criminals are not afraid to face the consequences."

"It sounds to me that your problem is the way you treat your poor, not the way you treat your criminals"

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:04 pm**

I must have missed the beat somewhere. How exactly is this legal, with #375 still in force?

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:05 pm**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I must have missed the beat somewhere. How exactly is this legal, with #375 still in force?

It's a replacement for 375.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:07 pm**

I don't want to sign this.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:20 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I must have missed the beat somewhere. How exactly is this legal, with #375 still in force?

It's a replacement for 375.

Well, thank you for explaining that so clearly in the OP.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:21 pm**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:It's a replacement for 375.

Well, thank you for explaining that so clearly in the OP.

I thought [REPLACEMENT] would do. My apologies.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:17 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Well, thank you for explaining that so clearly in the OP.

I thought [REPLACEMENT] would do. My apologies.

OOC: Did you manage to repeal the existing legislation that permitted capital punishment?

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:23 pm**

Zone 71 wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:I thought [REPLACEMENT] would do. My apologies.

OOC: Did you manage to repeal the existing legislation that permitted capital punishment?

This comes after the draft I posted for that (got dropped down a bit) passes. So, not yet. I'll bump that thread.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:26 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Zone 71 wrote:OOC: Did you manage to repeal the existing legislation that permitted capital punishment?

This comes after the draft I posted for that (got dropped down a bit) passes. So, not yet. I'll bump that thread.

OOC: And this is a really real draft for what you hope to be really real GA legislation? Because, with all due respect, seems like a joke that will surely make it difficult to take your ideas on this subject seriously, and doesn't help garner support for this ban on capital punishment whatsoever.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:29 pm**

Zone 71 wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:This comes after the draft I posted for that (got dropped down a bit) passes. So, not yet. I'll bump that thread.

OOC: And this is a really real draft for what you hope to be really real GA legislation? Because, with all due respect, seems like a joke that will surely make it difficult to take your ideas on this subject seriously, and doesn't help garner support for this ban on capital punishment whatsoever.

Why do resolutions have to be long? I laid out my reasoning (basically the preamble) in the repeal.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:01 pm**

Length isn't a real requirement. That something is short doesn't matter, unless there are harms from the text not covering something. That it is short, in of itself, is not a bad thing.

Posted: **Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:40 am**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Zone 71 wrote:OOC: And this is a really real draft for what you hope to be really real GA legislation? Because, with all due respect, seems like a joke that will surely make it difficult to take your ideas on this subject seriously, and doesn't help garner support for this ban on capital punishment whatsoever.

Why do resolutions have to be long? I laid out my reasoning (basically the preamble) in the repeal.

Ooc: short is good, to a point. You make it too short and people will think the length is a product of ineptitude rather than by design. The illusion of legal jargon does the same thing. Comes now the party of the first part, heretofore the petitioner, by and through their attorney...blegh.

To avoid this, I suggest a standard form preamble with more than one line and a single operative clause.

Posted: **Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:42 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:Why do resolutions have to be long? I laid out my reasoning (basically the preamble) in the repeal.

Ooc: short is good, to a point. You make it too short and people will think the length is a product of ineptitude rather than by design. The illusion of legal jargon does the same thing. Comes now the party of the first part, heretofore the petitioner, by and through their attorney...blegh.

To avoid this, I suggest a standard form preamble with more than one line and a single operative clause.

Aw. Oh well, I'll put in a preamble.

Posted: **Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:44 am**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Ooc: short is good, to a point. You make it too short and people will think the length is a product of ineptitude rather than by design. The illusion of legal jargon does the same thing. Comes now the party of the first part, heretofore the petitioner, by and through their attorney...blegh.

To avoid this, I suggest a standard form preamble with more than one line and a single operative clause.

Aw. Oh well, I'll put in a preamble.

I share your disappointment, but there are certain customs to which we must adhere to ensure legitimacy in the eyes of voters.

Posted: **Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:54 am**

Lampshade it, put a clause in saying that justifying the choice of a short length.

Posted: **Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:10 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Lampshade it, put a clause in saying that justifying the choice of a short length.

"Believing this could have been done in a shorter form, but bowing to the will of the ~~unwashed~~ masses"
:lol:

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:31 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:Why do resolutions have to be long? I laid out my reasoning (basically the preamble) in the repeal.

Ooc: short is good, to a point. You make it too short and people will think the length is a product of ineptitude rather than by design. The illusion of legal jargon does the same thing. Comes now the party of the first part, heretofore the petitioner, by and through their attorney...blegh.

To avoid this, I suggest a standard form preamble with more than one line and a single operative clause.

OOC: As one of my teachers who was fond of crass humor would say, writing anything is like a girl's skirt: It should be long enough to cover everything but short enough to keep it interesting.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:50 pm**

Liberimery wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Ooc: short is good, to a point. You make it too short and people will think the length is a product of ineptitude rather than by design. The illusion of legal jargon does the same thing. Comes now the party of the first part, heretofore the petitioner, by and through their attorney...blegh.

To avoid this, I suggest a standard form preamble with more than one line and a single operative clause.

OOC: As one of my teachers who was fond of crass humor would say, writing anything is like a girl's skirt: It should be long enough to cover everything but short enough to keep it interesting.

OOC: Do note that 'interesting' (meaning how engaging the proposal is) isn't exactly a requirement for writing proposals/resolutions.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:14 pm**

Lord Dominator wrote:
Liberimery wrote:

OOC: As one of my teachers who was fond of crass humor would say, writing anything is like a girl's skirt: It should be long enough to cover everything but short enough to keep it interesting.

OOC: Do note that 'interesting' (meaning how engaging the proposal is) isn't exactly a requirement for writing proposals/resolutions.

But it helps.

Anyway, I don't think anyone will think that UM's brevity is a product of ineptitude.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:23 pm**

Aclion wrote:
Lord Dominator wrote:OOC: Do note that 'interesting' (meaning how engaging the proposal is) isn't exactly a requirement for writing proposals/resolutions.

But it helps.

Anyway, I don't think anyone will think that UM's brevity is a product of ineptitude.

A product of the secret Catholic agenda. UM doesn't want to present his reasoning because it will show his true motives.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:24 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Aclion wrote:But it helps.

Anyway, I don't think anyone will think that UM's brevity is a product of ineptitude.

A product of the secret Catholic agenda. UM doesn't want to present his reasoning because it will show his true motives.

He must be stopped.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:26 pm**

Bruke wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:A product of the secret Catholic agenda. UM doesn't want to present his reasoning because it will show his true motives.

He must be stopped.

First, it's the death penalty. Next, it's the global Inquisition.

No one expects it. His chief weapon is surprise.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:42 pm**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Bruke wrote:
He must be stopped.

First, it's the death penalty. Next, it's the global Inquisition.

No one expects it. His chief weapon is surprise.

We will stop him by enacting ultra-luxurious capitalist anarcho-communism.

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:42 pm**

President Willis stood up, hands on the desk.

"These are wise words, enterprising men. But do you have the slightliest of ideas how much it would backlash in your face if it failed, or even if it was accepted? Mankind always seemed to prefer nonsense to rationality."

He sat back down, continuing to talk.

"The people of Antlionia will support you in your crusade against this inhumane way to treat men and women, But keep in mind that if it fails, you're on your own, Komaransky.

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:38 am**

United Massachusetts wrote:
Bruke wrote:
He must be stopped.

First, it's the death penalty. Next, it's the global Inquisition.

No one expects it. His chief weapon is surprise.

His chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among UM’s chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope!

Um, I'll come in again...”

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Ban on Capital Punishment