[PASSED] Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Sacara]

I've been around long enough and passed enough resolutions to tell you that what's going to happen is that any blocker will get repealed, like it was a few weeks ago. Then we will be sitting around with no protections for innocents while some ban attempt does or does not fail. Whether it fails or not is pretty immaterial. I would much rather that those protections didn't go away.

If you really want a blocker, go find some little smidge not touched on this resolution and pass one yourself. I just don't want it as a rider to this one.

I'm not accusing you of plagiarism - I know of you well enough to know that is something you wouldn't do - however, it just seems like this is just a 'lite' version of the one you repealed, with the benefit of it not being a blocker.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you want a blocker, go pass one.

[Sacara]

If you want a blocker, go pass one.

OOC: Not sure I'll have enough stamps, lol. Took quite a few to send out my rebuttal telegram the other day. Also not sure if I could even write a proposal, can't say I've ever done it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you want a blocker, go pass one.

OOC: Not sure I'll have enough stamps, lol. Took quite a few to send out my rebuttal telegram the other day. Also not sure if I could even write a proposal, can't say I've ever done it.

You don't need all WA stamps to effectively get something to vote. If you have decent enough arguments, it'll probably pass. Go for it. I'm pretty sure my proposal here is quite comprehensive, but there's something that probably isn't getting touched on.

If you want more guidance about telegram campaigning, I wrote a guide on it. Just search somewhere in my thread history, it should pop up shortly.

[Sacara]

You don't need all WA stamps to effectively get something to vote. If you have decent enough arguments, it'll probably pass. Go for it. I'm pretty sure my proposal here is quite comprehensive, but there's something that probably isn't getting touched on.

If you want more guidance about telegram campaigning, I wrote a guide on it. Just search somewhere in my thread history, it should pop up shortly.

You proposal is almost comprehensive. As soon as you remove the first clause, I'll be content with it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You proposal is almost comprehensive. As soon as you remove the first clause, I'll be content with it.

Removing the first clause won't create a blocker.

[Sacara]

Removing the first clause won't create a blocker.

Upon further inspection, I suppose you did not in fact add in anywhere that it shall be allowed.

With the (hopeful) defeat of your proposal-at-vote looming, it seems most just to add in a blocker clause, and I can't seem to rationalize any other way of thinking.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yea, I don't want to add a blocking clause. Doing so would create the problem of having to repeal all of these protections when someone inevitably takes a run at capital punishment again. I think that's pretty bad way of solving it. If you really want a blocker, find something that isn't covered and pass your own. It's not getting lumped into this one.

If amendments existed, I would be happy to add it. But they do not.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Removing the first clause won't create a blocker.

Upon further inspection, I suppose you did not in fact add in anywhere that it shall be allowed.

With the (hopeful) defeat of your proposal-at-vote looming, it seems most just to add in a blocker clause, and I can't seem to rationalize any other way of thinking.

Simply put, is there any logical reason to block attempts at another ban on capital punishment? If this attempt loses, it likely won't be won for a while so there is no need to worry. However if someone were to attempt it regardless, these protections would be wiped away when they could easily have been protected. Also how exactly is that clause creating a situation where this isn't comprehensive?

[Sacara]

Simply put, is there any logical reason to block attempts at another ban on capital punishment? If this attempt loses, it likely won't be won for a while so there is no need to worry. However if someone were to attempt it regardless, these protections would be wiped away when they could easily have been protected. Also how exactly is that clause creating a situation where this isn't comprehensive?

As already previously stated, the World Assembly vote currently stands (roughly) at 9300-7400 (about a 1900 vote difference). Given the divisiveness of the proposal, that it a strong mandate for a proposal that was extremely close in the beginning. I was assuming the vote would end in the 51%-49% range. There is no reason not to add a blocker that was most recently repealed.

The General Assembly does not support prohibiting nations from using capital punishment, and it seems extremely fitting to add a blocker onto this proposal.

[Hamstan]

Ambassador Hammer stands up to speak. The previous days have been troubling, and he is suffering from lack of sleep
"While Hamstan would like GA #375, the previous resolution on Capital Punishment, back on the books, we realize that this is difficult, if not impossible, to implement. We believe this proposal, while not perfect, is probably the best solution for the regulation of capital punishment as of yet. We support the proposal, but I cannot say for certain that the Mensa Economy regional representative, the United States of Coffee, will approve. We wish the Imperium good luck, and I will try to get USC's ambassador to approve the proposal."

[Arasi Luvasa]

Simply put, is there any logical reason to block attempts at another ban on capital punishment? If this attempt loses, it likely won't be won for a while so there is no need to worry. However if someone were to attempt it regardless, these protections would be wiped away when they could easily have been protected. Also how exactly is that clause creating a situation where this isn't comprehensive?

As already previously stated, the World Assembly vote currently stands (roughly) at 9300-7400 (about a 1900 vote difference). Given the divisiveness of the proposal, that it a strong mandate for a proposal that was extremely close in the beginning. I was assuming the vote would end in the 51%-49% range. There is no reason not to add a blocker that was most recently repealed.

The General Assembly does not support prohibiting nations from using capital punishment, and it seems extremely fitting to add a blocker onto this proposal.

Yet it will be attempted again and the blocker, along with these protections, will be repealed again. There is absolutely no reason to place reasonable protection in the way of repeal just because you want to block certain resolutions form being proposed. Why do you want this resolution to be repealed?

[SVR2200]

This is important to know, because soon Jesus will return to earth and collect what belongs to Him. He will defeat the followers of Satan and claim His elect for Himself. Ultimately, Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire and “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). Afterward, Jesus will judge unbelievers according to what they have done during their lives. Anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life is thrown into the lake of fire where Satan and his minions will be by that time (Revelation 20:13, 15). Hell and death are also thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14), so, technically speaking, at no time does Satan reside in hell. But he will be confined permanently in a very hot place that could be called a “hellish” location, to be tormented eternally.

Other words even Satan himself was contained, restricted, seized, locked down, chained, tormented & what not anything else but not killed.

Life is the first law & everything spiral around it. Purpouse of life is the life itself. Capital punishment is against the creation itself. Its the easy escape for serpent while he laughing to the face of puppet who don't understand it.

Enjoy lads.

[Blackledge]

Speaking as a government in favor of some form of compromise, we have only these concerns to raise for now. If any are a result of our having misinterpreted the involved clause and can be speedily and diplomatically corrected, all the merrier.

Is Clause 2 attempting to imply a jurisdiction may not have more than one capital case per one million inhabitants (as though that could be controlled by WA legislation), or that one per year is the limit that may be subject to review while the rest aren't?
What does Clause 3 mean exactly? What is considered "unduly influencing" or "coercing" defendants?
Clause 4e sets an unreasonable minimum time anyone with experience in law can observe there is no "typical" time-frame for cases that involve capital punishment. If the WA wants to pick up the tab, however, that would be acceptable.
To clarify Clause 7, is it meant to imply application only for fellow WA nations? If a criminal from a non-WA nation is to be extradited and charged with a capital offense, Clause 7 would not apply?

Clause 9 is opposed on principle at this time.

Cheers.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Until the first clause is changed, we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. It seems as if the author is copying the original resolution they repealed, which the added bonus of allowing future World Assembly members to ban capital punishment going forward.

Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions.

I don't see how this is a problem. It's not banning capital punishment or trying to ban it in future resolution

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

"Our prison system works pretty well as it is. It's efficiency is unquestioned since it focuses on rehabilitation. I defend the nations that may not have a pretty good system. And Ambassador, there are 2 types of red tape: national and supranational. If you are truly allowing the Assembly to dictate how you run your nation, judiciary wise, then maybe I could set up a committee and make my own demands. If you deny them, heh, I might as well intervene. You also seem to forget that Judiciary and Executive are two different branches, with the former being independent from the latter. Unless, of course, your executive is tied with your judiciary." says Ambassador Irons.

I will choose to ignore the not very veiled threats of military action against my humble nation once more ambassador as I imagine all junior ambassadors from such an insecure nation go through such a phase when finding themselves out of their depth. It is true that the Malstian defense forces would not offer much opposition to a determined aggressor but I would hope that here in these halls right is determined by something other than use of weapons.

I too am concerned by those nations too impoverished to establish an adequate system of trials, oversight and appeals for their condemned prisoners. I trust you'll join me in congratulating the author for ensuring that the World Assembly will gladly shoulder the economic and expert burden that would otherwise be unduly placed on such nations should this resolution demand that such oversight be carried out within the nation?

Could you perhaps direct me to a single passage in this resolution that asks for a layer of security, appeal or oversight that you do not feel is reasonable to grant to a defendant facing the death penalty?

The President of the Alliance steps in, with his theme playing in the background.
"He thinks you don't have the authority to issue military actions?"
"Mr. President, sir! Well, it appears as such."
"Don't worry, I'll take care of this."
The President steps in
"Dearest Ambassador, you should know that the Diplomatic Corps, and especially the Delegation to the Assembly has all the authority it needs to issue military actions. We are of course consulted prior, but bear in mind that the Alliance has gone through pretty rough times these past 2 centuries."
The President stops, takes a sip from his glass of scotch, and continues.
"I have faith in the Assembly, it is unquestionable. But its purpose should not be to issue ultimatums at nations, dictating their policy, especially in the military, production and justice sections, there are exceptions to these however. I show full support to a resolution that defines the Rules of War or how to minimize pollution. But to directly intervene in a nation's justice system, is rather... extreme. The Assembly should be there to advise nations and step in when nations do not respect the passed resolutions. As the Ambassador has stated, the resolution has its heart in the right place. It's understandable, really. Societies are unique in their own way. One can be more direct with certain issues, while another can be more lenient. I assume yours is the latter, and I respect it. But the Alliance.... well, the Alliance has no tolerance for those who would violate such high laws. Rape is a crime, because it violates the individual's personal freedom. National betrayal is also a crime, for us however it is not a crime to the government. It stands as a crime against the Constitution and every single human. It is a personal betrayal because our moral code, as a nation, is based on logic and self-discipline. Truth, justice and freedom are within our morals, they are by far the most prominent. But if you betray the nation, rape a person or go on a killing spree, we won't sit idly. We will examine whether the person who committed the crime can be trusted not to do so again, through a simulated environment. The people believe that our prisons are just cells, they are far from that. We put the deviants into simulations and we observe their behavior, to see whether they can re-integrate or not. This, of course is a secret, one I am keen on sharing, for you to understand our ways."

[Solorni]

Prime Minister Bubbles takes the stage and does a little cough

"The nation of Solorni does not think executing innocents is everything nice and so we support this bill!"

[Slavonia and Srijem]

If this passes, preforming of CP will be even more difficult and more time consuming, not to say that in some nations it really is slow as it is. Opposed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If this passes, preforming of CP will be even more difficult and more time consuming, not to say that in some nations it really is slow as it is. Opposed.

Yes, that's true, I guess. After passage of this legislation, you won't be able to just line people up and shoot them with a trial lasting for a few seconds run by the police officer who found the chaps. If you've got dreams of holding Stalinist show trials (or conducting 'trials' like Roland Freisler), then you've got a problem under this legislation. And a problem more generally with your judicial system and how effective it is, and that's on you.

[Thyerata]

We object to everything except the fair trial guarntees outlined in clause 4. We believe that the remainder of this resolution arrogates to the World Assembly such powers as are inapppropriate and unnecessary for it to exercise. We say that the provisions of Article 2 of GAR 2

Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law

precludes such interference by the WA as is envisaged here.

OOC: I also think that clause 1 is effectively a blocker on any future proposals that may attempt to prohibit capital punishment.

[Uan aa Boa]

We have a number of issues with this proposal. We believe it has been rushed to submission in a manner disrespectful to the Assembly's drafting process, leaving it visibly unpolished with punctuation issues and inconsistent capitalisation (though admittedly this may not be an issue for a body that voted overwhelmingly for Convention on Freshwater Shortages). Like many submissions, it seems predicated on the assumption that the nations of the Assembly are all liberal democracies with civic institutions and judiciaries to match. We would also dispute the implication in the preamble that capital convictions should require a higher evidential standard than other convictions.

Most importantly, we believe that if a nation chooses to execute its citizens, responsibility for that should rest squarely on that nation. While the Assembly has chosen not to prohibit such practices, neither should it lend them a fig leaf of legitimacy by tacitly giving each execution its approval.

[Demiurges]

Wow... I just LOVE (sarcasm) the fact that right after the Ban Capital Punishment failed to be passed, it essentially got copy pasted in a SECOND attempt not even a full week after. Truly, the Leftists are hellbent on seeing that everyone sees things from their rose tinted lenses. And odds are if this second attempt fails, they'll go for a third attempt until they get their way. Truly, an inspiration to us all. (again sarcasm)

[Imperium Anglorum]

We object to everything except the fair trial guarntees outlined in clause 4. We believe that the remainder of this resolution arrogates to the World Assembly such powers as are inapppropriate and unnecessary for it to exercise. We say that the provisions of Article 2 of GAR 2

Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law

precludes such interference by the WA as is envisaged here.

LOL. I find it hilarious whenever anyone pulls this out, because whomever it is clearly can't read after the first comma. Or, I guess, imagine the effects of this to the game (i.e. eliminate it). But of course, that's no matter. We'll just repeat these bad interpretations over and over again.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We believe it has been rushed to submission in a manner disrespectful to the Assembly's drafting process, leaving it visibly unpolished with punctuation issues and inconsistent capitalisation

Really? Where is it? You had opportunity to comment on it too. In fact, you had three days to do so. There are literally no comments on the proposal having anything to do with its text, except Auralia's and the recurring question of whether something should be a blocker or not. And unless you're going to tell me that the proposal is in stone when it is submitted (not really, since when it comes to votes, it's really only in stone when the campaign goes out as you can't take it back or get stamps refunded), you've had ample opportunity to review it.

Most importantly, we believe that if a nation chooses to execute its citizens, responsibility for that should rest squarely on that nation. While the Assembly has chosen not to prohibit such practices, neither should it lend them a fig leaf of legitimacy by tacitly giving each execution its approval.

This is a strange conception of complicity, for lack of a better term. We should not do good things because possibly some of those good things are bad things, and we would have some complicity in doing them? The kind of moral puritanism that requires belies the notion of a comparative between a world in which the action happens and one in which it doesn't.

It seems to me that you think we should take no action to actually guarantee, substantively, that judicial proceedings against capital defendants conform to Assembly legislation and notions of justice. Instead, we should do that pie-in-the-sky thinking that leads us into passing no legislation to protect anyone or anything at all.

---

Wow... I just LOVE (sarcasm) the fact that right after the Ban Capital Punishment failed to be passed, it essentially got copy pasted in a SECOND attempt not even a full week after. Truly, the Leftists are hellbent on seeing that everyone sees things from their rose tinted lenses. And odds are if this second attempt fails, they'll go for a third attempt until they get their way. Truly, an inspiration to us all. (again sarcasm)

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: A ban on capital punishment got copy-pasted? Section 1: "Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions". Interesting reading there. Ambassador, are you literate?

[Jocospor]

Well, we all know the reason why it was hastily rushed... Anyway, no point arguing with the United Commonwealth. Its not very receptive to criticism.