[PASSED] Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Kenmoria]

I voted For this purely because of all the telegrams telling me to vote Against it

Then say goodbye to your judiciary branches.

“Hmm. Kenmoria doesn’t have any capital punishment, and hasn’t done for a few hundred years now, but I think we have a judiciary branch. I’ll just check a moment - yes, we definitely have a judiciary branch and it seems to be functioning perfectly without this disproportionate retribution. I will say it once more: National sovereignty is rarely a valid reason to vote against a piece of legislation. You sacrifice some decision-making power when you join the WA.”

[Malsti]

Shit or get off the pot ambassador. If you want to tilt at windmills, go draft an anti-WALL resolution.

I have some issues with the current resolution, however I will be damned if I am going to hand ammunition to the orcs currently occupying this chamber. Should this fail or be repealed, I will raise them in the next draft.

We may very well, in all our spare time.

Also, a point of clarification, ambassador. We are not orcs. No, contrary to popular opinion, we are, in fact, a collective of... *subtle yet confused looks are exchanged between the Delegate's Office*

...BUT HOWEVER that's not the point! We've likely already discovered your issues - they'll be our issues too.

In the World Assembly, one's adversary should be undesirable legislation, not undesirable ambassadors. If you cut off your nose, you will spite your face.

Ambassador, back when I occasionally drafted and took part in drafting discussions, the main adversary was pillocks who don't bother to read much before whining about their national soverginty being infringed because they don't get to napalm babies to an entirely voluntary body whose express purpose is to infringe on its members national soverignty and stop them napalming babies. I really doubt that much has changed.

[Goldgamia]

Well, I would agree with this completely but if sentenced to execution by any government/military official or the leader/leaders family then their word is listened to and their decisions are not questioned

[Aruia]

takes away autonomy from the nations system and ability to judge for themselves.
Against.

[West Phoenicia]

Barely 24hrs have passed since the defeat of the overall banning of capital punishment. And here we are yet again Ambassadors voting on a similar topic, just better sugar coated.

West Phoenicia have voted against this resolution and we call out those who are doing anything to push a ban on capital punishment or limitations as sour grape ambassadors who are slyly pushing their agenda to eventually force everyone to think like them.

Shame, shame, shame

How did this get passed the planning stage;

Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person.

So poor 5 year old Sally who is brutally raped and gutted like a fish gets no proper justice due to under this clause the mentally incompetent person is given a free pass because they only murdered one person.. Don't forget their defence counsel will use any trick in the book. Even lie and state they are mentality incompetent to get their client off.

[United Massachusetts]

Barely 24hrs have passed since the defeat of the overall banning of capital punishment. And here we are yet again Ambassadors voting on a similar topic, just better sugar coated.

West Phoenicia have voted against this resolution and we call out those who are doing anything to push a ban on capital punishment or limitations as sour grape ambassadors who are slyly pushing their agenda to eventually force everyone to think like them.

Shame, shame, shame

How did this get passed the planning stage;

Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person.

So poor 5 year old Sally who is brutally raped and gutted like a fish gets no proper justice due to under this clause the mentally incompetent person is given a free pass because they only murdered one person.. Don't forget their defence counsel will use any trick in the book. Even lie and state they are mentality incompetent to get their client off.

You do realize that mental incompetence has to be proved, right?

[West Phoenicia]

Barely 24hrs have passed since the defeat of the overall banning of capital punishment. And here we are yet again Ambassadors voting on a similar topic, just better sugar coated.

West Phoenicia have voted against this resolution and we call out those who are doing anything to push a ban on capital punishment or limitations as sour grape ambassadors who are slyly pushing their agenda to eventually force everyone to think like them.

Shame, shame, shame

How did this get passed the planning stage;

Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person.

So poor 5 year old Sally who is brutally raped and gutted like a fish gets no proper justice due to under this clause the mentally incompetent person is given a free pass because they only murdered one person.. Don't forget their defence counsel will use any trick in the book. Even lie and state they are mentality incompetent to get their client off.

You do realize that mental incompetence has to be proved, right?

I am well aware. You are aware people can fake it and have faked it and gotten away with it. This bill is a slap in the face to those who voted no. You lost the total ban on Capital Punishment, and because certain people in the yes to the ban camp did not get their way, they spit the dummy and more than likely will introduce different bills like this slowly, to strip away the rights of nations so by the end of 3 or 4 bills Capital punishment will be redundant.

Meanwhile poor Sally who was only a child and was taken away from her family does not receive justice as she was only one victim.

A biill enforcing that all nations add capital punishment to their books should be created. The fur would definitely fly in the chamber than as the yes would foam at the mouths at the unfairness of forcing ones set of beliefs on another.

This is a sad day for the WA when those who want to end capital punishment resort to manipulation of bills to force their will on everyone.

Baroness Margarita Too-Rak shakes her head and turns her back on those who are being manipulative.

[Frisbeeteria]

I voted For this purely because of all the telegrams telling me to vote Against it

Oh
I sense this from my end then

xD

[Arkanon]

Please excuse my inexperience, but as I've still not received an answer:

How is this a "Strength: Mild" proposal? Surely this would be classified as at least "Significant" or even "Strong"?

From the GA Proposal Compendium (which I've been using to get a better sense of how GA proposals work):

A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant.

Looking at the examples laid out in that thread, surely restrictions on capital punishment and the creation of an international court that has near-complete jurisdiction over it would be a bit stronger than maritime transport law?

[The Palentine]

The good but unwholesome Senator Sulla was watching the proceedings with sadistic glee. Chuckling to himself he pulled out his cell phone and dialed a number. A moment later he began to speak to his secretary Velma,
"Velma darling, please send up some Jaegermonsters with a couple carts of pies." He paused an took a peek at his mini bar before continuing, "And also send up three cases of my whiskeys. Thanks."
About 30 minutes later five Jaegermonsters brought in three carts of cream, custard, and fruit pies and set them up behind the Senator's desk. They also wheeled in three cases of booze on a dolly. The good but unwholesome Senator then gave a smile most unpleasant as he removed his jacket, and replaced it with a Continental Army General's coat, powdered wig, and Tricorn hat.

[Leifar]

Please excuse my inexperience, but as I've still not received an answer:

How is this a "Strength: Mild" proposal? Surely this would be classified as at least "Significant" or even "Strong"?

From the GA Proposal Compendium (which I've been using to get a better sense of how GA proposals work):

A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant.

Looking at the examples laid out in that thread, surely restrictions on capital punishment and the creation of an international court that has near-complete jurisdiction over it would be a bit stronger than maritime transport law?

"Yes, I've noticed such as well, it's a wonder this Proposal hasn't been challenged yet."

Garnet looks at the overview of the proposal.

"I'd recommend getting a repeal proposal ready, in the case this proposal wins."

[New Bremerton]

After much thoughtful deliberation, and after taking into account the views of the other representatives in this here hallowed chamber, the Holy Republic of New Bremerton has decided to vote AGAINST the resolution "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" for the very reasons outlined by His Excellency the Chief Ambassador Martin Russell of Auralia. Auralia's reasons are reproduced below for the WA's convenience. If the resolution's author were to take urgent steps to address the serious issues noted by His Excellency before the voting period closes, we may consider abstaining.

We second the Chief Ambassador's conclusion that the resolution in its current form is needlessly confusing to those who are not well versed in legalese, and amounts to a de facto ban on capital punishment. This is yet another attempt by certain members of the World Assembly to engage in a, this time underhanded, power grab, which would run counter to the very spirit of international cooperation and consensus and compel a large number of nations into resigning their membership of the World Assembly, leaving behind an ideologically narrow rump of member states, and turning the once vaunted institution into an international echo chamber for a select few nations with limited influence.

The authoritarian regimes that would inevitably withdraw would be left to their own wicked devices, and democratic regions that are currently well-defended would be at increased risk of invasion by the Black Hawks and other raiding nations and regions. If the current resolution passes unamended, New Bremerton too will once again review its membership of the World Assembly if a subsequent motion to repeal this resolution fails to pass. Withdrawal from the World Assembly is not a decision New Bremerton takes lightly, as this would entail losing the endorsements of all the nations of the North Pacific that have endorsed us so far and losing our newly acquired regional status as a Keeper of the North, thereby undermining regional security for many years to come. We urge our Regional Delegate, Siwale, to vote against this resolution unless it is amended to our satisfaction. Depending on a number of factors and whether many nations resign the WA in unison, New Bremerton may ultimately resign, or we may choose to remain and fight to defend our national sovereignty within the walls of an all-powerful World Assembly that admittedly does have the power to infringe on our national sovereignty.

[OOC: It wouldn't be as fun not being able to endorse or be endorsed by other nations. That would really suck. On the other hand, seeing my nation, a liberal democracy, subject to all manner of fines and sanctions, having its policies overturned and being labeled a nation of savages and uncivilized barbarians by self-appointed moral arbiters, would equally suck. I'm seriously torn right now.]

Unlike most of our fellow retentionist states, most of which identify as socially conservative and/or religious, and a few of which openly identify as outright fascist or communist dictatorships, New Bremerton stands out as one of the more socially liberal and unflinchingly secular member states when it comes to controversial issues such as abortion, gender equality, LGBT rights, drugs, prostitution, free speech, the rights of whistleblowers (especially in peacetime), separation of religion and state and so forth. By pushing us away, those who voted in favor of the previous resolution "Ban on Capital Punishment", and those who have voted in favor of this resolution so far, most of whom we suspect share these same liberal attitudes, could stand to lose a valuable ally in the fight against climate change, authoritarianism and human rights abuses around the world. It is our sincere hope that this does not come to pass and that we are able to remain a full and productive member of the World Assembly, and "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" is either amended or defeated.

Finally, New Bremerton is of the view that GA#375 "Crime and Punishment" was a perfectly adequate compromise prior to its repeal. We request that the World Assembly put an end to the current diplomatic impasse by moving to reinstate the provisions of the now repealed resolution in a new proposal.

For more details regarding our policy on capital punishment and when it was last practiced, please view our dispatch here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1076344

P.S. The representative from Jocospor mentioned the existence of a powerful voting bloc by the name of W.A.L.L., which includes the North Pacific. If true, then the government of the North Pacific, of which we are a part, has a lot to answer for. The Regional Delegate was supposed to vote in accordance with the wishes of a majority of North Pacific nations, which forms a large part of the reason New Bremerton joined the North Pacific in the first place, because regional delegates wield disproportionate influence and may potentially swing a vote one way, even if a majority of individual nations vote the other way. Whoever invented this absurd rule ought to have his skeletal remains exhumed from his grave, beheaded, and the head impaled on a pole and put on public display for days on end. As distasteful as many New Bremertonians find the nation of Jocospor and the Confederation of Corrupt Dictatorships, of which our sworn enemy Longterror [OOC: my sockpuppet nation] is a member, it seems they are right about a couple of things. The WA is growing increasingly corrupt and out-of-touch. It pains us to have to side with certain dictatorships on the issue of capital punishment.

The nameless, faceless Foreign Communications Unit (FCU) of the Holy Republic of New Bremerton

Following up from my initial comments, I have now had the opportunity to read the proposal in detail and I have the following comments:

I will start by noting that in general, I am opposed to international criminal courts. They demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for the judicial systems of member states and are an unacceptable violation of national sovereignty. This is no less true for the court of appeals for capital cases established by this proposal ("the Division").

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

As IA has made clear, s.1 is intentionally not a blocker. This proposal leaves open the possibility of the World Assembly banning capital punishment in future. In what sense, then, is this proposal a "compromise"? Why should any member state who supports the use of capital punishment vote in favour? What do we gain?

2. There shall be created a Capital Cases division in the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, here referred to as the Division, staffed with competent jurists and forensic scientists, to review submitted cases. To prevent the Division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, any national jurisdiction shall submit no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year. For the purposes of avoiding confirmation bias in assessments, the Division shall not keep records of capital punishment procedures.

s.2 requires that member states not submit "more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year". As I mentioned earlier, this effectively prohibits smaller nations of less than one million people from using capital punishment. This constitutes unjust discrimination on the basis of member state population and is absolutely unacceptable. I have already pointed this out to IA but he does not seem to have addressed this issue.

Moreover, this limit is arbitrary. There could be legitimate reasons why a member state may need to exceed this limit. At the very least member states should be permitted to pay for the costs of handling the additional applications, rather than prohibiting them outright.

3. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client.

s.3 requires that member states not "require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, the welfare of their client." While I can understand the intent of this clause, it certainly needs to be clarified. As written it would likely prohibit law enforcement officials from demanding that the defendant comply with a legal search warrant or subpoena, if doing so would permit the government to acquire evidence which would compromise the defendant's defense.

4. Member nations, when prosecuting capital cases, shall:
a. establish an office of a solicitor, specialised in the prosecution of capital cases, who shall conduct the prosecution of all capital cases within their jurisdiction,

s.4(a) requires the establishment of a single office for prosecuting capital cases. Why the micromanagement? The Division will have to review everything anyways.

c. provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation,

s.4(c) requires that the defense be provided with "all evidence collected in the process of investigation". But there are valid limits to discovery, such as personally identifying information that is not material to the case. Such limits would be barred by this clause.

d. provide the defence ample time, no less than one year, to review and examine that evidence,

s.4(d) requires that defendants have at minimum 1 year to review evidence against them. This is not ideal; these kinds of limits should be specific to the circumstances of the case, and one year might be much too long in some cases.

e. prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence,

s.4(e) requires member states to "prohibit evidentiary barriers from barring the defence admission of evidence". This is absurd. What if the evidence is judged to have been fabricated? It still has to be admitted and shown to a jury?

f. prove, such that there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant for any charge which could carry a capital sentence,

s.4(f) uses a standard of "doubt" rather than "reasonable doubt", which is impossible to reach. I have already pointed this out to IA but he did not address it.

Moreover, s.4(f) does not require member states to prove guilt; it instead requires them to provide that "there could not arise evidence (foreseeable at the time of trial) that would cast doubt" on guilt. I'm not sure whether this is an equivalent or higher standard. Either way the wording is problematic and should be changed.

5. In all cases where a capital sentence is issued, before it is carried out,
a. member nations shall serially provide the Division and all counsel assigned or associated with a case, six months to discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant,

s.5(a) seems to require an additional post-trial discovery period of up to 18 months: six months for the Division, prosecution, and defense each. What on earth is the point of this delay? Why isn't pre-trial discovery adequate? Why can't the evidence be examined concurrently?

6. Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person. All capital sentences shall be carried out via a method which is, upon review demanded by any party to a capital case, proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering.

s.6 would in some cases prohibit execution as a punishment for treason or similar crimes against the state, since these are not necessarily violent crimes. It would also prohibit execution of those who have only violently tortured and killed one person, as opposed to several. These are unacceptable limitations.

s.6 also requires the use of execution methods "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering". IA gave as an example sedation followed by lethal injection. The problems with this approach are numerous. Some criminals want to be killed awake. Some states do not have access to the drugs used to perform lethal injections. And punishment in general need not and should not be painless. Unnecessary pain should be avoided, but it seems appropriate that a defendant should be awake for a sentence of death, which will necessarily involve some pain.

I think lethal injection in particular is also problematic insofar as it tends to medicalize and sanitize capital punishment. Capital punishment is not a medical treatment. It is an act of state violence, and the method should reflect this fact.

7. Member nations shall not extradite, except to World Assembly judicial institutions or jurisdictions without capital punishment, any person charged or likely to be charged with a capital offence. Nor shall any person be extradited to a place likely to commence judicial proceedings, which would contravene World Assembly legislation, against that person.

s.7 arbitrarily prohibits member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. Why this arbitrary limitation? Shouldn't it be enough that both nations respect the protections of this legislation?

8. No member nation shall carry out a capital sentence on any person which has not had their case record certified by the Division within the last year. Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before the Division has certified that there exist no irregularities in the case record, the defendant has exhausted all available appeals, or the Division has certified that all procedures involved with carrying out that capital sentence comply with provisions set forth in World Assembly legislation.

s.8 would permit a defendant to avoid capital punishment by simply not exhausting all available appeals, because then the Division could not certify the case.

The certification provisions in s.8 also differ from the certification provisions in s.4(g). What does this mean, exactly? Is a member state permitted to request certification for the requirements in s.4(g), but not for the ones in s.8?

Does the expiry of certification after all year apply to all certification provisions, or just a subset? Why does certification expire in the first place, and why only after one year, given all of the opportunities for delay in this process? Can certification be renewed?

Is the Division even required to certify even if all conditions are met? Can it simply always decline certification, effectively banning capital punishment?

---

In summary, this is an awful proposal. It is absurdly long, needlessly complex, full of ambiguities, and seems designed to ban capital punishment in all but name. While I opposed UM's proposed ban on capital punishment, at least it was honest about its intent. That's more than I can say for this proposal.

We oppose.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

The President of the Alliance walks up to the podium and clears his throat. Behind him stand two honor guard officers, the military attache to the assembly and Ambassador Irons

"Ladies and gentlemen, it appears you have yet to learn your lesson. This very assembly has just defeated the "Ban on Capital Punishment", a resolution which was co-authored by the very nation
which is at this very moment, submitting this resolution. As it seems, this law has been put on the floor, a pity to be honest. You have already heard the argument that it forces our nations to surrender
a good percentage of their judiciary branches, which in Democratic states such as ours, is independent from executive and legislative.

In addition, the proposer calls this a compromise. Exactly how this piece of paper is a compromise it eludes both myself and the legal advisers of the Alliance, of whom some are fully aware Artificial Intelligences.
It deceives you by saying: alright lads, you can have your national sovereignty. BUT, you ARE OBLIGED to provide the evidence of a case to a body, which the Assembly has created to regulate it. If this body, this Division, does not see that it is fit, after a year and a half of process in OUR courts, it rejects it and allows the defense to make an appeal. Which person, in their right mind, wouldn't keep requesting for an appeal? There is a terminology for this act, but I best let our attache, General Olsen, brief you on this."

The President steps aside, while the General takes his place.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am General Tim Olsen, the military attache of the Alliance to the Assembly. What our president mentioned, can be interpreted in non-military terms as <<stalling>>. In military terms, its called <<attrition tactics>>. When such tactic is employed on the field, it aims to exhaust the opposition, eliminate its morale and then move in to break their ranks. Experience has taught me, from my time in the army and in these chambers, that war never changes. Its just the circumstances and the location that change, the tactics are the same. Imagine a trial that would just go on forever and ever, 3 years, 4 and a half years, day after day being in the courts and trying to find justice. The opposition will eventually tire and give up, it is inevitable. We are humans, our limits go so far. What this resolution allows is for thieves, rapists, murderers to walk away after a prolonged trial from which they will not give up because their lives are at stake. Put yourselves in the shoes of such people, would you give up? Of course not. None is so dumb to just give up their lives in a trial with the death sentence hanging right over their head."

The General steps down and the President walks back up

"Thank you Tim. Its quite easy to be honest. This resolution contains so much advanced vocabulary on the points where the truth lies and utilizes simple vocabulary where the lies are. This is prime deception.
Allow me to demonstrate.
"Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions." Pretty simple right? A toddler can read it and understand it.
However, take a look at this;
"In all cases where a capital sentence is issued, before it is carried out,

member nations shall serially provide the Division and all counsel assigned or associated with a case, six months to discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant,

permit the defendant full access to the national appellate system and appeal to the Division upon discovery of possibly exonerating evidence or admissible evidence which casts into doubt the narrative put forth by the prosecution at the time of trial, and

provide to the defendant, in any legal proceedings related to their capital conviction, the same privileges afforded to defendant during and after the original trial."
But right here, right here, this is where things get complicated. What this clause says is that; you can have your death penalties but they must be approved by the Division, no matter what. I ask you this, where in the bloody hell is our national sovereignty if a bureaucrat takes 6 months to re-evaluate and examine all the evidence and it is his call, his very decision, that a man found guilty from our laws can get away with it? Huh?
I was also very troubled by this clause as well;
"Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person. "
Well then, allow me to show you this

The President gets a mini holo-projector, places it on the podium and activates it

"As you can see ladies and gentlemen, Justice is BLIND. It does not discriminate. So why would a law, a document of justice, show special treatment to a person that with no doubt would plea temporary insanity or anything of the like? People will do anything to save their own skin and you know it."

The President takes a more firm stance

"If this resolution passes, you have this fair warning. Dare to send a Division official to our nation and he will be sent back with a boot up his- The microphone crackles. We can take the fines, we can take the blockades. But if the trade blockades become military blockades, then bet your seats and titles, the Alliance Navy will not just obliterate them, it will return them as scrap to your shores and leave them there. This is a warning, not a threat, as threats are not fitting in these halls. This Assembly is drifting from its purpose. This resolution, just like the Ban on Capital Punishment have their hearts in their right place. But they just intervene too much. It's like having an official over your head, 24/7 telling you what to eat, when to eat, what to watch and when to watch. It violates our right to choice, to freedom. Don't be fooled by fancy vocabulary. You sacrifice too much.

Thank you and I sincerely hope you reconsider after what I have said."

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

New Bremerton I do not know of this black hawks you are speaking of but the North Pacific votes accordingly to the majority of citizens voting in their forums

[Kustonia]

This bill is completely flawed. These people want to decrease capital punishment to a mere quota. This is not justice!

Capital punishment protects the victim and brings the criminal to justice according to the laws of that nation. Again, National sovereignty is at stake here. Are we going to let the WA tell us to quota our criminals and let them live another day when the victims live in constant fear that they will return, or are we going to show our people that we care about them and our self-determination?

I urge all of you to vote AGAINST this proposal.

[Klorgia1]

here shall be created a Capital Cases division in the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, here referred to as the Division, staffed with competent jurists and forensic scientists, to review submitted cases. To prevent the Division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, any national jurisdiction shall submit no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year. For the purposes of avoiding confirmation bias in assessments, the Division shall not keep records of capital punishment procedures.

So....What laws have been put in place to make sure that the World Assembly does not pick biased jurists/scientists. And what's stopping them from being paid off. Furthermore, will they be allowed to be from the nation/region in which the death sentence is being carried out? And what if a major case happens in a nation of a million people who have already had their case? I think the overall proposal is a good idea, but this paragraph really siphons my vote away. To many what-ifs, If I may be honest.

[New Bremerton]

New Bremerton I do not know of this black hawks you are speaking of but the North Pacific votes accordingly to the majority of citizens voting in their forums

In that case, we stand corrected.

Foreign Communications Unit of the Holy Republic of New Bremerton

OOC: I don't understand the little regional vote section below my vote and above the regional delegate's vote, to the left of the main graph. In the last resolution, my regional delegate, Siwale, voted for, but the line above his vote showed that more nations/delegates in the North Pacific voted against rather than for the proposal. Given that there are over 8000 nations in the North Pacific and only one nation can be the North Pacific's Regional Delegate at any given moment, and only a few hundred nations voted either way, this blue/red line surely only represents a tiny percentage of nations in the North Pacific. Can someone please explain?

[Saranidia]

Shit or get off the pot ambassador. If you want to tilt at windmills, go draft an anti-WALL resolution.

I have some issues with the current resolution, however I will be damned if I am going to hand ammunition to the orcs currently occupying this chamber. Should this fail or be repealed, I will raise them in the next draft.

We may very well, in all our spare time.

Also, a point of clarification, ambassador. We are not orcs. No, contrary to popular opinion, we are, in fact, a collective of... *subtle yet confused looks are exchanged between the Delegate's Office*

...BUT HOWEVER that's not the point! We've likely already discovered your issues - they'll be our issues too.

In the World Assembly, one's adversary should be undesirable legislation, not undesirable ambassadors. If you cut off your nose, you will spite your face.

I offer to mediate between the two of you guys both of whom believe honour and fairness has been deprived them- Chief of General Staff Sikandar Khan

[Inquisitiors]

This just appears to be another poorly led attempt to undermine the rights of WA Nations to administer punishments. Not all powers need to be regulated by a Nanny State led WA Assembly

[Kenmoria]

"If this resolution passes, you have this fair warning. Dare to send a Division official to our nation and he will be sent back with a boot up his- The microphone crackles. We can take the fines, we can take the blockades. But if the trade blockades become military blockades, then bet your seats and titles, the Alliance Navy will not just obliterate them, it will return them as scrap to your shores and leave them there. This is a warning, not a threat, as threats are not fitting in these halls. This Assembly is drifting from its purpose. This resolution, just like the Ban on Capital Punishment have their hearts in their right place. But they just intervene too much. It's like having an official over your head, 24/7 telling you what to eat, when to eat, what to watch and when to watch. It violates our right to choice, to freedom. Don't be fooled by fancy vocabulary. You sacrifice too much.

Thank you and I sincerely hope you reconsider after what I have said."

“I don’t think you need worry, the Administrative Compliance only allows for fines, hefty fines may I add, to be imposed on a nation that decides to ignore the deciding soft the organisation it voluntarily joined. Besides, you can’t destroy anything the WA does. Even in this room, the weapon nullifies are completely indestructible and have a perfect track record at stopping weaponry, which can be annoying in the case of certain delegations.

As for this proposal being beyond the purview of the World Assembly, I suggest you look at prior resolutions, which have been much more intrusive and controversial than this one. By comparison to ‘On Abortion’, ‘Reproductive Freedoms’, ‘Permitting Male Circumcision’ and ‘Charter of Civil Rights’ to some degree, this thing is a walk in the park. If a nation makes the decision to allow the WA to have a say in its decision making, this must apply to all poliies without selection. Doing so otherwise would be like a criminal court giving the defendants a choice of whether to be put in prison.

It is my belief that the World Assembly should in fact be bolder in rejecting wishy-washy proposals and meaningless compromise, and instead reach towards the ideal of improving the world(s), one resolution at a time. Of course there will always be those who do not want to see their national sovereignty curtailed by an international organisation. I say to them: why join the WA. It exists for the purpose of making the difficult decisions too arduous for one nation to bear, and for co-ordinating international efforts to end oppression and unhappiness around the world. Thus, I urge my fellow nations of the WA, to be brave in reaching for justice, and give a vote FOR this proposal.”

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

New Bremerton I do not know of this black hawks you are speaking of but the North Pacific votes accordingly to the majority of citizens voting in their forums

In that case, we stand corrected.

Foreign Communications Unit of the Holy Republic of New Bremerton

OOC: I don't understand the little regional vote section below my vote and above the regional delegate's vote, to the left of the main graph. In the last resolution, my regional delegate, Siwale, voted for, but the line above his vote showed that more nations/delegates in the North Pacific voted against rather than for the proposal. Given that there are over 8000 nations in the North Pacific and only one nation can be the North Pacific's Regional Delegate at any given moment, and only a few hundred nations voted either way, this blue/red line surely only represents a tiny percentage of nations in the North Pacific. Can someone please explain?

It's only on the percentage of nations that voted already

[Inberdia]

Barely 24hrs have passed since the defeat of the overall banning of capital punishment. And here we are yet again Ambassadors voting on a similar topic, just better sugar coated.

West Phoenicia have voted against this resolution and we call out those who are doing anything to push a ban on capital punishment or limitations as sour grape ambassadors who are slyly pushing their agenda to eventually force everyone to think like them.

Shame, shame, shame

How did this get passed the planning stage;

Member nations shall not issue a capital sentence on any mentally incompetent person, as punishment for any non-violent crime, or as punishment for any crime not directly affecting more than one person.

So poor 5 year old Sally who is brutally raped and gutted like a fish gets no proper justice due to under this clause the mentally incompetent person is given a free pass because they only murdered one person.. Don't forget their defence counsel will use any trick in the book. Even lie and state they are mentality incompetent to get their client off.

1. being brutally raped and gutted seems very much like a violent crime
2. it says "or", not "and".

[Ardiveds]

*President Wilhelm signs* "Another, more subtle attempt after the first one fails using this 'Division', which for all intents and purposes will probably only have capital punishment abolitionists within them. The Union is truly getting tired of this now."

[Warlord Kurnugia]

I voted For this purely because of all the telegrams telling me to vote Against it

Ikr? Imagine how much they would flip out if it passes the vote xD

Already looking forward to those poorly written repeals ^_^

[Nova Trieste]

Well in war, you can kill enemy combatants. That's not really an issue.

"We're not talking about a regular conflict against other military forcers, but a guerilla against said forces turned criminals."

Well, as long that idiotic "1 execution a year for every million of citizens" stays up we're voting against.